As we believe that there is nothing secret that will not one day be made known, and what is whispered in the chat-rooms may be broadcast on the world-wide-web, why should transparency and information not be a virtue?

A no-Google policy is simply a head-in-the-sand policy. A search committee that hasn’t searched the Web for information about candidates has simply not exercised due diligence.

The world changes. Get over it.

Ethically the case swings between for and against; but the plain fact is that Google is used all the time for such enterprises; it makes dusting for one's cyber-fingerprints all too easy. Some may resist the temptation to use it, but if clergy don't want to be cornered for some silly thing they said somewhere along the line, they'd ought to think first and not say it. For clergy to wait until the egregious act has been discovered and then call foul on the person performing the search is equally dubious.

Torey Lightcap

Good points Torey, though I do wonder if egregious is subjective.

I recall one Charlie C. from Austin saying, when asked by a search committee, "have you ever done anything risky or controversial?" he answered, "I do make an attempt at preaching the Gospel from time to time." He didn't get called as the story went.

We need to be careful, but we also need not necessarily apologize for what we say and who we are.

I would hope that the Google portion of a search committee's due diligence can be a way for deeper conversations to emerge, though I recognize that it may not be likely.

Also, I wonder if Search Committees realize that the Google street runs both ways? Could that be a good thing?

As clergy and candidates we have more access to information about parishes than in years past.

Google, O Google.....

Warren Hicks

In today's world, I would expect a search committee to look at my blog, facebook page, etc.

Should they google? You bet!

I agree with Lionel, its due diligence.

Rev. Kurt Huber

I concur googling is diligence.

What I think we should stand back and acknowledge is that in the age of the internet clergy (or anyone else for that matter) will be too hesitant to do what's right at the moment for fear of what it will mean to their future career. As I watch how bishop searches have played out it what goes through my mind is what lessons are good people taking from this. Never say anything that could be distorted, that could be taken out of context, or misunderstood if you don't know the backstory? That's a recipe for a stunted relationship with your current church.

All clergy will recognize that this is similar to the unhealthy aspects of the discernment process where your strategy is often to be anything but open about the real you.

It's not as simple as transparency.

There are at least two things search committees ought to do in this context. (1) Seek to figure out if what they are looking at is a candidate who never takes a stand b/c he or she is looking out for the next climb up the ladder, and (2) be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt because there is more information. How do you compare two candidates one of whom does not have much of a google trail? (I hasten to add #1 above isn't a new issue, just magnified in the google age.)

There's also the issue of considering the source -- how reliable is the "information" you find on the internet?

I was an academic as well as a priest and I used to, on a regular basis, google myself to see what came up. As others have said, if you're afraid something you might say could come back to haunt you, don't say it--because it's all there.

I assume search committees googled me, found my entry on ratemyprofessor.com, and read the entries by disgruntled former students.

So far, ratemypriest.com doesn't exist. But whenever I blog or comment on someone else's blog, I expect that what I say may be read by anyone.

Jonathan Grieser