Thread: Church websites: what is a parish's evangelical responsibility? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023400
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Taking a look at what my local search engine serves up when given the string

           site:forum.ship-of-fools.com website

I find that the last SoF thread about church websites seems to date from 2009. That is too long ago; so, herewith are some questions of substance and style for ecclesiastical webmasters and websurfers.
Exactly what is the evangelical responsibility of the local parish with regards to internet-based communication?

[ 29. August 2012, 03:08: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I think you are a little behind the times. It is our Facebook page that brings in the people. We will pay for advertising on facebook about a month before a major festival and we always see results.
 
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :
 
If a church describes itself on its website as "Bible-believing", the unspoken implication is "unlike the other churches which aren't Bible-believing".

And if a church describes itself as "inclusive", the unspoken implication is that other churches are not inclusive.

One phrase is liberal, the other conservative, but both annoy me profoundly.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I think "inclusive" makes a certain amount of sense when some churches require you to ascribe to certain doctrines to join, or are hostile to gay people, or to people of different classes, or people who dress differently. Bible-believing also gives useful information - it tells me a church gives priority to the written word rather than the living Word.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
...Exactly what is the evangelical responsibility of the local parish with regards to internet-based communication?
Don't you mean evangelistic responisibility? All churches which are worth their salt engage, one way or another, in evangelism, and I have seen some good websites with a mature and informative approach, yet warm, friendly and inviting. Very often these churches wouldn't call themselves "Evangelical."
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
If a church describes itself on its website as "Bible-believing", the unspoken implication is "unlike the other churches which aren't Bible-believing".
I was in Victoria, BC earlier this year and attended the Victoria Day parade (why do Canadians make a bigger fuss over Queen Vic than the Brits?).

The Sally Army were part of the parade, proudly displaying a banner that proclaimed "A Jesus-Centred Church in Victoria since 1887"

My immediate thought was "and so you're saying that the other churches in Victoria AREN'T 'Jesus-Centred'?" Not terribly impressed....
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
If a church describes itself on its website as "Bible-believing", the unspoken implication is "unlike the other churches which aren't Bible-believing".
I was in Victoria, BC earlier this year and attended the Victoria Day parade (why do Canadians make a bigger fuss over Queen Vic than the Brits?).

The Sally Army were part of the parade, proudly displaying a banner that proclaimed "A Jesus-Centred Church in Victoria since 1887"

My immediate thought was "and so you're saying that the other churches in Victoria AREN'T 'Jesus-Centred'?" Not terribly impressed....
Agreed but onluy marginally better than "THE Jesus Centred Church....2

Once lived ina town with a church called the "Full Gospel ....." What did everyone else belive then?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think one needs to realise that terms such as "Bible-believing", "Full Gospel" or "inclusive" are really a shorthand code for defining what sort of church one is. The cognoscenti will understand - however those outside the Church orbit may not (which poses an interesting question as to how church websites can better relate themselves to enquirers and "outsiders").

Actually, many church names are exclusive to some degree: the "Church of England" (= are there no other churches in England?) or the Baptists (= don't any other churches baptise?)

The ones which really annoy me are
1. "We are a Christian Church" (presumably so that people know we're not a Buddhist Church); and
2. "We are a vibrant, growing fellowship" - how I hate that word "vibrant"! Can no-one be honest and dsay, "We're a pretty ordinary church, our building is a bit tatty because we're strapped for cash, we have fairly good worship some days and not so good days, we're not as big as we'd really like to be"?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"We're a pretty ordinary church, our building is a bit tatty because we're strapped for cash, we have fairly good worship some days and not so good days, we're not as big as we'd really like to be"?
That would be the place for me!

I look up church websites usually to find our service times at places I will be visiting. I'm surprised how difficult it is to find them sometimes. Cathedrals tuck away details of current weekday services under "Music".

But I'm not typical.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
How a church website should look. How a church website should not look: like ours, where one has to look for ages to find the times of services, which should surely be the single most visible thing on a parish website.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think "inclusive" makes a certain amount of sense when some churches require you to ascribe to certain doctrines to join, or are hostile to gay people
Indeed. We get people from a large geographical area who found us through the word 'inclusive' on our website.

But our young people find us through Facebook.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
When I was WebMaster for my previous parish I updated the website every week - notice of what services were on and who the preacher was(splash page, of course), forthcoming events with accurate 'now only x weeks away' or the like; the prayer list; the pew bulletin, last weeks sermon, etc. All in all, I spent less than 40 minutes a week on this.

If there had been a major event - confirmation, or a parish social function etc - more time in putting inthe pics.

Webpages need to be changed constantly - more in terms of updating than changing - nothing is less enticing for a casual puruser than seeing the same thing up every time they look - as if there is no energy or interest in the community. If you have a webpage, it needs to be attended to: like the grounds of the building.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Our parish describes itself as 'a lively part of the Church of England' - and even, irritatingly, adds an explanation mark at times:

'... A lively part of the Church of England!'

The implication being, 'Oh, look, what a surprise, we're actually quite lively unlike other Anglican churches you may have come across nur-nur-nuh-nur-nah! we're-livelier-than-they-are ...'

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
The strangest thing I've ever seen is churches that go out of their way to avoid identifying what their denomination is. Generally, this is most common in Evangelical Anglican places, as in this case, where it's just about possible to find the words 'Church of England', if one really looks for them (it's under 'About Us': 'Vision and Values', and then at the bottom of the page). The most spectacularly perverse example that I've ever seen, however, was on a church sign in Dumfries. Nowhere were the words 'Episcopal' or 'Anglican' included, but things got stranger than that. The sign made mention of a 'Minister', a word that (in Scotland) might be taken to imply that it was a Presbyterian church, but under this was written 'to contact Fr X...' and the service list used the word 'mass'. Finally, in one corner, a sign saying 'This is a Forward in Faith Church'. Now, many (although certainly not all) Anglican churchgoers would be able to interpret that, but in a country where Anglicanism is a minority confession, it's just bizarre. It may have reflected some tensions, as the church in question has now left the SEC and is some sort of peculiar attached (although none to closely, it would seem) to the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
How a church website should look. How a church website should not look: like ours, where one has to look for ages to find the times of services, which should surely be the single most visible thing on a parish website.
As someone who does go to church websites (a lot!) I have one quibble with the Saint Clement's website. The address and phone number are NOT on the home page. Thankfully, they are only one click away, so I won't be too hard on them. Still, I would think an address is even more important than service times--if I don't know where a church is, I'm not really going to care when they worship.

I also like it if they include information about the music and pictures of the organ, but that's just a personal quirk due to my profession...
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
If it's not on the web it doesn't exist.

If it's on the web but out of date, grrr, might be better to have a static page with minimal info (service times, phone number) that can be updated yearly with no loss of accuracy.

Facebook? Lots of people aren't on it and don't think about it; lots are on it and some practically live on it ("if it's not on facebook it doesn't exist"?); lots have moved on to the next social network site.

Publicity is a constantly changing game, and constantly splintering, gotta reach out in more and more ways.

There was some chatter at the last Newcomers Committee I attended about program or service that takes your announcement and feeds it automatically to your other sites -- web page, twitter, facebook, google something, I don't remember what all.

Don't forget the local neighborhood newspaper, some folks are not online, including some elderly, homeless, and my local friends who have only dial-up or no internet.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Taking a look at what my local search engine serves up when given the string

           site:forum.ship-of-fools.com website

I find that the last SoF thread about church websites seems to date from 2009. That is too long ago; so, herewith are some questions of substance and style for ecclesiastical webmasters and websurfers.
Exactly what is the evangelical responsibility of the local parish with regards to internet-based communication?

I think the principal responsibility is to make your church as easy to find out about as possible, and make it clear that it has a lot going on. Assuming of course, that that is actually true.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our parish describes itself as 'a lively part of the Church of England' - and even, irritatingly, adds an explanation mark at times:

'... A lively part of the Church of England!'

The implication being, 'Oh, look, what a surprise, we're actually quite lively unlike other Anglican churches you may have come across nur-nur-nuh-nur-nah! we're-livelier-than-they-are ...'

[Roll Eyes]
But not everyone will be looking for a 'lively' church, so this information will let them know
that this probably isn't the church for them. Whether CofE or otherwise, there are plenty of churches that are quite happy not being 'lively', so I think it's reasonable that those that are make it clear. And vice versa.

To be honest, I think that more churches should present this kind of information upfront, so that people don't waste their time. It's surely essential for a denomination as diverse as the CofE, otherwise, how will a stranger who's looking for a church to attend have any idea of the churchmanship pertaining at any particular Anglican church?

[ 29. August 2012, 17:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Taking a look at what my local search engine serves up when given the string

           site:forum.ship-of-fools.com website

I find that the last SoF thread about church websites seems to date from 2009. That is too long ago; so, herewith are some questions of substance and style for ecclesiastical webmasters and websurfers.
I think it depends upon the community. Here is Silly-con valley it is an almost necessary tool to communicate with your congregation and the outside world. In the piney woods of eastern Texas, not so much.

quote:
  • How many hours a week is the right budget for the volunteer effort devoted to a website?
    • I would think that would depend on the size of your congregation, the number of activities going on and whether or not you post audio and video of your services.
    quote:
  • What is the right balance between scarce volunteer time and the tangible benefit from a shiny and spiffy website?
    • Enough to keep it going and attractive yet not be a drain on the other activities that will help keep people coming once they show up. There is a danger that the tool becomes an idol.
    quote:
  • Is your church's website up-to-date? If not, when was it last updated?
    • About a year and a half ago. It probably should be looked reviewed on a quarterly basis but resources are strecthed thin.
    quote:
  • How frequently ought a church website be updated?
    • quote:
  • Or, are you stuck in a paleolithic timewarp, with no website at all?
  • Is it necessary for a church with a website to invest time and energy in a social media presence? Facebook, Twitter?
    • Facebook is gaining market share in terms of being used as a search engine at Yahoo!'s and MSN's expense. When I have the time, pause for laughter, my congregation will be getting a Facebook sight. I believe Twitter is on its twelfth minute of its fifteen minutes of fame. If I was in a congregation of media savy twenty-somethings I would have it. Since I don't it won't be used and an unsed tool would likely look even worse.
    quote:
  • Is the look and feel of a church website tied to churchmanship? (Feel free to supply your own gender-free neologism.)
  • What church websites do you find particularly compelling? (Don't bother with the lame websites—that seems to be most of them.)
  • Do these compelling websites push a lot of pictures at the site visitor; or, do they push more text?
  • Are they all resplendent with rainbows, Hallmarky and welcoming? Or, do they serve up a stiff ration of dogma, controversy, and lines in the sand?
    • The ones that do it for me are colorful enough to attract my attention without making me go blind. The key factor for me is: a) are they updated regularly, b)does it have a lot of content, c) can I see what the building and the congregation looks like and d) what is the quality of the content that is presented.

    quote:

    Exactly what is the evangelical responsibility of the local parish with regards to internet-based communication?
    On this last question the main concern I have, even here in the San Francisco Bay Area, is that the have-nots in the congregation or the elderly become equally as informed at those who are plugged into the grid, so to speak.
     
    Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Gamaliel:
    Our parish describes itself as 'a lively part of the Church of England' - and even, irritatingly, adds an explanation mark at times:

    '... A lively part of the Church of England!'

    The implication being, 'Oh, look, what a surprise, we're actually quite lively unlike other Anglican churches you may have come across nur-nur-nuh-nur-nah! we're-livelier-than-they-are ...'

    [Roll Eyes]
    But not everyone will be looking for a 'lively' church, so this information will let them know
    that this probably isn't the church for them.
    Indeed. It would be nice to find a church where people are seeking to grow in holiness.
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    Rightly or wrongly, I make decisions on what church I want to attend based in part on their website. Asking whether money spent on the website is better spent on outreach is misguided, I think, because a church's website is the first point of contact for many people, especially the younger and "unchurched."

    Too many churches have bad websites. It's good that they have websites at all - a church without a website might as well be invisible - but they don't convey the information that newcomers (the people for whom you presumably form a website) are looking for.

    On too many sites you first see information about the next Women's Ministry or Youth Group meeting or Golf Tournament. I'm not saying that shouldn't be on the website, but that information is for the regulars. You can get it to the regulars through the newsletter or announcements during Sunday services and maybe have a link to the newsletter somewhere on the front page.

    Newcomers are going to be looking first and foremost for: What times are your services? How do I get to your building? What should I wear/expect? What are your services like? What does it mean to be a Christian? Are you going to embarrass me?

    Instead, you get the service times buried, and if you click on enough links, you'll find some tepid mission statement and theological statement which probably means nothing to you if you aren't a dyed in the wool Anglipresbylutherist.

    I'd love to get some video or audio on the website so I can see what your services look and sound like. Is everyone dressed up like they're going to a funeral, or can I wear a polo shirt and jeans?
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    This is one of the better church websites that I've seen. It gives you a lot of information, has a specific page for newbies, and lots of audio/video for the curious. Having attended, it gives you a good impression about what the church is actually like.

    Not every church will have the kind of resources to make a webpage this fancy, but it costs virtually nothing to put up worship times, an invitation to worship, and a few pictures on Facebook.
     
    Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
    How a church website should look. How a church website should not look: like ours, where one has to look for ages to find the times of services, which should surely be the single most visible thing on a parish website.
    No it isn't. It looks nice when it has eventually loaded, but it's slow to do so.

    IMHO a church should have a website if at all possible. It should be informative, and the important information, times of services, contacts etc should be easy to find. It should also give a good impression of what the church is really like, what it regards as important, rather than what its webmaster happens to be interested in.

    If it is a website you really don't like, perhaps be grateful rather than annoyed. If it isn't the church for you and it's conveyed that message, as a website, it's worked.

    For me, a website which includes a gallery that shows people rather than buildings or artifacts is a good sign. I'm not particularly high church, but a website that shows 'smiling faces on our pilgrimage to Walsingham' is something I can identify with. 'Tour of our Victorian architecture', or 'pictures of our collection of Flemish maniples', I can't.

    So if you're a people church but your webmaster loves Flemish maniples, the website also isn't doing its job.

    Likewise, a simple page on Christian basics, good. A dogmatic statement of what the church believes about the Rapture, or the perseverance of the Saints, off-putting.

    Facebook is pointless. I don't use it.
     
    Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
     
    I find the use of code language on websites interesting -- an ecclesiastical version of the bureaucrat's "bullshit bingo" where we used to annoy consultants by calling out "bingo!" after they had used a certain number of code words (innovative, bottom line, strategic, and so forth). Shipmates have already spotted inclusive, Bible-believing, and vibrant, and I would be interested in hearing what others find equally revealing.

    But I am still astonished as to how much work it is to find out service times and church location. I suppose that, if we are not prepared to work for it, we are not serious about learning this information, and do not deserve it.

    In my RL, I have responsibility for a voluntary group's communications, and find that our website gets about 300 hits a week-- about half from outside Canada-- but our FB page gets 800-1000. Our late webmistress (our final conversation, about two weeks before her death, supplied me with lots of really inappropriate jokes about the colorectal cancer which killed her, and a cheery "See you on the other side," when she signed off) told me to forget about the website, and focus on social media. I find that 300 a week justifies the website, but I am focussing on the FB site, and am surprised at how much people are relying on it.
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Enoch:

    Facebook is pointless. I don't use it.
    You don't, but lots do, especially the young. I'd say that makes it point-full.

    My grandfather, who passed away in 2002, never understood the point of the internet, but he was born in a time where telephones were a luxury item. There's no denying that the internet is very useful for disseminating information.

    /not saying you're old, but...
     
    Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
     
    There has been a very long line of the use of modern media in church history. I remember my Dad talking about the church producing recordings of sermons on silly transparent floppy 'vinyls' to put on record players.

    Very often the justification for these innovations is that they are evangelistic, whereas I believe that the vast majority serve only for internal use. In a modern sense, an internet site or facebook page might be designed to indicate to parishioners/members that the church is appealing to people outside - and yet in the massive scrum of information on the internet, the chance of someone finding the page and then finding something useful on the page outwith of the faith community is miniscule. Usually these kinds of efforts are simply vanity projects.

    [ 29. August 2012, 18:38: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    I think that for some people, if they are a christian and move to a new area, the first thing they will check is the internet for churches in the area.

    I checked on the website of a church I used to associate with when I lived in Writtle (Chelmsford) for a short time:

    All Saints Church, Writtle

    It makes me very sad when I remember how I had to move away all those years ago, but even so there is something which feels right about this church, and judging by their website it is still so.

    I remember I had a conversation with the curate there, and he explained things about the Church which I always remember, and must have had some influence in my ending up Orthodox. Things have changed in the Church of England since those days, and somehow I have a feeling he would no longer be C of E. I wonder where he is now?

    I am rambling, but anyway, forgetting Church politics for a minute, check on the website and see what you think.
     
    Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    I think that for some people, if they are a christian and move to a new area, the first thing they will check is the internet for churches in the area.

    I checked on the website of a church I used to associate with when I lived in Writtle (Chelmsford) for a short time:

    All Saints Church, Writtle

    It makes me very sad when I remember how I had to move away all those years ago, but even so there is something which feels right about this church, and judging by their website it is still so.

    I remember I had a conversation with the curate there, and he explained things about the Church which I always remember, and must have had some influence in my ending up Orthodox. Things have changed in the Church of England since those days, and somehow I have a feeling he would no longer be C of E. I wonder where he is now?

    I am rambling, but anyway, forgetting Church politics for a minute, check on the website and see what you think.
    I don't understand what relevance this is to the original post, Mark. You like the website... so..?
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by the long ranger:
    I don't understand what relevance this is to the original post, Mark. You like the website... so..?
    So... consider the first statement I made.
     
    Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    So... consider the first statement I made. [/QB]
    Consider the original post. What has the use of Christians of a website to do with their evangelical responsibility?
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by the long ranger:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    So... consider the first statement I made.
    Consider the original post. What has the use of Christians of a website to do with their evangelical responsibility?
    A good, well put together website that is informative, yet warm and friendly can draw people to the church. That is my belief.

    [ 29. August 2012, 19:54: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    quote:
    Originally posted by the long ranger:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    So... consider the first statement I made.
    Consider the original post. What has the use of Christians of a website to do with their evangelical responsibility?
    A good, well put together website that is informative, yet warm and friendly can draw people to the church. That is my belief.
    It's got a clean-enough look, but it buries the service times on a side page. Instead, on the front page, I see a beautiful old stone building and a statement that they have system for people with hearing aids. Great, so I don't know where the parish is and it's not entirely clear what services are meeting on what Sunday, but if I'm 80 years old and hard of hearing, this is the church for me. If I were someone in his mid 30s thinking about attending a church for the first time since I was a little kid, I'd have second thoughts after this first impression.

    On the positive side, it's got a page about what to expect, and explains how the services work and some basic information about Christianity.
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mockingale:
    ...On the positive side, it's got a page about what to expect, and explains how the services work and some basic information about Christianity.
    Well, we're getting there, aren't we? There are tabs at the top for "Services" and "Find Us", and the home page has a "find out more" link.
     
    Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
     
    Re: The Writtle web site.

    There's a picture of the organ, which hit one of my own special buttons but won't do it for everyone.

    Services and Contact info are each one click away from the home page, and labelled as "Services" and "Contact". I can live with that--it's surprising how frequently such information is two or three sub-menus down under something non-intuitive to the unchurched like "Opportunities for Ministry". So far, so good...

    Still--if there are no news and events, get that blank space off of the home page. You might as well just put up a sign saying "nothing happens here".

    Then I note on the contacts page that they do not have an e-mail address! WTF?

    In the US, that would automatically mean they have fewer than thirty attendees, a retired priest or minister doing this to keep his hand in, and the youngest attendee is a spry 73.
     
    Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
    Webpages need to be changed constantly - more in terms of updating than changing - nothing is less enticing for a casual puruser than seeing the same thing up every time they look - as if there is no energy or interest in the community. If you have a webpage, it needs to be attended to: like the grounds of the building.
    To add to that, if you have an "Upcoming events" page, things need to be removed from it as soon as they're in the past, WITHOUT FAIL. You might have two days' leeway there, but any more than that and it makes your website worse than useless. Why worse? Because it actively tells visitors you are not doing anything.


    quote:
    Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
    If it's on the web but out of date, grrr, might be better to have a static page with minimal info (service times, phone number) that can be updated yearly with no loss of accuracy.
    This. If nothing else, get your regular service times on there, along with your address (and a Google Maps link) and a contact telephone number and email address. If you don't have time to update anything else regularly, better to just have those on a single page, underneath a photo of the building and a couple of sentences describing your worship style.

    quote:
    Facebook? Lots of people aren't on it and don't think about it; lots are on it and some practically live on it ("if it's not on facebook it doesn't exist"?); lots have moved on to the next social network site.
    One thing Facebook is great for, for the right demographic, is events. Create a Facebook event, and people can invite other people, and you can see if your friends are attending (and thus make the decision about if you want to go). You can also put up a static Facebook page for the church, which lets other people share it with their friends and talk about it. No, not everyone's on it, but nor does everyone read the Parish magazine or the notice board: you don't have to only market in one medium!


    quote:
    Originally posted by Mockingale:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Enoch:

    Facebook is pointless. I don't use it.
    You don't, but lots do, especially the young. I'd say that makes it point-full.
    It's really useful for some stuff. For example, if someone uses Facebook as their event diary, it means someone else (the creator of each event) is making sure their diary is up to date: if a time changes, it's updated automatically. That's useful if you exist in a demographic where most events end up on Facebook. Likewise contact details: if you have your phone get contact details from Facebook, and someone changes their phone number, it's automatically updated in your contacts without you needing to do anything. That's useful.

    The whole 'social' part of social media is about letting people share and add to things. Assume a church has the simplest Facebook page. If someone from the congregation who's a Facebook user wants to invite a friend to that church, they can share the church's Facebook page with a custom comment. They'll see the comment first, and can look at the page for more information, such as contact details. This stuff isn't something that couldn't be done pre-Facebook, but the advantage is that this mechanism of sharing is really quick and easy, so it encourages people to do so.

    Again, play to your demographics: if a lot of your congregation are Facebook users, or you'd like to bring more of a demographic who are Facebook users into your church, then go all out. If not, then it's probably not worth your while. That's common sense I guess [Smile]


    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:

    All Saints Church, Writtle
    .
    Sadly, the first thing that jumped out at me from that page was "Information regarding news and events will appear here." A placeholder from when the page was designed, indicating that they had once intended to show news, but never got round to it.

    The rest of the website seems good: I liked the visitors page with "What you can expect".
     
    Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mark Betts:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Mockingale:
    ...On the positive side, it's got a page about what to expect, and explains how the services work and some basic information about Christianity.
    Well, we're getting there, aren't we? There are tabs at the top for "Services" and "Find Us", and the home page has a "find out more" link.
    My point was not that the website didn't have information about directions or worship times - it's that they "buried the lead", which is more of a complaint about style than substance.

    It's a principle of advertising and probably any good writing that if you're trying to sell something or convince somebody, you don't want to bury the most important information and force your subject to go digging. The first thing a visitor should see is "We meet at these times: please join us!" or something to that effect.

    Instead you've got pictures of the building and a statement about hearing aids, which maybe says "Please join us, if you are old and like twee buildings."
     
    Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
     
    Just a rather large point for those who are physically challenged:

    If your church is wheelchair accessible, say so!
    If your church has systems for the hearing impaired say so!

    Your church may be wheelchair accessible, but that means diddly if function rooms and toilets are not. If you are accessible on all the points, say so. Loudly.

    Otherwise you are missing a chance of evangelisation of an oft-overlooked minority.

    [ 29. August 2012, 20:36: Message edited by: PeteC ]
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    Mark Betts [[ LIKED ]] PeteC's post
     
    Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Organ Builder:

    I have one quibble with the Saint Clement's website. The address and phone number are NOT on the home page.
    I had the same quibble. I think all church websites should start with a big picture of the church. Just below should be the name of the church, the address (with link to map), the phone number and the service times.

    If that's all that's ever there it's an evangelical step above the many websites I've been to that seem almost entirely dedicated to pictures taken at last years vacation bible school.
     
    Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
     
    I have another complaint, and it's more than a quibble -- the big box proclaiming "August 2012" is a huge waste of space on the front page.
     
    Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
     
    Aaargh! Rookie error... Typed a long reply, wasn't logged in properly, and lost it all. [brick wall]

    Ah well... here are some thoughts on some of the questions asked (briefer than before!):

    Is a church that focuses time and energy on its website wasting resources that could be better spent on community outreach or mission?
    I agree with a previous poster on this. I started going to church again (after a 30-year absence) a couple of years ago and I based my decisions on where to go on the churches' websites. People in my situation, and those who've never been chuurchgoers but are interested, may well feel nervous about 'just showing up'. They need information (about service times and styles, parking, disabled facilities, child-friendliness, etc.) and if they can get this from the website and feel reassured by it they are more likely to take that first step and get themselves through the door. In a very real sense, then, I would see church websites as a tool for evangelism and for reaching out to those in the community who might otherwise be unreachable.

    What is the right balance between scarce volunteer time and the tangible benefit from a shiny and spiffy website?
    I think that the key is to get a website set up as professionally as possible, with the right balance between text and images and with the text laid out in as logical and accessible a way as possible, but to make it really really user-friendly to update so that the task of keeping the information up-to-date can be shared around and doesn't become just one more chore for the one person who knows how to do it.

    Is your church's website up-to-date? If not, when was it last updated?
    It's updated at least weekly, if not daily. (I suspect that it may have some sort of automatic thingummyjig that knows that if it's Wednesday there's a service at 10.30 and posts this automatically at midnight on Tuesday, if you know what I mean... but I am not tech-savvy enough to know how that works!) Sunday sermons and other special occasions are videoed and made available within 24 hours usually (edited in the case of longer events). There's a direct link to the Twitter feed (visible on the home page) and links to Facebook and YouTube too.

    How frequently ought a church website be updated?
    At least weekly, in my view...

    Is it necessary for a church with a website to invest time and energy in a social media presence? Facebook, Twitter?
    I think it is, both for the reasons already adduced (attracting da yoof, etc.) and because it's an easy way to keep the church's online presence up-to-date. I don't use Twitter, but can see its advantages for this kind of thing (easy to update things like 'Parish picnic tomorrow has been rained off' or 'Don't forget free organ concert on Thursday') and if it can be linked to from the church's homepage then you kill two birds with one stone - Twitter presence and an up-to-the-minute newsfeed. I update a Facebook page related to my work, and I try to add something most days. I rarely spend more than 5 minutes on it. Once a Facebook page has been set up, updating it really is a doddle. And several individuals can be made 'admins' so that the burden is not too onerous for any one person.

    Is the look and feel of a church website tied to churchmanship?
    Not sure I'm well-placed yet to answer this one, but it's certainly one of the things that I wanted to know when I was looking for a church. Specifically, I knew that I wanted a fairly traditional church (in terms of music/liturgy), but a liberal one (not anti-ordination of women, for example), and one where there was a communion service every Sunday and not just once a month. You'd be amazed how hard it was to find out even this most basic of information... especially without understanding the 'code' alluded to on here.

    Do compelling websites push a lot of pictures at the site visitor; or, do they push more text?
    Too many pictures make it look as if the church has nothing to say. Too much text, especially in long screeds, is boring. Newsletters and such-like can be linked to and downloaded by those that want them, but shouldn't be the main focus of attention. Dividing the page up, so that some basic information stays pretty constant (address, service times, etc.) but up-to-date news can also be presented, is a good idea. Above all, it should be clear and easy to navigate. Whoever updates the site with pictures should be aware of how they might be 'read' by visitors to the site who are not 'regulars'. One church near me has a number of pictures of grannies drinking tea. Far be it from me to disparage either grannies or tea-drinking, but it does conjure up a specific demographic. Likewise, be aware that the website is not just (or not primarily) there for the already-initiated. Eighty-seven pictures of the Sunday School outing to the zoo may please a few parents, but isn't going to excite the casual visitor. One picture that gives a sense of kids having fun might well appeal to someone looking for a child-friendly church, but the rest can be put somewhere less obvious (Facebook is good for this too).

    OK, am going to post now, lest I lose this again. Anyway, it's long enough! [Snore]
     
    Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Pia:
    One church near me has a number of pictures of grannies drinking tea. Far be it from me to disparage either grannies or tea-drinking, but it does conjure up a specific demographic. Likewise, be aware that the website is not just (or not primarily) there for the already-initiated. Eighty-seven pictures of the Sunday School outing to the zoo may please a few parents, but isn't going to excite the casual visitor. One picture that gives a sense of kids having fun might well appeal to someone looking for a child-friendly church, but the rest can be put somewhere less obvious (Facebook is good for this too).
    If the pictures are honest representations of what those churches are actually like then they should be prominent on the website. It would be rather sneaky to give the impression that a congregation is full of attractive twentysomething singletons (or even that it's a well-balanced church in terms of age) if that's not the case.

    Churches that are dominated by elderly members can, of course, try to broaden their appeal to other groups. But it takes more than a website to be successful with that. If they're unable to change what they're doing in any significant way, then perhaps it would be wise for them to promote themselves by showing what they do best - offering worship services and pastoral support that appeal to elderly people.
     
    Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
     
    Agreed, Svitlana... I think I said this better the first time I attempted to post it. It's not just the demographic I was objecting to, but the 'non-specificity' of the pictures... If it was 'our regular tea-and-biscuits meeting for over-sixties' it wouldn't feel so bad, but with no context, caption or explanation it started to look a bit more as if that was all there was to it...

    But yes, point taken that pictures should represent the reality of that church, otherwise it's not helpful at all.

    The website of a church that I attended briefly in the US had a link to a useful site that summarised what to expect from a service at an Episcopal church. That was useful (to me, as a Brit and a 'returner'; but also in general...).

    [ 30. August 2012, 00:03: Message edited by: Pia ]
     
    Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
    I think "inclusive" makes a certain amount of sense when some churches require you to ascribe to certain doctrines to join, or are hostile to gay people, or to people of different classes, or people who dress differently. Bible-believing also gives useful information - it tells me a church gives priority to the written word rather than the living Word.
    ... as if the only way of giving priority to the living Word was by not believing the written Word... It´s more likely that people that ignore the written Word will not know or care about the living Word either.

    I am a member of a denomination that has "inclusive" spread all over their website, and acording to the last census on our country 97% of our members are white, and acording to my experience, basically everyone who goes to our churches are "socially aceptable" people.

    Other churches in our country that do not claim to be inclusive on their website have 40%-60% of their membership consisting of black people, and have some members that wouldn´t be accepted or would be looked down if entered our "inclusive" Church.

    "Inclusive", also means that we will not touch in any biblical subjects that might hurt the feelings of some of our middle-class white members. In other words, "some of our white middle class families have gay sons, and daughters who got pregnant too young and had an abortion, so we are not going to upset them by touching on these subjects during the sermon. However, that does not mean that we are willing to help anyone outside of our circle that is strugling with an early pregnancy or homossexuality."

    When I enter a church website, the first section I read is "what we believe". There you can have a clear picture of the churchmanship that particular church belongs to. For example, confessional church bodies will have their respective confessions of faith stated on the "what we believe section". Liberal churches will have vague (tough not incorret)affirmations about God and Jesus, and only a small link to the confessional texts if you search deep down the website, always prefacing them by sayng they are only historic documents that give a testimony about the Church´s faith, which is a rather silly way of sayng "we´re so sorry about what people in our church have believed in the past... we put these texts here but be sure that this is just historic curiosity and we do not take it seriously!"
     
    Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on :
     
    When you're developing a Parish website, you need to remember that there is more than one audience. Design so that the short-time visitors find what they need immediately; members and others are more willing to click to follow-on pages.

    I wrote this several years ago to explain who uses our website:

    Visitors to the area: Visitors to the area who are seeking an Episcopal church on Sunday will find us with a simple web search. For these people, the location of the Church and the times of the services are most important. In the week before Christmas, for example, our number of website visitors nearly doubled.

    Newcomers to the area: People moving into the area may be searching for a Church. (In fact, several of our newer members found Trinity through the web site.) Newcomers are interested in service times and the location of the Church, of course, but they also want to get a feeling for the parish and they want to know how to contact the parish office or the Rector.

    Parish members: Parish members are looking for something different. They probably know when and where to find us, but they may need a copy of The newsletter, or to see a list of who is on Vestry, or the schedule for ushers or lay readers on Sunday. They may also be interested in looking at pictures of parish activities, or reading more about parish groups or our history.

    Casual online visitors: Family members (grandparents, aunts, uncles and so on) who live outside the area may use the website to see pictures of the Christmas pageant or other activities.

    I've also found it helpful, when new people tell me they found us using the website, to ask them what they liked and (especially) what they didn't like.
     
    Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by gorpo:
    I am a member of a denomination that has "inclusive" spread all over their website, and acording to the last census on our country 97% of our members are white, and acording to my experience, basically everyone who goes to our churches are "socially aceptable" people.

    Other churches in our country that do not claim to be inclusive on their website have 40%-60% of their membership consisting of black people, and have some members that wouldn´t be accepted or would be looked down if entered our "inclusive" Church.

    "Inclusive", also means that we will not touch in any biblical subjects that might hurt the feelings of some of our middle-class white members. In other words, "some of our white middle class families have gay sons, and daughters who got pregnant too young and had an abortion, so we are not going to upset them by touching on these subjects during the sermon. However, that does not mean that we are willing to help anyone outside of our circle that is strugling with an early pregnancy or homossexuality."

    When I enter a church website, the first section I read is "what we believe". There you can have a clear picture of the churchmanship that particular church belongs to. For example, confessional church bodies will have their respective confessions of faith stated on the "what we believe section". Liberal churches will have vague (tough not incorret)affirmations about God and Jesus, and only a small link to the confessional texts if you search deep down the website, always prefacing them by sayng they are only historic documents that give a testimony about the Church´s faith, which is a rather silly way of sayng "we´re so sorry about what people in our church have believed in the past... we put these texts here but be sure that this is just historic curiosity and we do not take it seriously!"
    All of this sounds uncomfortably familiar gorpo. What you seem to be saying is that most of this "inclusive" rhetoric is little more than self-righteous hypocrisy. But if you know of other churches or denominations that aren't like that, why do you carry on in that particular church? It doesn't seem to be helping you grow in Christ.

    Instead of just browsing church websites, why not start making enquiries?
     
    Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Pia:
    But yes, point taken that pictures should represent the reality of that church, otherwise it's not helpful at all.
    It's very easy to give prominence to pictures which showed the church packed with families at a Harvest Festival or Carol Service ... when the weekly reality is somewhat different. While I suppose most of us will want to "ice the cake" in some way, we have to make sure that the impression we give is honest and true.
     
    Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
     
    This is a timely thread. We have a fairly crap website at the moment, but are aiming to set up a new up-to-date one in the next few weeks, although it has taken what seems an unconscionably long time to sort out.

    It's always interesting to see what people are looking for in terms of information from a website, and I hope that our new one will do the job. Personally I like pictures (and videos if possible) showing the type of worship, specific community events and activities etc. that the church is involved in. We have a very mixed, inclusive congo reflecting the area, so that would also be good to show.

    I am interested in many of the suggestions here, and would like to take note of them for our next meeting. So personal thanks from me, kind Shipmates.
     
    Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
     
    I do have to say that my parish's website, although it's not pretty to look at, does contain an impressive FAQ section, answering such questions as

    'Is [this] a Roman Catholic Church?'. I like the answer to this, as it goes beyond simply saying 'no', and explains that doctrines and liturgical praxis of the Churches of England and of Rome are virtually identical, save for their teachings on Papal authority.

    The FAQ section also explains many things that I've rarely seen on a parish website, including what translations of the Bible are used (RSV at high mass, NRSV at weekday low masses, and AV at the early Sunday low mass).

    Something that we used to say, which I thought was very good to say, was 'this church is NOT affiliated with Forward in Faith; however, women do not currently celebrate the mass here. If you are looking for a committed FinF parish under alternative episcopal oversight, we suggest X; if you would prefer a more liberal catholic parish with a female incumbent, we suggest Y'. I thought this was, in some respects, the most honest and helpful thing I've seen on church website. Unfortunately, it was removed.
     
    Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


    'Is [this] a Roman Catholic Church?'. I like the answer to this, as it goes beyond simply saying 'no', and explains that doctrines and liturgical praxis of the Churches of England and of Rome are virtually identical, save for their teachings on Papal authority.
    [Killing me] YMMV, as they say.
     
    Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Angloid:
    quote:
    Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:


    'Is [this] a Roman Catholic Church?'. I like the answer to this, as it goes beyond simply saying 'no', and explains that doctrines and liturgical praxis of the Churches of England and of Rome are virtually identical, save for their teachings on Papal authority.
    [Killing me] YMMV, as they say.
    What? I imagine any Anglican priest even slightly higher than MotR would give a similar answer if asked. Com
     
    Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
     
    No. I'm slightly higher than MOTR and the honest response would be 'many Anglicans believe virtually the same doctrine as Rome on many matters, but many, or even most, would start from very different presuppositions.'

    That's not to say that the essentials, i.e. the Creeds, are in dispute, but when it comes to characteristically 'Catholic' teaching on the sacraments, the saints, the state of the departed and so on, there is a clear dividing line, which cuts through the middle of Anglicanism.
     
    Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
     
    Actually, re-reading it, what it actually says is 'The Church of England separated from the Church of Rome under Henry VIII due to matters of Church order, not of doctrine, and members of the Roman Catholic Church will probably recognise the teaching and worship [at our parish] as identical, in most respects, to that of their own church. However, [we are] particularly devoted to the spirituality of the Anglican tradition. The bishops and clergy of the Church of England belong to the Apostolic succession which has been continuous from St Augustine of Canterbury. '

    Is that a more suitably balanced Anglican statement?
     
    Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
     
    Of course. That is very different from what you originally said.
     
    Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
     
    If the site in question is the one I think it is, it also says, no doubt to make matters quite clear, that [this church] 'does not come under the authority of the Pope of Rome'. A quaint phrase - used of the Patriarch of the West neutrally by the Orthodox, I believe, but far from neutrally by the Revd Dr Ian Paisley and others of his ecclesiastical viewpoint. [Roll Eyes]
     
    Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Metapelagius:
    If the site in question is the one I think it is, it also says, no doubt to make matters quite clear, that [this church] 'does not come under the authority of the Pope of Rome'.
    That does sound like us (to the point of being a verbatim quote). 'Dr' Paisley was supposed to be giving a speech in our little market town, but unfortunately had to cancel due to health reasons. Shame, we could have invited him to give a sermon, preferably on alternative dental provisions during the Last Judgement.
     
    Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
     
    Since a large percentage of our congregation is either computer-illiterate or has little access to computers outside of work or school time, I guess our online presence is by definition evangelistic -- less preaching to the choir than giving outside people an understanding of who we are.

    That said, our website itself is bare-bones -- not a lot of bells and whistles. (Although since we have a new pastoral intern DP, the webmeister, created a fun intro welcoming her to our congregation.) We try to have all the who/what/when/where information in an accessible place. We also have a regular "Message From the Pastor," usually cribbed from our church newsletter, and we have links to things like the ELCA website, its page describing the current season of the Church year, etc. And we have an online calendar of events/helpers' schedule.

    But by far the most successful part of our online activity has been our Facebook page. It gets far more hits and feedback than our official website ever has. And it's also by far the easiest way to provide people with instant updates -- last-minute events, typos in the church bulletin, etc.

    And after a personally challenging/interesting stint as church blogger -- I quit this project after realizing that almost no one from our congregation ever visited the blog, including the pastor; I'd basically been writing to myself for a year -- I found that Facebook is also a fast, easy way to do ongoing adult Christian education. I'm always sharing links, and we seem to have a steady number of readers. And -- our people, anyway, really appreciate daily prayers and/or Scripture postings...I usually crib these from the Daily Office and lectionary, or the ELCA Facebook page. These are the posts that seem to generate the most positive reader response, by the way.

    So I'd echo the sentiment that, even if you personally hate Facebook, other people do not; in fact, for them it can be their primary reason for being online.
     
    Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
     
    The website needs to be a good representation of what your church is really like, otherwise people might turn up and be disappointed or not turn up because they think it isn't the right place for them. I'm concerned because we have a picture on our front page of the whole congregation enthusiastically waving at the camera (as they were asked to do especially). It looks for all the world like we are a happy clappy church given to frequent renditions of action choruses, which we are not.
     
    Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
     
    If you (when you) set up a Facebook page for the church, please set it to be accessible by non-Facebook members!

    I've been directed to Facebook pages where I could wander through the pictures on the wall, read the last hundred comments, do just about anything except post my own comments. (Which is fine, although if a church goes to Facebook only some people won't be able to sign up for things on line, which would discourage them from fully participating.)

    I've been directed to Facebook pages where I could see the initial page but everything else was blocked, even the "click here to learn about our Easter season events" was clickable only by Facebook members.

    I've been directed to Facebook pages that I couldn't access at all unless I first become a Facebook member.

    The 2nd and especially the 3rd categories scream "We don't want YOU." Facebook members tend to think "what's your problem? just join Facebook, it's free"; but not everyone wants to join Facebook. Their reasons are their own business.
     
    Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
     
    quote:
    Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
    The 2nd and especially the 3rd categories scream "We don't want YOU." Facebook members tend to think "what's your problem? just join Facebook, it's free"; but not everyone wants to join Facebook. Their reasons are their own business.
    Well, precisely.

    I chose to leave Facebook last year for my own reasons, and if any organisation decides to restrict its information to FB users (and I, too, have encountered them), then I'm not interested.

    I think it boils down, not to an intention to restrict access but rather of having what seems like a good idea without the time to ensure that the practical processes surrounding maintaining it are feasible.

    To respond further to this and some of the points raised in the OP...

    My parish had a Facebook group which I closed when I left FB. It had actually turned into something very unhelpful. I waited to see what the new Google+ pages looked like but this didn't work too well for us either. In the end, I simply made a "parish" circle on my G+ and that works for all correspondence. I have added all of the parish e-mail addresses that I have and others have since requested access. It requires minimal maintenance, which is good because I also run the parish website and diocesan website and that takes time in order to do any of it effectively. We use it for updates about services, parishioners' news, special events, trips, funerals, and so forth, and it seems to work well. I send out about one update each month, with occasiona additional ones when necessary. That seems to work well enough.

    The parish website has an up-to-date schedule of forthcoming services and gives full details of occasional services and other events as and when they come round. It has catechetical resources, musical resources, and liturgical resources, both for those within and without the parish and Orthodox Church. All of these things are either home-produced, usually by me, or if they come from elsewhere, they are checked by one of us first. This ensures that what we have is of a standard that we find acceptable and that will be beneficial but it all takes time to keep it up-to-date. That keeps me busy enough, as the number of unfinished projects on the website bear witness.

    I recognise that this does not cater for the needs of those who are not connected to the internet but they are a small minority among our parishioners. That isn't to say that it isn't worthwhile for that minority, and for those further afield to whom we might be able to reach out, but we have limited resources in terms of time, effort, and money, and we have to be responsible about how we use them. We are not averse to the idea of printed news bulletins but that is something for which somebody who perceives a need for it and who has the time to maintain it to come forward and actually do the work in producing, maintaining, and working out how to fund it.
     
    Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
     
    I won't name and shame, but my brother visited a church a few times which had a shot taken at a large Christian gathering on its home-page. The church had attended a large charismatic knees-up/convention.

    When he got there he was expecting to see 400 or 500 people. There were about 40 adults plus children.
     


    © Ship of Fools 2016

    Powered by Infopop Corporation
    UBB.classicTM 6.5.0