Blogging commandments

by Richard on September 28, 2008

The bloggers’ ten commandments have created a little stir. Following The Times article there was also a piece in the Telegraph.

If you just went by the articles you might assume that these ‘commandments’ were the main focus and purpose of the gathering in London. (’Conference’ is far too grand a word) But they weren’t . Less than a quarter of the time was spent on them. Furthermore, what has been sent to the papers bears no resemblance to what I thought was going to be circulated for further comment. One of the issues that I thought had been settled was that any blogging guidelines that might be agreed would be couched in the language of “We will…”, not “You will…”, but that seems to have been forgotten.

Other bloggers talikng about this…

Bene Diction
The Empty Head
The Lead
Church Warnings
Daily Pundit
Of Life, Laughter and Liturgy
Coastal Pastor
Alwyn ap Huw

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }


Methodist Preacher 09.28.08 at 6:58 pm


Bene Diction 09.28.08 at 9:39 pm

I think bloggers have been quite clear.
And fair.
But we’ve seen that in the past, haven’t we?

You have been clear you were treated well, had a good time.
People who attended were clear this wasn’t the main focus of the lunch.
I wonder if EA officials read the blogs.

I also see bloggers being clear they see something happened internally in the EA from points A to B.

It’s remarkable 25 wonderful people who blog were in a room together agreed not to post until the EA could release this to traditional media.

I’m feeling rather badly for the lot of you. I have some empathy left for EA leaders who think/work top down, do good work and are probably used to issuing commands as professional Christians as bosses would in any job. Ah well, the discussion can continue.

As the Mad Priest says;”Unfortunately, I didn’t pass and have had my “Friends Of Jesus” status stripped from me.”

Thanks for the updates Richard!


Olive Morgan 09.29.08 at 1:06 am

I am glad to see that the Church Times blog as a more accurate account of thd ay at Ea than most bloggers getting in on the act. We were sent a revised version, quite different from the one we discussed, which was in everyday language and not tied into the OT Ten Commandments, and we were asked for our comments a.s.a.p. I had strong feelings and I was told over the phone that my comments had been taken into account ,but nothing had been changed.


Godfrey 09.29.08 at 1:57 am

Richard and Olive, you’ve both mentioned that what was released was not what you thought would be released. If I may ask, what was the version that you expected would be used?


Bene Diction 09.29.08 at 5:24 pm

The EA put it up.

The Missions Director explains himself, says it was just tongue in cheek.
He states a Blogging Resolution Committee has been formed ( that must be more tongue in cheek).

He put up an EA Relationship Commitment statement from the 1990’s that sticks internet words into it and calls it a Blogging Commitment. Was that the orginal you all were given? Good question Godfrey.

Ia the EA looking to get into the software/platform market?

I saw someone point out (commandment #3) the term ’screen name’ is an old AOL term no longer relevant.

Olive: Did you give permission to be called a ‘cyber-agony aunt in her late 80s?’

Agony Aunt definitions

- a newspaper columnist who answers questions and offers advice on personal problems to people who write in
newspaper columnist - a columnist who writes for newspapers

- An agony aunt answers readers’ queries on personal problems, in particular giving advice about sexual problems and relationships.

The term is beginning to fall into disuse, as the scope of personal advice has broadened, to include overtly sexual matters - pioneered by the likes of Dr. Ruth - as well as general lifestyle issues. People will always need good advice and it is sometimes better coming from a complete stranger who will give their honest, neutral opinion.

- the internet Agony Aunt has become an all round life analyst and motivator to enable you to change your outlook on life and change it for the better.”


Olive Morgan 09.29.08 at 5:37 pm

BD, I haven’t seen what you are quoting, I’m afraid. At the bloggers’ day I said that my early blogging - not now - did not fit any of the categories of blogs described but was more like that of an agony aunt. I meant that young people asked my advice on their problems - certainly not sexual - and I gave an example. I’m getting very tired of all this. I’ve said my say about what was published by Ruth Gledhill and wish to withdraw from this pointless discussion now.


Beth 09.29.08 at 10:03 pm

It’s odd, I’ve been thinking about these commandments and was wondering why most of them focus on how bloggers should regulate their own lives rather than how they should make others’ lives better. And here’s a case in point. Olive, I can tell you’re frustrated about this, but was it necessary to be so rude to everyone else who’s taking part in this discussion?


Richard 09.29.08 at 10:45 pm

MP: >>“Your are welcome to link”

I think you just did :)

Godfrey: >>“If I may ask, what was the version that you expected would be used?”
I don’t think that would be helpful, Godfrey. We were given a first draft of something on which comments were made. I’d understood that those comments were going to be incorporated into a re-draft, on which we’d be invited to make further comments. The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that there’s any value in this sort of thing but even so, the difference between the process that was offered and what has subsequently happened is an irritation. Mind you, it’s only a minor one: life’s too short to be getting worked up about this.

BD>> “The Missions Director explains himself, says it was just tongue in cheek.”
That would be that famous evangelical sense of humour at work!

Like Olive, I’m not sure I want to go any further with this. But I have to commend Ben’s take on this, which is absolutely priceless. And Dave’s, which hits several nails squarely on their heads.


Olive Morgan 09.30.08 at 12:37 am

Forgive me, Beth, and anyone else who thought I was being rude in my comments. At 87 I put myself out considerably to attend the day at EA. and to send in my comments on the revised version on which I spent a great deal of time. I did not take Phil’s suggestion of using the Ten Commandments as one to be taken seriously nor as he suggests as injecting some humour into it. It would seem that my irritation at the way that this was handled and at the comments from bloggers who were not present comes over more than I normally allow. Those who know me would testify that I am not a rude person.

Perhaps it was my use of the phrase ‘pointless discussion’ that implied rudeness? I simply feel that it is pointless to keep on discussing the publication of something that did not come from the bloggers present on that day (apart from Phil, it seems). You may not know that I have been associated with these commandments on the EA website, although not by name.


Bene Diction 09.30.08 at 12:45 am

Olive, I didn’t mean to offend, thanks for explaining, it was merely a lame phrase on the EA site.
Evangelical humour again I guess.

I left a comment with some questions at the EA, I doubt it will get past the mod cue.

Okay Richard, sorry, I rather thought Godfrey’s question made sense, but I can appreciate your position. I’ll shut up now.


Bene Diction 09.30.08 at 2:01 am


While you guys are sleeping The Evangelical Alliance pr is being picked up - verbatim - by religious media in the US.

Well, they wanted to make the news cycle.;^)
Nothing like getting what you want eh?


Kim 09.30.08 at 7:01 am

They’re probably mistaking it for a bank (cf. the Alliance and Leicester).


Godfrey 09.30.08 at 4:05 pm

“I don’t think that would be helpful, Godfrey.”

I apologize. I was merely curious, as someone who had not seen the first draft, regarding how much of a change there had been. I suppose that wouldn’t really add anything to the discussion.


Beth 09.30.08 at 8:38 pm

Oh, heck - I’m sorry Olive - I completely misread what you wrote. If it’s any excuse, I’m existing on a couple of hours’ sleep while finishing writing-up my doctoral thesis, which makes me stupid and grumpy.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>