I've obviously been rather reluctant to jump into the whole blogging thing. One impediment is my perfectionism (don't want to post anything in public that doesn't sing, and that I haven't been over with my editor's fine-toothed comb). Hence I'm a rather slow writer, and doing a post regularly seems way too much to do on my already spare time-budget.
But, I've been doing a bit of reading about how churches need to use some of the "Web 2.0" tools that people - many of them younger ones - are using to connect with each other.
Why not Lawrenceville Church using such tools to enhance our connections with each other?
My recent experience has confirmed what I've been reading: that some of the new web technologies, far from any atomizing effect on community, actually help people connect more deeply in "real time" and in face-to-face contexts.
I'll give you an example. When I first started using Facebook, one of our newest members sent me a Friend Request. Like so many of the new members - and heck, let's be honest, many of the 850 odd people already on the rolls - I did not know this person well at all. Maybe a few details among the many that people shared at the new member gatherings. But through the bits that he shares on FB, I have a much better sense of him when I see him and his family in person--and of course, that goes for the other folks I keep in touch with on that site. "Hey - I see you like the Mets. How about that Billy Wagner...darn shame, huh?" You get it.
BUT HERE'S WHAT I WONDER ABOUT...and here's what I worry about as the church uses these tools in a bigger way. How do we maintain a healthy conversation, on a medium that often, because you are not communicating face-to-face, lacks nuance, and encourages quick and often angry communication? My rule for email is this: if there's ANY whiff of emotional content or subtlety required, speak person-to-person.
And in a medium where people can comment anonymously - such dangers seem to me to potentially multiply. Is there a danger of the blog becoming an online "suggestion box", a forum where people in the community can avoid accountability for their communication that we as Christians do well to maintain? Is there a way we can require people not to make anonymous postings? Am I being paranoid?
What do you think?
Last thought - on the impediment I mentioned above - my perfectionism. Here's what I've decided if we do jump in more fully as a church into the Blogosphere, at least for my own writing on it: I am not going to write long, eloquent (well, ahem) posts about theological subjects. I've got enough of a challenge coming up with adequate words for a weekly sermon.
Instead, here's what I'm thinking. First, to post questions that will enable conversation. Questions like, "Do we spend too much time talking about money as a congregation? How shall we be faithful in our talk about money?"
Or, "How can we bear witness to Christ's hope as we confront together difficult economic times?"
Those are questions I'd plan to post at some point in the near future, which I hope might provoke some useful congregational dialogue.
Second - perhaps the content for this blog does not just come from me, and the staff - it should come from the members and leaders too. So often, I get eloquent, well-thought-out responses from sermons, via email, and there is no medium to share such things. Seems ready-made for the blog form....
Lastly...here's an honest question. Will people care? Will we make this effort to communiciate - "build it" - and will anyone come? How do we encourage a critical mass of people to use this medium to have a deeper conversation together, such that it really does enhance community life; enough people so that we get a real sense of what is going on in our real-time congregation? That is what I'm most up for - to use this means to have a real, meaningful and faith-building conversation together.
In any case - love to hear the opinions of anyone out there....
--Jeff Vamos
Posts
4 comments:
I vote yes - we should blog.
But then I'm one of the folks who've dragged you kicking and screaming (well, at least grumbling) into the 2.0 world. I'm glad that the value is coming across.
One of the things that is linked hand-in-hand with the web 2.0 world is authenticity. Usually that's a good thing - we often know online what another person is thinking and that is usually positive. However, sometimes that is negative or accidentally comes across as negative. I believe that this is just part of being a community. Healthy families struggle from time to time.
As one who works with youth, I experience on a regular basis the short time between thought and speech that is inherent in a growing mind. Sometimes what comes out is ... less than fully baked (and edited). There's a silver lining behind that - you always know what the youth are thinking because they tell you, whether or not you want to know. And most of the time that's pretty good (sometimes unexpectedly good) and sometimes not so good. But you know.
There are ways to require that comments on blogs have at least an e-mail address behind them. I've found that they inhibit responses. Besides, it's very easy to create a fake e-mail address and use that. If we're going to be in the blog world, we'll have to get used to comments coming from people that we can't identify (or get used to moderating and deleting such comments). But again, you've occasionally said to me that you wish you had a pipeline into people's brains so that you know how they react to sermons, events, and other goings-on in the church. An anonymous comment here is a lot easier (and safer) for some people than stepping forward and telling you.
In order to learn to swim (or dive) you have to get into the pool. Let's all learn together. Time to go swimming!
Good insights...well said, and thanks Mark.
Jeff
Last night at Broad Street Ministries in Philly, Bruce Reyes-Chow had some thoughts on this that are pertinent to this question.
Bruce is the pastor of the Mission Bay Community Church in San Francisco. He stated that his membership had doubled in the last 18 months. When asked why it happened, he responded that they'd changed their website. They were very intentional to make sure that the website had the same "feel" as the church itself (he used the word "consistent"), and had LOTS of content - particularly about the leadership. He states that 75% of his visitors become regular attenders, and that they know as much or more about the leadership when they come in the door the first time as long-time members. His demographic is more likely to be a web 2.0 user than our current demographic. However, if we want to attract and retain younger members we need to look at what is attracting and retaining them elsewhere.
Hmm. Interesting. Justifies the efforts we're trying to make here...........
Post a Comment