Yesterday’s post talked about the characteristics of a viral post — a post that readers share in large numbers. One of the characteristics is that a viral post is actionable.
An actionable post results in a reader doing something. When marketers use the term, they mean the reader either bought something or took a step towards buying something. Marketers have embraced blogging because they see it as a customer relations, customer retention and sales tool—all in one.
Churches have the same needs but use evangelical/ecclesiastic terminology.
Yet churches seem to be puzzled by the blogging genre. They tend to see a blog as an online musing . . . an extension of the sermon. It is so much more!
The easiest way to move away from this thinking and to begin to harness the power of the web is for churches to think in terms of writing blogs which prompt action.
In church terms, this could mean a number of things.
Here are some actions that could result from congregational blog posts:
A reader might subscribe to your blog or the congregational newsletter. Your congregation could then reach subscribers with a short message every day. (They probably won’t sign up to read sermons, though!) 2×2 has about 63 subscribers and another 100 or more who subscribe via Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn. We reach more than 500 new readers every week! (Imagine what we could do with a building!)
A reader might share your post with someone else. I occasionally send links to Pastor Swanson’s daily emails, 7 Minutes A Day. I find them to be inspirational and motivating and hope others will, too.
A reader might take some action they might not otherwise take. Pastor Swanson’s posts have prompted me to read more of the Bible and look at familiar Bible passages in a new light.
A reader might become interested in a new ministry. A congregation could blog about homelessness and inspire someone to do something about it.
A post might inspire someone to make a donation (sweat or dollars).
A post might inspire a new understanding or make a new connection. I can’t remember how our posts led us to ministry friendships with Christians in Kenya, Pakistan, and Sweden, but they did!
A blog post can lead to new alliances. Our early posts on the value of Vacation Bible Schools created alliances with like-minded Christians in other areas of the United States.
A reader may comment on a post and that may spark an online conversation.
A reader just might be inspired to faith and salvation.
How A Blog Might Impact A Common Scenario
In yesterday’s post, I posed a scenario where a congregation became aware that their neighborhood was changing. A new and very different ethnic group was moving in and changing the demographic. This isn’t a stretch. It’s happening all over our city (Philadelphia). A common result within our denomination is to declare churches closed in changing neighborhoods. We can only guess that they feel their message will not fly with the changing demographic. (Actually, we are not guessing, that’s what our church was told by our regional body.) This is foreign to the biblical mission of the church—and unnecessary—especially if congregations use social media as a mission tool!
What if a congregation started blogging about the changes in the neighborhood in a way which fostered interaction between the settled population and the newcomers. If they did so regularly, it would be noticed within a few weeks. Doors would open. Introductions would be made. When the new population began to show an interest as neighbors, they would feel like they already know the people who sponsored such a welcoming blog.
Civic organizations would likely notice, too. The church would gain respect in the neighborhood. The voice of the Church might carry more weight. Mainline news might notice. The possibilities are endless.
Actionable blogs should be a goal of every congregation.
Many of these benefits can be achieved without a blog. But there is no denying that blogging amplifies the likelihood and the reach of ministry efforts. It is work. It is a new discipline. But it is exciting. Time must be carved out to learn new skills. But the potential for ministry is so much greater with a blog than without. Frankly, the time invested in blogging will steal time from ministry efforts which may be traditional but which are not resulting in church growth. No real loss.
One last thing!
An actionable post should end with what in business is termed a Call To Action. This can be as simple as posing a question. Or it could be a simple form.
Here’s our Call to Action!
If you’d like help getting started in social media or blogging, submit the brief form below. We’ll see if we can be of service or point you in a helpful direction.
Social media has been around for four or five years now. It still puzzles the Church. It doesn’t fit the church’s way of thinking. A few churches dabble at it.
Dabbling at social media won’t succeed. We must dive in—the sooner the better!
One pastor recently shared that he didn’t understand social media. What was new about it?
Power is new. In the old days a newspaper might have a readership of 10,000 people. That’s where their influence ended.
Today, readers can pass a message on to all of their friends and those friends can continue sharing with their friends. Social media transforms those 10,000 readers into a million readers with ease.
More than that, the receiver can add to the message. They can correct or object when they disagree in real time. No one needs to wait for an editor to review a response, confined to 150 words, and chosen from among many for publication. We all have a say!
We are all familiar with the modern phenomenon of “going viral.”
A wannabe singer posts a video online and six months later is an international star. Never before in the history of the world was it possible for little guys to get billing on the world’s stage.
We used to guess at reasons some blog posts are so popular that they reach the ends of the earth within a few hours.
We are discovering that the key to popularity is not what most people guess (sex, dogs, cats and babies).
The answers revolve around emotions.
People share what they read on the web when the information is:
Surprising
Interesting
Intense
Positive
Actionable
This information was gathered in a study of media websites, but the same characteristics have been found to be applicable to other genres as well.
Church bloggers can adapt these principles to their posts, especially if they are writing about more than their church (which they should be).
True, this calls for a change in our evangelism mindset. We are accustomed to promoting who we are and what we believe with little consideration for the people we hope to reach.
Therein lies the value of blogging. It forces us to see things through the eyes of others.
Here’s an example of how a church blogger might apply these principles:
A congregation might discover an interesting statistic about their neighborhood. Let’s say an old working class urban neighborhood, known to be populated by a certain ethnic group, learns that the latest census shows their neighborhood is now home to a growing number of immigrants from another part of the world.
The church should write about that. It is surprising and interesting. It could have potential to become intense —in a good or a bad way. The church should put itself in a position to influence that!
Most important for ministry, the news has the potential to be presented in a positive way, benefitting both the church and community, which may then lead to action by the congregation or by the neighborhood.
Upon this foundation, a church blog can be the catalyst for a congregation’s mission and growth.
What is going on in your neighborhood that you can influence by writing a post on your church blog?
2×2’s previous post addressed how the interests of a regional body can hinder mission. Here’s an historical example.
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (SEPA) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and its relationship with Redeemer, East Falls, provides many interesting illustrations of how the structure of the ELCA, intended for good, actually impedes creative ministry.
Its attempt to structure itself interdependently quickly becomes crippled by the reality that the regional body is dependent on congregations funding its budget, heavy with salary obligations and an expensive, outdated infrastructure. Meanwhile, congregations must meet their own budgets and support the regional and national bodies.
Years of hard work and “mutual discernment”
Bishop Burkat talks of years of working with our congregation under her leadership and that of her predecessor. She calls the process “mutual discernment.”
Sounds good. Only it didn’t happen quite that way.
There were more years of neglect than of working together.
There were so many hidden agendas that mutual discernment was impossible.
Attempts to ignore the wishes of the congregation were routine.
With interdependence comes the jockeying of self-interest. Congregations may be unaware that the synod has self-interests. They may assume that the synod has their interests at heart.
Meanwhile, the regional body expects the unquestioning deference of congregations.
Mutual Discernment at Work
Redeemer was always a small but self-sufficient congregation. SEPA did not support Redeemer financially as many people have been led to believe. It was the other way around.
When the ELCA was created in the late 1980s, Redeemer had a part-time pastor who also worked in the Synod offices. Redeemer was seen as not likely to ever support a full-time ministry. Any part-time pastor filled the bill in their eyes—a pulse was the primary qualification. They were marking time.
Then Redeemer received a $300,000 endowment. Suddenly, there was an interest in Redeemer. Pastor Wm deHeyman left the synod offices to work more fully with Redeemer. He served Redeemer 11 years. (Synod represents that Redeemer had just short-term pastors. Not true. His predecessor served 7 years.)
Wm deHeyman retired in 1996. His last years were difficult and factions had formed with some rallying around the pastor.
Redeemer looked forward to a new start.
Bishop Roy Almquist proposed that the congregation call one of his staff members, Rev. Robert Matthias, for an 18-month term call as an interim pastor.
Redeemer cooperated whole-heartedly.
This was a tumultuous time at Redeemer for other reasons. There was a series of personal tragedies that impacted congregational life. A tragic death of one family’s child. Another family was wracked with grief when its youngest child was paralyzed in an accidental shooting. A third child and family faced serious issues. The families of four council members were in crisis. During this time, a newer member volunteered to help with the financial books as the treasurer was one of the affected parents. It was soon discovered that the volunteer was embezzling money. The crime was noticed and rectified quickly—within months—but it added to the congregation’s sadness. This incident is sometimes used today to justify SEPA’s interest in Redeemer, but at the time they took no action that indicated they had concern that Redeemer could not rectify this on its own.
What was SEPA’s response in the face of unusual tragic circumstances in a small congregation?
They walked away and left the congregation with no pastor for nearly a year.
Three months into the 18-month term call agreement, Bishop Almquist returned to Redeemer and asked to break the call contract. He had an assignment for Pastor Matthias in Bucks County.
Redeemer cooperated even though it meant its investment in Pastor Matthias was wasted. Naturally, the congregation was hurt. Why was Bucks County more important than the promise SEPA had made with Redeemer?
During this year, Assistant to the Bishop Sue Ericsson was meeting with the council unbeknownst to the congregation. She encouraged the council (half of whom were in personal crisis) to convince the congregation to close. A plan was drafted. If the congregation did not go along, the congregation council would submit resignations providing grounds for SEPA to take over. Mutual discernment was being dictated behind the scenes.
The congregation’s annual meeting, usually held in February, was announced for January.
Three guests were introduced, Pastor Matthias, Gordon Simmons and Rodney Kopp.
Some reports were made. At the point when the budget should have been presented, the congregation council submitted the resolution to close (drafted by synod). This had not been discussed in the congregation who thought they were holding a routine annual meeting. They voted to table the resolution for further study—a reasonable response. A congregation should study an important issue before voting!
On cue, council members placed letters of resignation (drafted by synod) on the table. They were swooped up by Pastor Matthias who announced the meeting was over and the congregation was under synodical administration. While Pastors Simmons and Kopp spoke to angry congregation members who were feeling ambushed (Pastor Kopp used the term “blind-sided”), Pastor Matthias left with the letters of resignation and the church books.
Pastor Mathias was known at the local bank. He and a former Redeemer treasurer visited the bank the next day and conveyed $90,000 to SEPA. SEPA asked our tenants to send payments to them. Mutual discernmentincluded trickery.
But paying the bills was the extent of synodical administration. Redeemer kept its offerings and there was significant money in savings available to the congregation. Activities at the church continued to be run by the congregation.
The congregation felt betrayed by their council and SEPA. The members who resigned ended up leaving, some after long years at Redeemer. SEPA had used them at a time when they were vulnerable.
SEPA refused to share the letters of resignation. We learned three council members had not resigned. Two pastors helped the congregation appoint members to fill vacant seats as is allowed in the constitution. Redeemer’s council continued to meet and run the daily affairs of the church and plan its own worship and mission which included an ambitious summer program, totally lay led.
Redeemer protested the synodical administration for a year.
Several supply pastors led worship, including Rev. Harvey Davis. Our first Tanzanian members joined during this time. Bishop Almquist at last released the synodical administration. But he did not return the money for an additional year. At last, SEPA returned about $82,000, keeping some to cover their legal expenses. The fact that they were able to pay the congregation’s bills without depleting the $90,000 in two years, proves that the congregation was financially viable.
When the synodical administration was lifted, Bishop Almquist asked the congregation to call Rev. Jesse Brown. He was the only candidate presented. Bishop Almquist suggested a one-year term call.
Redeemer cooperated.
Things were fine with Pastor Brown, but at the end of the year he announced that he wanted to cut his hours to just ten per week, the minimum needed for him to retain his ordination credentials.
Redeemer did not wish to regularize a call with a pastor who wanted to provide minimal service. Redeemer agreed to extend the term call, but Bishop Almquist insisted it be regularized—or there would be no pastor for a very long time. Mutual discernment included threats.
Why was this a deal-breaker?
What’s the difference between a term call and a regularized call?
A regularized call can be ended by the pastor at any time with 30 days notice, but if the congregation wants to make a change, they must muster a two-thirds vote against a pastor. This can be very divisive, especially when a pastor is liked—as was Pastor Brown. Redeemer’s concern was his minimal level of commitment and what that meant to Redeemer’s ability to grow in mission. For Redeemer’s lay leaders, it was not enough that a pastor was “liked.” The congregation had to make progress. Redeemer’s leaders were looking wisely into their future. A regularized call would become problematic if Pastor Brown’s outside interests minimized the effect of his ten hours per week. Locking into a regularized call under these circumstances was not in the interest of the congregation, no matter how much the pastor was liked by individual members. In fact, it was likely to be a greater issue if the pastor was liked. The congregation’s leaders would be frustrated with lack of mission progress, while the more minimally committed members of the voting congregation were content. Redeemer was being forced to make a foolish decision that was predicated on the synod’s dismal vision for the congregation, which happened to have a healthy endowment, while they were operating with a deficit.
The congregation council rejected the synod’s proposal. Bishop Almquist asked for a second vote overseen by a staff person. That vote failed, too. Bishop Almquist deemed that the congregation should vote on the call — never explaining the wisdom of asking the congregation to vote for something the church council was against. That vote failed too.
If the vote hadn’t failed, it would have strained relationships between the council and the congregation. This was pointed out to Bishop Almquist, but he insisted on taking the issue to the congregation anyway. He was interested only in getting the vote that served his purpose—finding a call for Jesse Brown.
Bishop Almquist kept his promise. Synod ignored Redeemer for Bishop Almquist’s entire second term.
The congregation worked with Pastor Harvey Davis for three years until the pastor needed to retire. He was influential in attracting several young couples with diverse ethnic backgrounds and our Tanzanian membership continued to grow. Redeemer was becoming multicultural and was making significant innovations successfully. The ministry showed promise despite synodical neglect.
Let’s look a the motivations behind this history that is so often referenced as reason for Bishop Burkat’s actions a decade later.
Why was it important to SEPA that Redeemer’s call be regularized? Term calls are a constitutional option.
The synod’s interest in a regularized call solved some of its problems.
Pastor Brown could retain his status as an ordained pastor while he ran for public office and operated his own business on the side.
His minimal service would solve SEPA’s problem of staffing Redeemer.
Redeemer’s mission and interests were not really considered.
SEPA’s view of Redeemer was that its elderly population would die within 10 years. Minimal ministry would speed the process along. This thinking takes on signficant importance when the targeted congregation has assets and the regional body is operating with deficits. The regularized call gave SEPA more control over Redeemer and the fate it was tacitly seeking.
Declaring synodical administration gave them access to congregational assets.
After SEPA returned Redeemer’s assets, Bishop Almquist issued an appeal letter to all congregations for almost exactly the amount of money returned to Redeemer.
Redeemer had supplied SEPA with an interest-free loan.
Synodical administration had been used as a tool to benefit SEPA. Mission in East Falls was never the objective.
Lasting damage was done to Redeemer. Gossip created an unjustified cloud that hangs over East Falls to this day.
At all times in this conflict, Redeemer cooperated when it was reasonable to do so. It showed initiative, flexibility, and a willingness to accept change — all the things regional bodies look for when striving for transformation. But the congregation knew that Bishop Almquist’s insistence on a regularized call was not in the congregation’s interest.
Redeemer was consistently making choices that pointed them toward new and innovative ministry. SEPA was prescribing solutions that would benefit SEPA.
Sometimes people find 2×2 by asking a search engine what this means. It happens to be one of the many African proverbs we published on the subject of leadership.
It means don’t expect the dog to come. Don’t expect any good to result. Don’t expect progress. It means your efforts are bullyish and give the illusion of power but are ultimately purpose-defeating.
Many innovators seek to leapfrog over existing solutions, essentially hoping to win by playing the innovation game better. Disruptors win by playing the innovation game differently. [emphasis in original] Disruptions are all about trade-offs. Disruptions typically do offer lower performance along dimensions that historically mattered to mainstream customers. They aren’t bad along these dimensions; they are good enough. But they more than make up for that — in the eyes of their customers — by offering better performance along different dimensions.
This is very applicable to church life. Congregations are bombarded with demands to transform. We are competing to reach a standard that no one has measured. The drama sets congregation against congregation as they vie for attention from their regional body in access to professional services and standing. Transform becomes conform.
Concentrating on growing can be frustrating. It can discourage people who never joined church to work to reach other people’s goals. New members need time to settle and mature.
Sometimes churches are exactly the right size. They can afford their pastor. They can maintain their building. People know each other and are sensitive to one another and their community. They work well together and are confident enough in their sense of mission to welcome new people.
So why can’t we accept congregations the way they are? Is the push to grow important to the mission of the church or is it important to maintaining the three budgets each congregation is expected to support (their own, and those of the regional body and national entity)?
Churches will grow if they are growing for the right reasons. Their way of achieving their mission may not suit church professionals, but it may be good enough—at the moment. It may be great.
Redeemer was good enough. Redeemer was great at what it was doing in mission work — which no one else was doing quite the same way. We were not replicating a model foisted on us from above but we were innovating in ways from which others could learn and which we could afford and had the talent to support.
We don’t know what would have made the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America happy.
We had grown five-fold since Bishop Almquist’s interference in our ministry in the late 1990s. SEPA didn’t know that because SEPA ignored us for a decade. When faced with the facts, they simply refused to count the new members. “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer — we can put them anywhere.” (Bishop Burkat)
We had achieved diversity, a stated goal of SEPA.
Our members spanned the age ranges and was no longer top heavy with older Christians.
We had several pastors interested in working with us.
We had some money in reserve.
We had lay leaders with diverse talents that complemented those of professional leaders.
We had a ministry plan that had the potential to create ongoing revenue.
We were and are good enough. We might even be great.
But recognizing Redeemer’s unique ministry didn’t meet SEPA’s agenda. They needed us to fail so they could justify taking our property (which their Articles of Incorporation forbid, but who cares).
So they quickly, in a blink of an eye, acknowledged our success but followed it with criticism for not achieving it under their direction. (They were AWOL.)
Since they kicked us out of the ELCA, we’ve visited 52 congregations. We know our ministry is just as active and effective as those who sat in judgement over us. And it is unique. We don’t have a food pantry. We don’t sign up for every charity run. Our kids don’t go to Synod youth events. But we do support ministries in other countries. All our kids and families had an opportunity to attend church camp. We have developed a social media ministry which reaches 1500 people a month. We’ve made a project of connecting with other Lutheran congregations. We have fought to maintain congregational polity, which will someday benefit every other SEPA congregation. We continue to meet for worship and ministry weekly.
If we had tried to be like bigger churches we would not have been able to accomplish the things we did. We did our own thing with our own resources and remained true to our mission. If we had concentrated on emulating bigger congregations we would have failed. All of our resources would have been spent keeping up with the St. Joneses. We found areas of ministry in which we could excel and make a difference.
We were good enough, we like to think, to be welcome in God’s house.
We were not good enough, we know, to be welcome in the ELCA.
As you become accustomed to using Twitter, you will want to connect with your following in other ways.
This is where having a blog comes in. It is a place to assemble your Twitter congregation. On your blog you can elaborate on your Twitter message. Your Twitter efforts should interest people in knowing more. Send them to your blog.
Blogs are not difficult to set up, but they do require some discipline to maintain. Many churches build their web sites on blogging platforms but they do not use the features that make blogs so powerful — the ability to attract followers and interact with them.
We’ve written a lot about blogging on this web site. Type “blog” within the site search box on the right to find articles. Or go to the Social Media Category.
For now, here are some tips to refresh about blogging.
Write about things of interest to others beyond your immediate congregation. If you write about things in your community, you will attract community attention. If you write about yourself, you will interest only a few of your members. You will get discouraged and quit because you will conclude early on that it is a waste of time.
Give your efforts a year before measuring worth. It takes six months to start getting traffic and and meaningful growth takes more than a year. Can you think of a better way to attract 1000 followers in a year’s time?
Aim for 200 to 500 words.
Use images. They attract attention and are an additional way to communicate. Images are available online. They are often free with a link required. We uses photopin.com.
Again, we’ve written many posts on this topic. Dig around.
2×2 started as a blog. It is time to spread our little wings to other realms of social media!
2×2 has been blogging seriously for about 18 months. We started in February 2011. It took us a few months to get our bearings. Only one person visited our site that month! Our stats show that our readership didn’t break triple digits until July. From our many web visits to other church web sites we figure that’s about when most churches give up on social media. We kept at it! Patience!
Our best month of 2011 was November with 623 new readers that month.
By this time we were able to see growth patterns and we predicted that we would have 12,000 new readers visiting our blog in 2012. We should exceed that benchmark with ease.
Looking ahead to 2013, we can anticipate doubling 2×2’s reach. We are nearing 1500 new visitors a month and the growth has been steady. 110 people subscribe and have our posts go to their email every day. So that’s an additional 770 views each week! Our reach is truly worldwide.
2×2 achieved this without using any other social media platforms to enhance our SEO numbers. We followed just one strategy: Offer content that will be helpful to our mission audience — seekers and lay leaders.
We continue to be surprised by the many and strong relationships we are forming with other mission-oriented church workers, many of them not Lutheran. These are rewarding and growing. We started to introduce our readers to one another and now they are referring people to us. We look forward to many new things in 2013.
Which brings us back to our Advent project.
Research shows that Twitter is the least understood social media platform with the greatest potential to reach new audiences. Better than Facebook. There are others, too. But let’s tackle one at a time!
The biggest barrier to using Twitter is understanding its potential. That’s why we have chosen December as our month to experiment. We’ll take it step by step and report our progress.
We hope you will follow our experiment and perhaps join us and share your results. We’ll try to make it easy.
How about it!?
Sharing the Gospel—140 characters at a time!
Watch for our official invitation to join the experiment which should be posted Saturday afternoon — just in time for Advent 1.
Step 1: We just opened our account:
@2x2Foundation
This required us to have an email account. We opened a free account with Google.
Statistics show that Twitter is one of the most powerful tools of Social Media, out-ranking even Facebook for the purpose of drawing traffic. Yet there is a huge barrier keeping people from using it.
We just don’t think that way . . . (2×2 included).
But Advent might be a good time to start using Twitter. Advent includes a tradition of daily reminders anticipating the coming of the Messiah. There are tons of methods used, including special devotions, colorful calendars with a door to open for each day as we wait for Christmas, and numbered decorations to add to a tree.
If you are at all dedicated to fully using Social Media, consider an Advent Twitter campaign. But start now. Encourage your members to sign up for Twitter accounts and start collecting followers among their friends.
We are going to try this experiment, so we hope you join us. Take some time in the next couple of weeks to become familiar with Twitter, so that you are ready to go with your Advent Twitter campaign come December.
Remember: it is every church member’s responsibility to spread the Word. Twitter is one way to do this.
The power of Twitter is in retweeting — the people you send a message (or Tweet) should then broadcast it to their friends (retweet). If your Advent campaign is successful, you’ll attract more followers from the followers of your network.
It will be an interesting experiment to measure the mission power of your congregation might have as you encourage members to retweet.
Twitter is totally opt in, so you do not have to feel intrusive. Anyone can stop following at any time.
Here’s our contribution to help make this experiment easy. Here are messages, already measured to fit Twitter’s 144-character limitation. You can Tweet these manually once a day, or if you are already using Twitter, you may have discovered services that allow you to schedule tweets. (Google “schedule tweets”)
Our list of tweets.
Feel free to use our tweets, add to them or reorganize them. Try to include local references from time to time. There are more than enough and more can be added. Most are short enough that you can create a “short link” to your church web site. (bitly.com or tinyurl.com)
NOTE: In some cases, the Bible verses were shortened to fit Twitter’s 144-character platform.
ADVENT WREATH: symbol of victory, an unending circle symbolizes God. 4 candles for 4 weeks.
ADVENT CANDLE 1: HOPE—God will keep his promises.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.—John 1:1
Gabriel tells Zechariah that he and Elizabeth will have a baby boy named John. They were old and had lost hope.
Gabriel visits Mary and tells her she will have a baby boy. Mary had not yet married!
CANDLE 2: PREPARATION—Are you ready for the big day? God gives you time to get ready!
And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.—Mark 1:4
Advent means coming. God’s Son is coming? Are you ready? How will you get ready?
God loves us and is sending us his Son. How can you show your love?
All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful toward those who keep the demands of his covenant.—Psalm 25:10
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.—John 14:6
CANDLE 3: JOY—But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.
Elizabeth says to Mary: Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!
Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices… for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name.—Luke 1:46-49
He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.—Ephesians 2:17
CANDLE 4: LOVE—God is sending Jesus to earth because He loves us.
Imagine this: The wolf will live with the lamb . . . and a little child will lead them. (and there’s more read Isaiah 11:6-9)
Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife—Matthew 1:20b
To Joseph: Name the baby Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, which means the Lord saves.
He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.—Ephesians 2:17
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.—John 14:6
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s only Son.—John 1:14
To you, O Lord, I lift my soul. Show me your paths and teach me to follow; guide me by your truth and instruct me.—Psalm 25
Herod sent the Magi to Bethlehem and said, “Report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”—Matthew 2:8
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman.—Galatians 4:4
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.—Romans 6:23
Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth. Worship the Lord with gladness; come before him with joyful songs.—Psalm 100:1,2
(A favorite summary of Advent from St. Augustine): You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in You.
I attended a convocation of churches this weekend. About 20 churches met to celebrate the Reformation, conduct some business and listen to some teachings offered by their bishop.
Today, as I waited for Hurricane Sandy, I went through the delegate list and visited every church website — at least those that had websites.
The websites were without exception static “brochure” web sites. A couple were very nicely designed, with full presentations of their ministry. Several others were minimal sites provided by directory services. A few had Facebook websites but they had done nothing with them except list service times. I was the ninth visitor to one of them, which indicates how effective they are.
Only one provided content that might attract traffic from outside their existing community and that was minimal.
As the Web matures we are starting to identify its evolutionary stages.
Web 1 describes the early days of the web from the early 90s, when organizations struggled with clumsy html code to produce static pages with no interactivity. Using the web well meant hiring some help. Help with technology is not on the approved list of church expenses. Organists and sextons are expenses church people understand. Web masters? Not in the budget. Pity! Web masters have real potential to influence the growth of a church! This has become easier.
News flash: You no longer have to know code to create attractive sites. Anyone can do it.
The move to interactivity began about 2004 and has been mushrooming. This is Web 2. Unfortunately many churches are locked in the frustrations they encountered in the infant days of Web 1. If fear of code and technical ability is stopping your church from using the web, relax. The web has become almost as easy to use for originators of content as it is for consumers of content. It is becoming more powerful every day — and that’s no exaggeration.
We can now become involved with the people who visit our sites. Isn’t Involvement why churches exist?
Web 1 influenced the world. Web 2 changed the world.
Most churches are barely embracing Web 1. This failure is creating a widening gap between them and their communities. Catch up is going to be a tougher and tougher hurdle. Still, there is a hesitance to believe that the web can be of value to church mission.
This is foolish.
The web can connect your congregation’s members.
The web can connect your congregation to your community.
The web can connect you to other churches with similar or complementary missions.
The web can connect you to the world.
It has never been easier to go out into all the world, yet the Church is late to the airport!
Congregations were never meant to live in isolation, yet we often do — barely aware of what the congregation a few blocks away might be doing. We view other churches as competition, not potential partners.
We are defying our mission.
Rabbi Herring discusses this in the essay we referenced in two previous posts (1 and 2). He suggests that organizations, including religious organizations are poised to enter a third era of Web capabilities— Web 3.
Having lived in the interactive era of Web 2.0 for not quite a decade, we have an understanding about the nature of online community, the need for a vital organizational web presence and the requirement of interactive and dynamic communication with constituents. While still in its early evolutionary stages,
I’d like to suggest that we are already in transition to a Web 3.0 environment. Web 2.0 meant that Jewish organizations needed to replicate their bricks and mortar presence online. Bricks and mortar and bytes and click ran parallel to one another.
Web 3.0 means that defining principles of online social media, like collaboration, co-creation, improvisation and empowerment must now be practiced in the physical world. In other words, the characteristics of the web that enable individuals to self-direct their lives must now flow back into all organizational spaces: in someone’s home, on the web or inside institutional walls. This is definitely another paradigm shift for organizations.
Rabbi Herring’s observations are astute. Those few congregations that have embraced the power of the media are about to take their interactive and collaborative experiences and transform what goes on within their brick and mortar churches. It will be the elusive formula for transformation.
We at 2×2 are starting to dip our toes into this water, cooperating with some of the churches that correspond with us. It’s exciting, It’s a little scary. But it is invigorating and promising.
Those that haven’t bothered to understand Web 1 and are oblivious to Web 2 will not reap the benefits of Web 3.
Someone said recently . . .
Bragging today about avoiding the internet is like bragging you can’t read!
Join Bishop Ruby Kinisa as she visits small churches "under cover" to learn what people would never share if they knew they were talking to their bishop.
Undercover Bishop will always be available in PDF form on 2x2virtualchurch.com for FREE.
Print or Kindle copies are available on Amazon.com.
For bulk copies, please contact 2x2: creation@dca.net.
Contact Info
You can reach
Judy Gotwald,
the moderator of 2x2,
at
creation@dca.net
or 215 605 8774
Redeemer’s Prayer
We were all once strangers, the weakest, the outcasts, until someone came to our defense, included us, empowered us, reconciled us (1 Cor. 2; Eph. 2).
2×2 Sections
Where in the World is 2×2?
On Isaiah 30:15b
Be calm. Wait. Wait. Commit your cause to God. He will make it succeed. Look for Him a little at a time. Wait. Wait. But since this waiting seems long to the flesh and appears like death, the flesh always wavers. But keep faith. Patience will overcome wickedness.
—Martin Luther
How Can A Blog Be Actionable?
