Comments on: Making the Most of Technology for Churches http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/ Frustrate. Educate. Motivate. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:01:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: My Mind to your Monitor http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1968 My Mind to your Monitor Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:34:00 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1968 <strong>Happy Thanksgiving!</strong> As I enter this world of blogging I thought today would be a great to begin. I want to start by giving thanks to all of you who I have learned so much from and one day I hope to be a help to others as you have been to me. I have listed some of my favor... Happy Thanksgiving!

As I enter this world of blogging I thought today would be a great to begin. I want to start by giving thanks to all of you who I have learned so much from and one day I hope to be a help to others as you have been to me. I have listed some of my favor…

]]> By: mattesonweb http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1965 mattesonweb Sun, 09 Oct 2005 06:26:32 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1965 If you're looking for something to help your church internally and externally on the web, look to Church Community Builder (CCB for short)(http://www.churchcommunitybuilder.com). Our church (7,500 TWA) found this solution better than the other high-cost FellowshipOne. First, CCB will do everything F1 can, but it is made for church community not just church administration. It's made so you can get content on your website fast and keep it accurate (it has a built in content management system as web site builder. and no, you don't have to use their templates - you can make your own). check it out. I'd be happy to talk to anyone about it! There are MANY other reasons we chose CCB as our main CMS (vs. F1).... -j If you’re looking for something to help your church internally and externally on the web, look to Church Community Builder (CCB for short)(http://www.churchcommunitybuilder.com).
Our church (7,500 TWA) found this solution better than the other high-cost FellowshipOne. First, CCB will do everything F1 can, but it is made for church community not just church administration. It’s made so you can get content on your website fast and keep it accurate (it has a built in content management system as web site builder. and no, you don’t have to use their templates – you can make your own).
check it out. I’d be happy to talk to anyone about it! There are MANY other reasons we chose CCB as our main CMS (vs. F1)….
-j

]]> By: Alex Seidel http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1964 Alex Seidel Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:23:21 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1964 Mike - Your points are well taken. Face to face interaction is where the messy work of redemption takes place. Technology can never entirely supplant the human connection in our partnership with God in changing hearts. My goal? Use what God has blessed us with through the ingenuity he has endowed us with to reach every heart wherever possible. If we remain strategic in this (using everything within the context of the whole), I am more than certain that we have tremendous leavening impact in the world. Mike – Your points are well taken. Face to face interaction is where the messy work of redemption takes place. Technology can never entirely supplant the human connection in our partnership with God in changing hearts. My goal? Use what God has blessed us with through the ingenuity he has endowed us with to reach every heart wherever possible. If we remain strategic in this (using everything within the context of the whole), I am more than certain that we have tremendous leavening impact in the world.

]]> By: Mike Batley http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1963 Mike Batley Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:49:40 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1963 Alex, (and Peter ) You guys make excellent points (and yes I've read Postman's Technopoly) but the key is the technology being applied in order to free up and inhance human-to-human contact? My larger point is that we desire tech to take the place of the hard, dirty, scary work of interacting with sinful people. (Which, as you know, when it works and community breaks out is heavenly...)To often churches pursue technology and then scratch their heads when it creates no significant momentum (much less movement). And Alex... good to hear you are leveraging the web to accomplish all those critical tasks. By far you are ahead of the curve. My comment was much more to the blog at that point being that tech=the public "outreach" face of the web. A very small part of what is possible. Mike Alex, (and Peter )
You guys make excellent points (and yes I’ve read Postman’s Technopoly) but the key is the technology being applied in order to free up and inhance human-to-human contact? My larger point is that we desire tech to take the place of the hard, dirty, scary work of interacting with sinful people. (Which, as you know, when it works and community breaks out is heavenly…)To often churches pursue technology and then scratch their heads when it creates no significant momentum (much less movement).
And Alex… good to hear you are leveraging the web to accomplish all those critical tasks. By far you are ahead of the curve. My comment was much more to the blog at that point being that tech=the public “outreach” face of the web. A very small part of what is possible.
Mike

]]> By: Alex Seidel http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1962 Alex Seidel Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:57:30 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1962 <b>Technology as a Tool</b><br /> Tech is a tool, and then some. Peter above had a good point. The printing press is a technology that changed the face of the church, as well as the world. But we still use books as just one tool to communicate. The web and networked culture are still shaking out. The question is: Will the church drive its use to impart redemptive change in the world? Or will we let it sit idly by while other less postive, nay even evil, forces use it. Technology as a Tool
Tech is a tool, and then some. Peter above had a good point. The printing press is a technology that changed the face of the church, as well as the world. But we still use books as just one tool to communicate. The web and networked culture are still shaking out. The question is: Will the church drive its use to impart redemptive change in the world? Or will we let it sit idly by while other less postive, nay even evil, forces use it.

]]> By: Alex Seidel http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1961 Alex Seidel Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:52:41 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1961 In response to Mike Batley, it is key to remember that I maintain that the web should enhance and support ministry, and thus drive invitation. But it is key. We are getting 4-6 new families per week that heard about us through the web and nothing else. Invitation?? The web did the inviting. And others can use it as they invite as well. While tech may not entirely equate the web, it is sure increasingly being driven by the web. Within a year, we will have implemented CRM (for member and vistor relationship management)and Electronic Content Management (to easily facilitate the ministry of our web site). And we are already using web-based resource management. Hmmm, that means that about 80% of our back office will be web-based. Our Total Cost of Ownership will decrease, and we'll have important data that did not exist before to make decisions by (all without custom programming). Additionally, we'll be using our typical PC's, a network, QuickBooks, and MS Office. The machinery and Office apps are moot anymore. I think it is important to realize that the web is quickly taking over where boxed software and huge internal IT resources left off. Witness Google, they are slowly co-opting the desktop with web apps. I am sure business apps are not too far around the corner. In response to Mike Batley, it is key to remember that I maintain that the web should enhance and support ministry, and thus drive invitation. But it is key. We are getting 4-6 new families per week that heard about us through the web and nothing else. Invitation?? The web did the inviting. And others can use it as they invite as well.
While tech may not entirely equate the web, it is sure increasingly being driven by the web. Within a year, we will have implemented CRM (for member and vistor relationship management)and Electronic Content Management (to easily facilitate the ministry of our web site). And we are already using web-based resource management. Hmmm, that means that about 80% of our back office will be web-based. Our Total Cost of Ownership will decrease, and we’ll have important data that did not exist before to make decisions by (all without custom programming). Additionally, we’ll be using our typical PC’s, a network, QuickBooks, and MS Office. The machinery and Office apps are moot anymore.
I think it is important to realize that the web is quickly taking over where boxed software and huge internal IT resources left off. Witness Google, they are slowly co-opting the desktop with web apps. I am sure business apps are not too far around the corner.

]]> By: Peter Edman http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1960 Peter Edman Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:17:33 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1960 I generally like this site, and I am the webmaster at my church and so am certainly on board with technology (just got a new couple in the doors via the website). However, I want to take strong exception to your comment that technology is "simply" a tool. It is NOT JUST a tool. Read Neil Postman's Technopoly (available via Amazon, appropriately enough). Technology changes the whole conversation and environment of church. For a church-based view, see Jacques Ellul, The Technological Bluff (Eerdmans). Christians must be aware of the assumptions that technology brings along with it. No, we cannot avoid it. But we can perhaps use it more mindfully. I generally like this site, and I am the webmaster at my church and so am certainly on board with technology (just got a new couple in the doors via the website). However, I want to take strong exception to your comment that technology is “simply” a tool. It is NOT JUST a tool. Read Neil Postman’s Technopoly (available via Amazon, appropriately enough). Technology changes the whole conversation and environment of church. For a church-based view, see Jacques Ellul, The Technological Bluff (Eerdmans). Christians must be aware of the assumptions that technology brings along with it. No, we cannot avoid it. But we can perhaps use it more mindfully.

]]> By: Mike Batley http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1959 Mike Batley Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:09:35 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1959 It's funny when things on a blog converge and people don't even notice...but we have taken the word "technology" and decided in the the flow of the blog that it only meant "web." Then we talk about how the web must be positioned more for seekers but on the website for the blog a poll showed the vast, vast majority of seekers come to church because of the invitation of someone at that church! The web only had a miniscule role to play. I think we need to major on the majors. Let's encourage, train, mentor, disciple our folks to fall in love with Jesus and then the invitations will happen organically--and guess what? They'll be far more effective! On to the real technology issue...two critical things in churches drive work. But they are just tools. Sexy, sexy tools but they drive work: Money and Technolgy. If your church is going in a poor direction then money and tech is just going to drive it there faster. Mission, vision, and values must be agreed upon aligned and be supported by proper strategy and tactics--THEN apply money and tech. Usually you then see significant accerleration. Finally, in church, tech does not just equal web. We need to look at the whole organization and ask where tech can help us work smarter not harder. Or at least help free us up from "busy work" of admin, operations, and mundane HR issues so most of our focus and energies can be on people. The "real" work of the church is with people. Operational processes mapping, cost control technology, Activity Based Budgeting (where you measure your budgeting on the activity of your church not just on programs) are all technology that will help you see where limited valuable resources are being expended and you can actually measure that expenditure off of stated goals, values and mission to see if you are making progress. At my organization (www.cmat.org) we help npo's align around "SMART" How would your church do? S=Strategy M=Management A=Analytics R=Reporting T=Technology Is your church "SMART?" Is technology being used and leveraged to support all those areas in a balanced way? Is is bigger than the web and word and excel? It’s funny when things on a blog converge and people don’t even notice…but we have taken the word “technology” and decided in the the flow of the blog that it only meant “web.” Then we talk about how the web must be positioned more for seekers but on the website for the blog a poll showed the vast, vast majority of seekers come to church because of the invitation of someone at that church! The web only had a miniscule role to play. I think we need to major on the majors. Let’s encourage, train, mentor, disciple our folks to fall in love with Jesus and then the invitations will happen organically–and guess what? They’ll be far more effective!
On to the real technology issue…two critical things in churches drive work. But they are just tools. Sexy, sexy tools but they drive work: Money and Technolgy.
If your church is going in a poor direction then money and tech is just going to drive it there faster. Mission, vision, and values must be agreed upon aligned and be supported by proper strategy and tactics–THEN apply money and tech. Usually you then see significant accerleration.
Finally, in church, tech does not just equal web. We need to look at the whole organization and ask where tech can help us work smarter not harder. Or at least help free us up from “busy work” of admin, operations, and mundane HR issues so most of our focus and energies can be on people. The “real” work of the church is with people.
Operational processes mapping, cost control technology, Activity Based Budgeting (where you measure your budgeting on the activity of your church not just on programs) are all technology that will help you see where limited valuable resources are being expended and you can actually measure that expenditure off of stated goals, values and mission to see if you are making progress.
At my organization (www.cmat.org) we help npo’s align around “SMART”
How would your church do?
S=Strategy
M=Management
A=Analytics
R=Reporting
T=Technology
Is your church “SMART?” Is technology being used and leveraged to support all those areas in a balanced way? Is is bigger than the web and word and excel?

]]> By: Anna http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1958 Anna Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:57:58 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1958 I am one of the 1% or less who would look at your website first, by looking in the newspaper or yellow pages to find churches nearby and then googling them to decide which ones to visit first. You might get visited anyway if I run out of others without finding a good fit, but a good website may get you visited first or second (even if I don't agree with you on every little issue of doctrine or belief) just to see what you are about. If I feel comfortable once I get there, I might be tempted to stay around and not visit so many others. So to me a website is an important part of getting me in the door. I have found my last 2 churches by using the web. I have moved twice in the last 5 years and now am looking for a church in my new area using the web. I like sites that tell when the services are, what to expect at services, logistics of getting there, the beliefs of the church, any outreach or mission projects, and probably opinions on hot-button issues such as homosexuality or abortion or interfaith cooperation, even if the church says that there is no official position on these issues and they allow freedom of thought in non-essentials. These are what tell me what I need to know. Pictures of members having a good time together (not models or clip art) make me feel like I could fit in that picture. Now I am at seminary and am getting more info by word of mouth, but every one I had screened by internet, I still plan to visit in the next month or two, just to see what they're doing. As a student of different worship styles if nothing else. But the first one I picked out to visit, that no human ever told me about, is the one we keep having to fight to stay away from as we do "research" at these other churches. If I wasn't a seminarian, I would have started the membership process almost immediately, but professors keep telling me to visit, visit, since I'll never be new to the big city without a church ever again. Hope that helps. I am one of the 1% or less who would look at your website first, by looking in the newspaper or yellow pages to find churches nearby and then googling them to decide which ones to visit first. You might get visited anyway if I run out of others without finding a good fit, but a good website may get you visited first or second (even if I don’t agree with you on every little issue of doctrine or belief) just to see what you are about. If I feel comfortable once I get there, I might be tempted to stay around and not visit so many others. So to me a website is an important part of getting me in the door.
I have found my last 2 churches by using the web. I have moved twice in the last 5 years and now am looking for a church in my new area using the web. I like sites that tell when the services are, what to expect at services, logistics of getting there, the beliefs of the church, any outreach or mission projects, and probably opinions on hot-button issues such as homosexuality or abortion or interfaith cooperation, even if the church says that there is no official position on these issues and they allow freedom of thought in non-essentials. These are what tell me what I need to know. Pictures of members having a good time together (not models or clip art) make me feel like I could fit in that picture.
Now I am at seminary and am getting more info by word of mouth, but every one I had screened by internet, I still plan to visit in the next month or two, just to see what they’re doing. As a student of different worship styles if nothing else. But the first one I picked out to visit, that no human ever told me about, is the one we keep having to fight to stay away from as we do “research” at these other churches. If I wasn’t a seminarian, I would have started the membership process almost immediately, but professors keep telling me to visit, visit, since I’ll never be new to the big city without a church ever again.
Hope that helps.

]]> By: LB http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2005/09/making-the-most-of-technology-for-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-1957 LB Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:52:52 +0000 http://cms.bigbadcollab.com/?p=349#comment-1957 Two sites or one? Not being a web designer, I'm not sure of the correct terminology to use. I view it as a "taxonomy" issue since you have one entity with multiple "facets" depending on the user's relationship and/or interest. So one home page would make sense to me, but from that single page you have easy-to-identify categories to allow users to branch off to their particular area of relationship/interest. Having two different "sites" (I'm not sure what that means technically) would seem to me to: 1) create unnecessary complexity for the developer (the simple issue of maintaining two; maintaining or 'enforcing' the stylistic and "voice" distinctions of each for every posting, event, etc.; practical user issues - would each user be informed they are on "site A" or "site B" and the differences are between the two?), and 2) create a source of potential confusion for users ("I looked at the website of the church you mentioned, but I didn't see what you told me about."). Most of us have stumbled into website areas of an organization that weren't intended for the general public; it can be humorous, or embarassing, or enlightening, or... So, as a user, I prefer one entry point, with clear directions on branches available based on relationship/interest. This includes having the ability on virtually each page to "jump" to whatever other point the user needs, such as through an unfolding side menu, for example. Since I'm not a designer, I don't have to worry about it, but I do have to live with what you give me. :) Two sites or one?
Not being a web designer, I’m not sure of the correct terminology to use. I view it as a “taxonomy” issue since you have one entity with multiple “facets” depending on the user’s relationship and/or interest.
So one home page would make sense to me, but from that single page you have easy-to-identify categories to allow users to branch off to their particular area of relationship/interest.
Having two different “sites” (I’m not sure what that means technically) would seem to me to: 1) create unnecessary complexity for the developer (the simple issue of maintaining two; maintaining or ‘enforcing’ the stylistic and “voice” distinctions of each for every posting, event, etc.; practical user issues – would each user be informed they are on “site A” or “site B” and the differences are between the two?),
and 2) create a source of potential confusion for users (“I looked at the website of the church you mentioned, but I didn’t see what you told me about.”). Most of us have stumbled into website areas of an organization that weren’t intended for the general public; it can be humorous, or embarassing, or enlightening, or…
So, as a user, I prefer one entry point, with clear directions on branches available based on relationship/interest. This includes having the ability on virtually each page to “jump” to whatever other point the user needs, such as through an unfolding side menu, for example.
Since I’m not a designer, I don’t have to worry about it, but I do have to live with what you give me. :)

]]>