Must Haves on a Church's Website?

[tango]

But can't we agree that unless there are only three churches in town, for example, it can be a very arduous task to personally observe every available congregation in action??? A good website helps both the congregation and the inquirer/new resident/new Christian...even if it cannot answer every last question.

I wasn't talking about looking at web sites, I was responding to Lamb's comment about watching live-streamed services.

Yes, if there are 100 churches within a five mile radius it would take two years to visit each church for one single Sunday each. But the chances are someone looking for a church can figure out what sort of church they are likely to be seeking and narrow down the selection, and go from there. You've listed your denomination as Anglican so I'd imagine if you moved to a new area you'd be looking primarily for an Anglican church, and probably wouldn't pay much attention to Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal etc churches unless you couldn't find a suitable Anglican church. That would immediately narrow the list significantly before you even looked at the web sites, and then the web sites would give you an idea of what the individual churches were about so you could figure which was most likely to be a good match based on your specific preferences.

A new Christian might not have any idea of what denomination best matches where they are, but then a new Christian is also unlikely to have much experience of churches and theology in general to differentiate the churches that preach the word from the churches that preach something to tickle ears and draw crowds.

It would take an arduously long time to watch services from each church too, especially if you wanted to see enough of the church to form a useful opinion. Although it's easier to switch something off part way through if it clearly isn't what you're looking for, I'd expect the web site to give a reasonable idea of what the church would be like. If one service really doesn't appeal to you that doesn't necessarily mean that the church isn't a good match, merely that however much of the service you watched before turning it off didn't work.

Just as a simple example, my church alternates between traditional hymns and more contemporary songs but it's not always as simple as alternating weeks because sometimes there aren't enough band members to make things work. If you had a strong preference for one or the other and watched a single service online you'd potentially love or hate what you saw, depending on which week it was. If you loved it you might come the next week and find the opposite of what you expected. My last church mixed traditional and contemporary songs within the same service, with a band every week. Both churches could reasonably describe services as containing a mixture of traditional and contemporary music, although some might expect "traditional music" to be accompanied by a piano or traditional pipe organ rather than a combination of piano, guitars, drums, violins etc.

It would be a shame to invest time in watching a dozen church services online only to attend the church and get a frosty reception and only then find out that some aspect of the church you had considered particularly desirable wasn't happening any more and nobody had got around to updating that part of the web site.

 

[Lamb]

I wasn't talking about looking at web sites, I was responding to Lamb's comment about watching live-streamed services.

Yes, if there are 100 churches within a five mile radius it would take two years to visit each church for one single Sunday each. But the chances are someone looking for a church can figure out what sort of church they are likely to be seeking and narrow down the selection, and go from there. You've listed your denomination as Anglican so I'd imagine if you moved to a new area you'd be looking primarily for an Anglican church, and probably wouldn't pay much attention to Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal etc churches unless you couldn't find a suitable Anglican church. That would immediately narrow the list significantly before you even looked at the web sites, and then the web sites would give you an idea of what the individual churches were about so you could figure which was most likely to be a good match based on your specific preferences.

A new Christian might not have any idea of what denomination best matches where they are, but then a new Christian is also unlikely to have much experience of churches and theology in general to differentiate the churches that preach the word from the churches that preach something to tickle ears and draw crowds.

It would take an arduously long time to watch services from each church too, especially if you wanted to see enough of the church to form a useful opinion. Although it's easier to switch something off part way through if it clearly isn't what you're looking for, I'd expect the web site to give a reasonable idea of what the church would be like. If one service really doesn't appeal to you that doesn't necessarily mean that the church isn't a good match, merely that however much of the service you watched before turning it off didn't work.

Just as a simple example, my church alternates between traditional hymns and more contemporary songs but it's not always as simple as alternating weeks because sometimes there aren't enough band members to make things work. If you had a strong preference for one or the other and watched a single service online you'd potentially love or hate what you saw, depending on which week it was. If you loved it you might come the next week and find the opposite of what you expected. My last church mixed traditional and contemporary songs within the same service, with a band every week. Both churches could reasonably describe services as containing a mixture of traditional and contemporary music, although some might expect "traditional music" to be accompanied by a piano or traditional pipe organ rather than a combination of piano, guitars, drums, violins etc.

It would be a shame to invest time in watching a dozen church services online only to attend the church and get a frosty reception and only then find out that some aspect of the church you had considered particularly desirable wasn't happening any more and nobody had got around to updating that part of the web site.

Watching a live stream would let me know if they had someone at the pulpit dressed up as a clown (It's been done at some churches), which is one I wouldn't have to visit on any given Sunday.

 

[Albion]

If your church live streams your service or even just posts them online, easy access to those services allows for the modern person looking for a church to do a little pre-scoping to see if the church is right for them.

Or the "modern person" (whatever that means) could just go to the church and find out what it's actually like, rather than treating it as just another consumer product.

That's not always feasible if you're moving to a new area and want to check out churches ahead of time. It's something I would do if I had to move again.

You can check out churches ahead of time but you can only gain so much insight from watching things on a screen. You can only gain so much from even attending a church a couple of times.

But can't we agree that unless there are only three churches in town, for example, it can be a very arduous task to personally observe every available congregation in action??? A good website helps both the congregation and the inquirer/new resident/new Christian...even if it cannot answer every last question.

tango said:
I wasn't talking about looking at web sites, I was responding to Lamb's comment about watching live-streamed services.

I dunno. It looks like I was on-topic, but I apologize if I misunderstood.

 

[tango]

I dunno. It looks like I was on-topic, but I apologize if I misunderstood.

I think we partly agree on this one. The first and last posts you quoted shifted from live streaming to checking out web sites.

I don't dispute that having a web site lets you check out the basics of a church to see if it will probably be worth visiting. If you're into traditional liturgical worship you probably won't bother visiting a church that sings contemporary music, and if you're a full-blown Pentecostal you probably won't bother visiting a very traditional church. When I was last looking for a church I ruled one local church out based on their statement of faith, which read to me like an exercise in mangling Scripture to pull out a point that just isn't there. The point itself was of secondary importance but my concern was that if they mangled Scripture on a publicly quoted statement of faith I didn't know how badly they would mangle it behind the scenes.

My issue was with the idea of watching live streams of a service, which seems like it might be useful in some situations but can also become a barrier to actually attending church and committing to church, and still doesn't give much of an indication of what the people are like on the ground. A church will probably say something like "you're assured of a warm welcome at First Podunkville Church" but whether you actually get a warm welcome when you walk in the door isn't something you can tell until you actually walk in the door.

 

[tango]

Watching a live stream would let me know if they had someone at the pulpit dressed up as a clown (It's been done at some churches), which is one I wouldn't have to visit on any given Sunday.

If you did see a clown in the pulpit would you write off the church completely, or look to figure out why they might have done it?

Of course if you watched a dozen live streams and didn't see any clowns that wouldn't assure you that the church would never put a clown in the pulpit, right?

 

[Lamb]

If you did see a clown in the pulpit would you write off the church completely, or look to figure out why they might have done it?

Of course if you watched a dozen live streams and didn't see any clowns that wouldn't assure you that the church would never put a clown in the pulpit, right?

I'd write it off!! There are a lot of things I'd probably write off because I wouldn't want to waste my time.

 

[tango]

I'd write it off!! There are a lot of things I'd probably write off because I wouldn't want to waste my time.

So if you'd watched a few live streams of services and thought everything was good, then went to the church for real and found a clown, you wouldn't be interested in knowing why they were using a clown?

If the church hosted a service aimed at the children once every three months and that service featured a preaching clown, would that be enough to write off the church completely?

 

[Albion]

So if you'd watched a few live streams of services and thought everything was good, then went to the church for real and found a clown, you wouldn't be interested in knowing why they were using a clown?

Correct.

If the church hosted a service aimed at the children once every three months and that service featured a preaching clown, would that be enough to write off the church completely?

Yes.

 

[tango]

Correct.

Yes.

Why would you have such a strong opposition to a clown?

 

[Albion]

Why would you have such a strong opposition to a clown?

Because 1) a church's worship service should be dignified if not somber or stuffy, and that's because of the nature of the gathering. Then also, 2) there is no real need for the clown-in-pulpit idea because many churches already have a "children's sermon" that is conducted in a more appropriate way.

 

[tango]

Because 1) a church's worship service should be dignified if not somber or stuffy, and that's because of the nature of the gathering. Then also, 2) there is no real need for the clown-in-pulpit idea because many churches already have a "children's sermon" that is conducted in a more appropriate way.

I can see the argument for dignified, but are you saying that somber or stuffy is a desirable attribute of a church service?

If the church doesn't have a specific "children's sermon" but every once in a while they have a service that focuses more on the children than the adults, would that change anything for you?

 

[Albion]

I can see the argument for dignified, but are you saying that somber or stuffy is a desirable attribute of a church service?

No, I meant that the service--particularly one that might have, as was suggested, a clown in the pulpit--should be dignified, etc., but that doesn't mean somber or stuffy.

If the church doesn't have a specific "children's sermon" but every once in a while they have a service that focuses more on the children than the adults, would that change anything for you?

Well, the typical children's sermon usually features the minister sitting on the steps in front of the altar or somewhere else that's comparable, while the children who have been invited to come forward sit in a semi-circle near him or something like that.

This works well, from what I've seen. Therefore, the idea of someone in clown attire and makeup delivering his remarks from the pulpit is completely unnecessary.

But it might also be mentioned that this is my personal view, and it was our personal reactions that were solicited.

 

[tango]

No, I meant that the service--particularly one that might have, as was suggested, a clown in the pulpit--should be dignified, etc., but that doesn't mean somber or stuffy.

OK, that sounds better. I wasn't sure if that was what you were trying to say or if I'd missed your point.

Well, the typical children's sermon usually features the minister sitting on the steps in front of the altar or somewhere else that's comparable, while the children who have been invited to come forward sit in a semi-circle near him or something like that.

This works well, from what I've seen. Therefore, the idea of someone in clown attire and makeup delivering his remarks from the pulpit is completely unnecessary.

We usually do a children's lesson much like that at our church, although my previous church did a periodic "all age service" where the kids didn't go out to their groups and the service was aimed at them. I didn't care for the format myself, and from what I could gather even the older kids didn't like them because they were aimed at the younger kids.

I wouldn't say a clown is necessary, but I wouldn't consider it a reason to write off the church as long as it wasn't a regular fixture. If it was a regular fixture I'd wonder whether there were better ways to provide for the kids without detracting from the needs of the adults.

But it might also be mentioned that this is my personal view, and it was our personal reactions that were solicited.

Sure, nothing wrong with personal reactions. I was trying to figure out what it was about a clown that you disliked so much.

 

[Lamb]

So if you'd watched a few live streams of services and thought everything was good, then went to the church for real and found a clown, you wouldn't be interested in knowing why they were using a clown?

If the church hosted a service aimed at the children once every three months and that service featured a preaching clown, would that be enough to write off the church completely?

There is no need for a clown.

 

[tango]

There is no need for a clown.

There's no need for a clown, but is it enough to write off a church? There's no need for musical instruments because people can sing without instruments easily enough.

I'm curious to understand where different people draw the line between not needed and not acceptable.

 

[Lamb]

There's no need for a clown, but is it enough to write off a church? There's no need for musical instruments because people can sing without instruments easily enough.

I'm curious to understand where different people draw the line between not needed and not acceptable.

It's absolutely enough to write off a church. I prefer one that has reverence for the Lord our God.

 

[Albion]

There's no need for a clown, but is it enough to write off a church?

Probably. After all, it's not as though there aren't any others out there.

More importantly, the church that thinks this kind of thing is good to do almost certainly thinks that other gimmicks of this sort are appropriate as well.

But then too, it matters what denomination we're talking about. If it were a Catholic or Lutheran church, I don't think this sort of attention-getter would be appropriate, but a Pentecostal or Unitarian congregation might think otherwise for the reason that they have a different perspective on the role of the Sunday service.

 

[tango]

It's absolutely enough to write off a church. I prefer one that has reverence for the Lord our God.

Is it irreverent to present a message to children in a way that is engaging for them?

 

[tango]

Probably. After all, it's not as though there aren't any others out there.

Sure, there are probably more churches that wouldn't use a clown. I'm curious to see why people think the way they do about something like this.

More importantly, the church that thinks this kind of thing is good to do almost certainly thinks that other gimmicks of this sort are appropriate as well.

Is it a gimmick if it's intended to engage with children?

But then too, it matters what denomination we're talking about. If it were a Catholic or Lutheran church, I don't think this sort of attention-getter would be appropriate, but a Pentecostal or Unitarian congregation might think otherwise for the reason that they have a different perspective on the role of the Sunday service.

I'd be surprised to see a clown gracing the pulpit at a denomination known for more traditional services. That said my experience of attending an Anglican church as a child (not by choice, I was too young to be left home alone) was that there was absolutely nothing in it at all that I could engage with. Much of the time I didn't know what all the things we were expected to recite even meant, the sermon typically meant nothing to me and the readings were often taken from the King James Version, which didn't mean much to me. I wouldn't claim that clowns are necessary to engage kids but certainly the church I was at all those years ago could have done with something more to interact with kids.

 

[Lamb]

Is it irreverent to present a message to children in a way that is engaging for them?

In a worship service, you don't need tricks in order to preach to children. Just tell them about Jesus.

My pastor chanted the consecration of the elements this past Sunday, and all noise stopped. The children who were antsy even understood that this was a reverent time, and they were silent and watched. You don't need antics.