Boyink! - Spring Forward on the Web

http://www.hesed.com/churchwebsites.pdf

From Frank Johnson via the Churchsite-Chat Yahoo group.  I’ve read Frank’s “immigrants vs. natives” explaination before, and it’s a nice way to illustrate how younger folks view the web.  I’m still struggling with some of Frank’s points (I’m not ready to recommend church web sites *not* post their location, service times, etc as I firmly believe there’s an audience for that information too), but did come away convinced of the need for more personal stories -  posted with faces - for Ridge Point’s new site. 

Comments are closed, but you can read the comments other people left.

1. Frank Johnson on July 29, 2003

   Mike: saw your reply on Churchsite-Chat.  Wanted to take a look at your church site again (I’d visited it before, but couldn’t remember the url), so I cam here to your business site hoping to find the link.  Lo and behold, here’s a mention of my white paper!

   Just a note to say that I didn’t intend to say that church websites should *not* contain location, service times, etc. - only that they shouldn’t be the most prominent thing on the site.  I’ll have to revisit that section and do a little rewriting to make it more clear.

   Thanks!
   Frank

2. Dave J. on July 30, 2003

   The problem with Frank’s paper is that it creates more issues and problems than solves them.  But that is what makes it good.  Will need to study the referenced sample site to see how this thinking actually works.

   Root summary: you need to better pitch your product in terms your customers understand.  (Hears voices…“but churches don’t do marketing.”)

3. Frank Johnson on July 30, 2003

   Yes, you’re right Dave - I didn’t attempt to solve any problems.  The purpose of the paper was to raise questions more than anything else - to be controversial and at least somewhat shocking.  I’m of the opinion that we need to be shocked out of our comfort zone when it comes to these issues.  My approach certainly isn’t right in all situations and that’s why I didn’t offer solutions for every situation.  But I do think the questions need to be raised.

   Thanks again for your feedback - I appreciate it.

4. Michael Boyink (Author) on July 30, 2003

   Uh, some churches “do marketing”...;)  Before I wrote the spec for a visual design for Ridge Point, I kinda sorta forced the board to define our target audience, and our “brand attributes”.  I think that discussion has helped in other areas, and will help more as we move forward.

   The mission I’ve had for RP for a while now is to “attract and connect” - thinking that a well designed site would attract people to RP, then other site features like the group blogs and bbs would help connect them once they felt comfy.

   I think I have that exactly backwards.  After reading Franks paper, and some of the PostModern articles he posted to the ChurchsiteChat list, I’m now wondering if the blogs and BBS and email will help the postmodern crowd connect to RP on a digital level, then attract them to come in person.

5. Dave J. on July 31, 2003

   I make my crack about marketing because it would be impossible to nail down who or what is in charge of marketing our church.  Doing a website has to be a step toward defining that (like you did Mike).

   Frank, you’ve expanded the possibilities for a church website’s possible purposes.  I’m really excited!

6. Frank Johnson on July 31, 2003

   Mike - I think you’ve hit on something there. 

   I’m sort of on the bubble with the immigrant/native or modern/postmodern analogies.  I’m 43 years old, so if we go by age alone (a mistake, I think), I fall in the immigrant/modern camp.  But a lot of my familiarity with web stuff probably puts me in the native/postmodern camp.  But when it comes to web use, I’m much more of an information gatherer (immigrant) than a socializer (native).

   So coming to the realization you are struggling with (that community features of a website can help attract postmoderns to our websites and ultimately to the community of believers) is something I’m being dragged to kicking and screaming.  <grin>

   The other challenge this creates (at least for me) is convincing church leadership (firmly in the modern camp) that it’s a good thing to make avenues for conversation between believers and unbelievers available on a public church website.  They are generally too scared of what might happen.

   I’d be really interested in hearing some feedback from you (once the new site is up and running for awhile) on how much of a problem you encounter with this type of thing (my guess is it’s going to be very minimal).

   Frank

7. Frank Johnson on July 31, 2003

   The other thing which occurs to me is whether it might be helpful in the scenario I am advocating (profiles and interviews of people in the church) to also give those people a blog right alongside their profiles/interviews.  Also forums that relate to their life experiences and interests. 

   I’m working on a web-based city reaching project right now that will (if I can ever get it off the ground!) incorporate the interview/profile idea.  I was going to also include some form of web-based instant messaging.  Forums and blogs would be a good idea too.  I’m going to have to think about that.

   Frank

8. Michael Boyink (Author) on July 31, 2003

   One factor I have on my side is a Senior pastor who is quite openly setting out to make Ridge Point appealing to postmoderns.  While there may be fear or reluctance from other members, board members, etc (most of whom grew up in the Christian Reformed Church), they’re the ones that hired this guy so they haven’t a leg to stand on..<G>.

   There’s been some concerns already about what “people might say”.  My answer has been all along - if at some point, this site isn’t controversial within the existing membership of Ridge Point, then I will have failed.  Because if it doesn’t create a controversy it will mean that it hasn’t been used in the fashion I’ve intended for it - to let people connect, all week long, from where ever, and have a place where we’re comfortable in being ourselves, in all our sinful honesty, with church “personas” stripped off and tossed aside.

Back to Article