I don’t have answer to my question, nor do I know yet how to find such an answer.

Recently, CEO Blog Watch reported :

Clearswift, a content security company, conducted a survey of 939 corporate decision-makers on matters related to corporate blogging, social media and other aspects of the so-called Web 2.0.

Their results were rather interesting.  Some highlights:

• More than one third (34 percent) of organizations don’t monitor employees’ use of the Internet
• More than half (51 percent) of businesses don’t know whether they’ve lost confidential information via social media outlets
• 20 percent of IT and business decision-makers don’t have a policy governing appropriate use of the Internet, including social media sites
• 20 percent of organizations do not allow blogging at work while 45 percent don’t have a policy on it
• 39 percent of IT and business decision makers consider social media to be relevant to today’s corporate environment, while 36 percent do not see social media as relevant to their businesses
• 13 percent of organizations are not aware of social media and have no policy on it

What I’m wondering is, is there a comparable naiveté among pastors.  Do they or do they not realize the a few parishioners blogging have a great deal of power to give others a lasting impression about their church?  Do they ever preach about the use of the Web?  It would seem to me that any preacher trying to apply any of the Bible’s directives about speech should never fail to mention the internet.

One great post I recently found was Alden Ellis’ Ten Things to Remember When Blogging .  These are great point, but they are directed at church staff.  It seems to me that all Christians wherever they work could use these reminders.  “Church 2.0” applications are a great idea, but we need to be honest that new ways of communicating also allow for new ways to sin in communication, or at least more effective ways.
One of the advantages of Connect our People’s community-building system is that it allows a great deal more privacy and accountability than most free blogs.  But leaders must still remind people of boundaries (for example, no quoting people from a Connect Our People account on your public blog.

This all may seem obvious, but I suspect that many are forgetting what can go wrong  in open communication like that fostered in Web 2.0.

Comment

Yesterday , I talked about this study as it was reported on by Zdnet. It seems to indicate that the numbers of those using full “web 2.0” services was rather small--though it excluded teens from its study and seems to only involve a snapshot of the present usage rather than a projection of the future.

Today, I want to point out that people easily get “web 2.0” backwards and thus make misjudgments about “church 2.0” applications. What is backwards is thinking that the reason for considering web 2.0 applications is whether or not they are popular rather than if they are useful. I love pointing out the popularity of web 2.0 solutions in the business world and in church life as well for personal use because I consider it a partial index of how useful people have found these services to be.

Of course, in some cases, Christians advocate advocate web 2.0 mostly for the sake of outreach, not so much as a useful tool for worship but as a “place” where people are. I guess this report might detract from this narrow argument (but, again, the study doesn’t cover the future--it also makes sense to be where the people are going to be).

But beyond that narrow reason there are many others, that all depend on the usefulness of web 2.0 applications. If they are useful, and people are shown that they are useful, then they will used them.

Thus, learning about the types shows us what some people now think are useful in being connected. The important things to remember are that 1) people can and do adopt new technologies when they are show that they are useful, and 2) Connect Our People’s community-building system is not dependent on previous internet use but can be easily taught to first-time users. I’ve suggested before that youth might be easier to get aboard than others, but that doesn’t mean it would be difficult to implement for anyone else. Far from it. Pastors and ministry leaders are in a position to show how these specific Web 2.) tools can help promote community.

Finally, while the report claims that only eight percent are now using every conceivable web 2.0 device, it also reports that fully eighty-three percent of those interviewed are ready to use Connect Our People’s system. That’s everyone except those the study labeled “indifferent” and “off the network.” Even the “mobile centric” folks usually have an internet connection, and that is all it takes.

Comment

I haven't seen a lot of Christian blogger buzz about it, despite widespread interest on the net for web 2.0 and church 2.0 products and practices.  Zdnet headlined their report, "Wired but not Web 2.0? That's normal, study says"--a pretty negative appraisal, it seems to me.  The report is about a study released by The Pew Internet & American Life Project.  According to Zdnet, the study claims only "8 percent of U.S. adults are "deep users" of Web 2.0 features."

The study presents a taxonomy of "ten tech personalities" including "omnivore," "lackluster veteran," and "productivity enhancer.” This taxonomy is used by one pastor to encourage others to think about what sort of congregation they have --an excellent way to use the information.

But  what about the report's negativity?

Well, in the first place, I'm mystified why the report did not include teenagers. If I were to guess, I would guess that probably there are legal issues with gathering data from minors through phone interviews.  But, as I blogged a few days ago (thanks to Cynthia Ware's post) youth are extremely involved in Web 2.0 services.

And that brings me to another point.  Does the study say anything about the rates in which these tech habits are changing?  As far as I can tell from my reading, the study basically gives us a static snapshot of web/phone use as it stands right now.  But if teens are a major factor, shouldn't we expect to see an increase in web 2.0 usage move to the young singles and young married couples in the not-too distant future?

In a sense, this report simply tells us that we are still starting at the ground floor.  If we want to capture the future, we will implement it now.

I have another idea how users of Connect Our People's community-building system might find some value in this report.  I'll blog about that tomorrow.  

Comment

With the widespread acceleration of web 2.0 use, including among Christians (giving rise in many places to the name "church 2.0"), We think it is pretty clear that an Connect Our People's community-building system can be of use to churches.  In our FAQ, we are asked, "What if our church members are not yet online?"  We reply:

The good news is that many of your church members  that are not online now may be getting online  soon. Most research indicates that Internet use  in the United States will rise from its current  rates of approximately 65% to 75% by 2007. (www.eTForcasts.com,  Internet User Forecast by Country). Internet use  is projected to grow by roughly another 10% from 2007 to 2010 (from 230 M to 250 M users) in the  United States alone. Besides, some members that  have been debating whether to “get online”  may be persuaded once they see the value your  church is placing on community-building, read  our motivational materials, and see how easy Connect  Our People is to use.

That being said, it is worth pointing out, now that we are offering services based on branches of ministry , that there is a "natural constituency" of Connect Our People's Web 2.0 service.  I was reminded of this recently while reading a blog entry by  Cynthia Ware.  She writes:

A U. S. national survey of teenagers released in January conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that more than half (55%) of all of online American youths ages 12-17 use online social networking sites. (view Pdf) The report concludes that kids connecting online has rocketed from a niche activity into a phenomenon engaging tens of millions of internet users. 

The net generation (millennials, generation y) views online communities as normative.  "Today's youth are different from any generation before them. They are exposed to digital technology in virtually all facets of their day-to-day existence."  (The Net Generation)

 Youth make a natural constituency for Connect Our People and a great place to start if a chuch is hesitant otherwise to commit to using Web 2.0 for ministry.  After all, one of the perennial problems in a youth group is creating fellowship in the small time slots available to a youth pastor.  If the children are from different school situations, they are likely to see their "youth group" time as something to endure rather than a place where they can develop strong Christian relationships.

In a sense, this is where the worries about the detrimental influence of the web on communities can actually be a good thing.  While it is important for Christian students to be involved in their public or private schools, it is also important for them to feel related and involved in their church community.  Daily contact with the youth pastor and with fellow youth can go a long way to nurturing this involvement and helping them feel the importance of it instead of being entirely focused on their other communities.

Comment

This post on the possible spiritual benefits of blogging got me to thinking about the possibility of using this web 2.0  phenomenon for the good of a  local congregation's outreach.

(Before I go any farther, let me be quick to add, that there are serious risks in blogging, just as there is in any communication.  What James said about the tongue can be  extrapolated to one's typing fingers.  Here is a post on the dangers of blogging, and a follow-up on  breeding contentions--something that is all too easy to do with the web 2.0.  The whole occasion for the post on blogging's spiritual benefits was this handy list of diagnostic questions aimed at helping Christians blog Christianly.)

Despite the obvious and more subtle pitfalls, one growing phenomenon is that corporations and organizations are sometimes encouraging their members or employees to blog.  Even Christian organizations are doing this.  They see it as a way of promoting themselves and spreading good will.

For example, consider these corporate blogging guidelines. It seems to me that these might be used by a church for roughly the same reasons.  It would be important to encourage bloggers to emphasize local interest, since a congregation is a local entity.  Bear in mind, statistically, the more people a person knows from a congregation, the more likely it is that the person will visit the congregation.  I have no idea if anyone has done studies about web-started relationships, but it seems to me that it ought to be comparable.  If someone starts regularly reading the blog of a local person, and finds him or her worth reading, and then finds more such bloggers through his or her links, then that person is more likely to get interested in the church.

One of the side benefits, I think, would be to help Christian bloggers be more aware and expect more accountability in how they blog.  Connect Our People's community-building system could even be used to help people give each other private feedback and counse.

Comment

Obviously, we at the Connect Our People blog are interested in web 2.0 for churches.  This is what we do, after all, and we like to see discussions of the need for it as well as what others are offering.

However, I've noticed that "Church 2.0" can mean different things to different people.  I'm going to offer some things I have found in searches of the web.  I'll keep linking minimal at this point because I would like feedback from commenters on what they have found in the categories below, as well as any different categorization they might recommend.  Have I missed anything?  Have I been too simplistic?  Have I overcomplicated what is out there?

Church 2.0 as analogy for new way of doing church

The first thing I want to notice is that I think I've found places were "Church 2.0" means something about the church that uses web terminology mainly as an analogy for a next generation phenomenon.  This could apply to the "emerging church" or the "emergent church" (the differences between them are important but I constantly forget which is which), or some other form of church culture, even some variant of "purpose-driven" churches or remade "megachurch" ministry.

The complicating problem here is that sometimes this definition can include an interest in using web tools.  Still, the stress is on a new kind of church, which is related to the old like the way web 2.0 is related to web 1.0.  Here is what I think is a case in point.

Church 2.0 as churches using Web 2.0 apps

I have in mind here blogs telling pastors to use google docs or flickr etc.  While these sometimes do point out collaborative features, I personally get the feeling that these recommendations belong more to "free apps" kind of recommendations that could be made to any office environment.  This doesn't mean they're not helpful.  They are, in fact, very helpful.  The use of the net continues to expand and I'm sure that there are pastors and church workers getting onto the web for the first time and discovering what is out there.  The only real guidance available is the kind that springs up from bloggers and other web writers who think of these people and make recommendations.

Church 2.0 as distinctive Web 2.0 tools for specific functions for churches

I've been surprised by how many times Church 2.0 is used to label generic apps (like google tools) rather than sites and tools aimed at specific churches.  In fact, the only two I remember finding are sermon cloud (which I discovered through the Reformissionary ) and  Cross connector (which allows for online planning of mission trips).  Frankly, I would like to see more of these things, and I can't help wonder if they are out there but i just haven't found them yet.

Church 2.0 as a philosophy and practice (with necessary tools) of web ministry

This gets to the heart, I think, of web 2.0 and the church.  Here, I've noticed a couple of different possible emphasis (though they complement each other well).

Outreach

There seems to be a great deal written about web 2.0 and church outreach.  Web 2.0 is used primarily to get "netizens" involved in interacting with members of the church.  One finds great ideas about fulfilling the outreach demanded by the

Congregational (or larger unit) community building

This is where Connect our People's community-building system fits in.  The emphasis here is on a safe and private way to build community within the congregation.

This doesn't mean that it can't be used for outreach.  It can, just as those who emphasize outreach are probably just as adept at building community.  For one thing, Connect Our People, as a collaborative ASP (application service provider) allows congregations to collaborate on outreach.  Also, integration of visitors into a congregations Connect Our People system can be a way of integrating them into the life of the congregation.

Comment

It should surprise no one that blogging Christians are likely sources for discussions of Church 2.0 or Web 2.0 for churches.  Most recently, I discovered a blog dedicated to the topic (published by  "Kez" --who seems like a great guy).  Be sure to check it out!

I also found this entry about an article at opensourcetheology.net, entitled Web 2.0 -- New Revolution in Church Growth. The entire article is worth reading, but certain portions look like something we would write to directly promote Connect Our People's community-building system.

• "The printing press released the power of human communications and therefore changed human history, especially the Church. Today, Christians all over the world are fast discovering the power of the internet, which may prove to be a ministry tool that revolutionizes the way we think…and do church for generations to come."
• "Web 2.0 technology serves as an emerging platform for building organic, interconnected relationships that serves both people and organizations."
• "Web 2.0 gives people revolutionary new ways to connect, collaborate, and build community – using the internet as a powerful ministry tool. Ordinary Web 1.0 websites can now be transformed into interactive 'gathering places' where people meet and share common interest; a safe place for making new friends."
•  "Recent developments in Web 2.0 development can now provide individuals and organizations with the ability to build their own social network or “online gated community.” These can be customized for personal preferences and needs. These communities can be private/exclusive (for members only), or they can be public/inclusive (everyone is invited)."

There is much more, and some of it demonstrates that we are faced with challenges as much as advantages.  But it also provides more evidence that Connect Our People is making the most of a real opportunity to serve the Church.
Comment

Remember how, in the movie, Matrix, any body who entered the virtual world of the Matrix ended up looking super cool with dark sunglasses, slicked hair, and black leather? I worry that some people want Church 2.0 to allow them to bring such a false appearance to church.

I've already blogged some second thoughts about how churches use online technology for community purposes. I was reminded of it again when I looked at a video of a virtual reality application of Web 2.0 being used for "worship."  You can see the video here, along with the news story.  I wish I could remember the last time my waist was tapered from my shoulders the way those computer-generated avatars are shaped.  And I'm pretty sure that plastic surgeons are not quite able to produce the shapes given to the female avatars.  What kind of community can be formed out of idealized nonhumans?

I was led to this video by an entry in a blog dedicated to church 2.0.  He notes that the story is filed under tech: gaming. In an earlier entry, the same blogger pointed out,

As for shared communities like Kaneva, MySpace, Facebook, Bebo and Xanga (among others) the members often portray themselves as well — not necessarily who they really are. So what does this say about church 2.0 and new entries like GodSpace (a Christian social network). Will avatars mask reality? Can you walk into Second Life and really start a church without physical community and transparency?

This is a really important issue.  In order to genuinely build a local community, an application service provider needs to not allow the program to get so entertaining that it makes people want to go online for the same reason they play videogames.

Connect Our People is dedicated to bringing members of communities together in ways that will promote more fellowship in real reality along with vitual reality. For example, our "share yourself" feature provides the following features:

• Personal Info
• Gifts/Skills
• Interests
• Education/ Occupation
• Groups
• Photos
• Email

Noticeably absent are blogs and other tools that would allow a lot more individualized self-expression.  There is nothing wrong with blogging (of course!), but that is not Connect Our People's mission.  Our mission is to build community by allowing people to find one another so that they can help and minister to one another.

A blogger could always let others know of his or her blog and give a password in that private area so that blogs of interest to fellow church members could remain safe and private.  But Connect Our People encourages other sorts of community, especially community built around the needs of the congregation.

Comment

It is interesting to see how different people see the internet going in opposite directions.  On the one hand, in this article on churches and the internet, the internet is held responsible for the increasing privatization of religion.  On the other hand, in this blog entry by Pastor Brent Thomas of Grace Community Church, the internet is providing for an impulse to community that the Church has perhaps not been supplying.

Of course, part of the problem is that evaluating "the internet" as a whole is hard to do.  The internet is a tool.  The question is, what are you using the internet to do?  If you think a podcast of your worship service is a possible substitute for being present at the time and place of worship and participating in the worship yourself, then, yes, the internet is going to help you unravel community.

But Brent points out that the "myspacebook" phenomenon represents the way the urge to community that is routed in who God is and who we are as his creatures.

These sites have skyrocketed in popularity over the past couple of years, yet I have heard little theological reflection on the popularity of these sites. These sites and others build on the of “social networking,” connecting people based on similar interests, whether it be music, movies, sports, hobbies or a variety of other interests. The more I think about sites like these, there seems to be something deeply theological happening. [READ THE REST]

I hope Brent will share more of his thoughts on this topic, because it is a great post.  And it shows, I think, why Connect Our People is offering a service that uses computers to enhance rather than detract from community. 

Comment

My mind perversely gravitated toward this kind of image because I was reading this entry about "second life" that was posted a few months ago.  I hadn't heard of "second life" and wondered if it was still a force.  So far, it still seems to be viable.  At least, Reuters is taking it serioiusly.  It makes me wonder if we're going to see a debate soon as to whether an avatar simulating the rite of the Lord's Supper can count as communion.

This might be a good opportunity to distinguish building community from escaping it.  Arguably, these 3d worlds do both, but communication is more easily and quickly done by sending and receiving messages.  Doing this in a fake, flawless body  in a fake, flawless environment seems to promote escapism more than community.

Compare this to something like Highrise, which is a Web 2.0 contact management system.  With Highrise, it is a lot easier to see that, whatever the attraction of a snazzy new Web 2.0 app, it fundamentally exists in order to help people with what they need to do.  I notice that Christian Computing Magazine last year reviewed a contact manager program designed for church outreach (pdf download), so maybe we'll see someone design a system that works online like Highrise does.

But my point is simply that Connect Our People is designed to serve and build communities rather than distract from them.  It tries to make communication easy and pleasant, so that people will get together in real reality more often, with knowledge of one another's needs and gifts. 

Comment