A long time ago, Danya asked me to expatiate on what Trevor and I say about using technology for building community and congregations. I don’t want to blow the gaff on our whole presentation, but it will be helpful to sketch some of our spiel in order learn more from visitors here (which we then can pass along to the folks to whom we present stuff). Besides, it’s only fair to blog some of this out when we learned so much from other bloggers.
So, point one of the presentation as I envision it (Trevor and I operate in very different, complementary ways) is, simply, “A way to connect with people.” A “way,” not a place, because I’m fussy about that. I won’t highlight that fuss in a presentation, but I observe it anyway. It’s a way to connect, as distinct from “getting a message to”; that is, a well-made congregational web presence provides a means for visitors to communicate back to the congregation. It’s not just a TV-radio-newspaper advertisement, classic one-way media. It’s opening up a conversation.
It’s a way to connect with a lot of people, and here I’ll brandish whatever statistical leverage I lay hands on at a given moment. Moreover, these multitudes are part of constituency that churches are typically very weak at connecting with.
It’s a way to connect with people who are already interested in something about your congregation. They’re not at your web site because you interposed a commercial between two segments of their favorite Seinfeld episode, or because you bought a couple of column inches next to a news report about the new organ at Such-and-Such Church. They deliberately sought out your web site. That makes a huge difference, and a fabulous opportunity to communicate with them.
It’s a way to underline what might be interesting (or unattractive) about your congregation. If you’re representing a high-church, Anglo-Catholic congregation online, your site should make that evident, in order better to connect with potential Anglo-Catholics, and to avoid frustrating ardently Protestant worshippers.
It’s a way to communicate what a congregation is all about to a public that often doesn’t sense the opportunity for or interest in finding that out. But that would modulate to Point Two, and I’ll save that for tomorrow (or whenever).
Posted by AKMA at July 14, 2003 01:09 PM | TrackBackAKMA, is this why you don't like Ricoeur? Because he sees texts as opening up a world and a world is a place not a way?
Posted by: Trevor Bechtel at July 14, 2003 02:21 PMI'm new to this particular blogging community--the Chicago-based Episcopalian seminary geeks, that is--and I'm amused to place myself in the context of these conversations. Right below Trevor's lofty intellectual musing, for example, I'm gonna thunk down something a little more prosaic.
So I like the reasons AKMA's put forth for a worship community having an interactive online presence, and yet I wonder how that'd work in real life. That is, how much dissent would be tolerated by the institution itself? Would it foster a more democratic process, or create drama? Probably depends on the institution. I think of potential things one might find on a congregational blog--critiques of the way services have been running? People who are not on the hiring committee putting forth their opinions on clergy selection? Or even--gasp--debates outside the communal boundary? I think of one member of my (Jewish, halakhic) synagogue who was arguing against circumcision on the synagogue listserv--only to be promptly shut down by other members. It was barely tolerated as email, and I daresay the synagogue people would *not* be pleased to find such views on their website. Would the online response of other members be sufficient to communicate to the casual visitor a message of "who we are"? Would "identity" be communicated, or just lack of tolerance for different views? Would an online tiff between two members be misread as inter-congregational strife? Would people be forced to think through things in a more nuanced way? Now, that'd be lovely, wouldn't it?
The problem, of course, is that, at least at present, most congregational websites are best-foot-forward marketing materials. Which is OK. And blogging is something different. Which is also OK, and perhaps the integration of the latter could change the former in potentially very useful ways.
Maybe the question is, "What's the goal of a congregational website?" I'm not sure I know the answer.
*shrug*
Posted by: Danya at July 14, 2003 11:06 PMBut Danya, part of the point is that a conversational congregational website reveals that (for instance) “this is a congregation where we tolerate no dissent on questions of circumcision,” or “this is a congregation where we argue bitterly about everything,” or “this is a congregation where we review the recent services in public.” All these things would be going on anyway, n’est-ce pas? Having them take place online helpfully displays just what sort of congregations we take part in.
So part of my response to the “what’s the goal?” question would be, “letting the world see (and perhaps participate in) what the congregation cares most about.” Part of it, anyway.
Oh, and maybe TRevor’s right. I do mistrust Ricoeur, especially the early Ricoeur, and his dicursive reliance on “world” metaphors may be part of the etiology of that differend.
Posted by: AKMA at July 15, 2003 06:10 AMIt is interesting that these are the same kind of questions that come up for individual bloggers. Just how much do you want to reveal? How transparent are you willing to be? But if you don't open up to this you may miss opportunities to connect with a larger community. It's a question of whether you want to be open or closed as a community.
I've seen any number of blog comments about what people have seen in their referrer logs. Google and other search engine hits can be quite edifying as they usually show you what the search was that turned up your site. This connects to what AKMA said about people seeking you out, rather than having an ad pushed on them by a broadcast medium. What you and your congregation say to each other become fodder for search engines that can draw people in. Not that you would necessarily think about this when writing for the site.
A little bit more off-topic, but tangentially related; until I started blogging, the only thing on my site was my resume so I could just send a link rather that always attach the file. I was surprised the first time, but several head-hunters have called or emailed about job opportunities based on a google search that turned up my resume. Is this better than searching Dice and sending emails? I think so; they came looking for me.
Posted by: Gerry at July 15, 2003 09:08 PMI agree with you, AKMA, that ideally congregational websites WOULD be just a way to make manifest that which is already happening in a community. AND, the realpolitik of congregations as I've seen it seems to include a whole lot of big smiling and trying to hold up the right-shaped product in order to lure the big donors. Spiritually speaking, I agree with you completely. My question is more about whether or not a congregation would be willing to... well, you know, reveal the truth on their official propaganda. (And OK, I'm thinking of larger outfits, here--the smaller, down to earthy places I'd prefer would probably be much happier letting it all hang out.)
Maybe the Jewish world really is different (but I doubt it); I just can't see a lot of rabbis I know being willing to give up control of what gets said on their site, both for the sake of ego and for the (more realistic?? not sure) sake of potential funding dollars. I'm not saying that it's a good or a healthy attitude--it is, in fact, probably neither of these things--it's just the one I've observed.