I’m amazed at the number of churches that still view the web as primarily an advertising mechanism to let people know who they are and what they’re doing. Go ahead. Visit several church websites. Really doesn’t even matter what size the church is. With few exceptions, you’ll find their web strategy is essentially a bullhorn approach. The church is standing on a streetcorner of the web yelling at the people passing by:
- “Come to our services on Sunday!”
- “Let me tell you about our men’s ministry!”
- “Join us for the golf tournament or fishing derby!”
- “Serve on one of our ministry teams!”
- “Give money to our church!”
- “Here’s what we believe!”
It’s a one-sided relationship. The church views the web as a place to promote their agenda. No interaction with the audience. No stories of life change. No solutions to help people experience community or discipleship online. At best, you may be able to watch a video of a service, but you certainly won’t have the opportunity to engage a conversation with others about what you’re watching.
Essentially we’ve taken the Sunday service bulletin and we’ve put it on our website. That’s the web strategy for the Church today. “Here’s who we are and what we’re doing. Join us!”
The rest of the world views the Web very differently. For example, outside of the Church, people go online to:
- Meet other people and build relationships
- Share what’s happening in their life and tell their story
- Get a taste of the experience, primarily through video, with the opportunity to interact
- Have the ability to share slivers of content with others (3-minute clips, not 45-minute messages)
- View content on demand on their time
- Create content to add their contribution to the bigger story
Rather than looking at the Web through the eyes of a Facebook and YouTube and Twitter user, though, we’re still looking at the Web through the eyes of a Sunday bulletin reader. That approach works for the people who are already attending our churches. It completely ignors the people who we are trying to reach.
And that’s the problem. We view the Web as an add-on. After we’ve figured out how we’re going to do ministry, then we want to know how to use the Web to promote our ministry.
Instead, the churches that have influence within our online culture look at ministry differently. They assume the people they’re trying to reach are online. They assume the people who are connected to their ministry are online. Rather than looking at the Web as an add-on, they consider their web strategy as a fully-integrated part of how they help people take steps toward Christ. They are a church online as much as they are a church in a building located on the corner of First and Main.
The website isn’t something the “web monkey” maintains. It’s a place where the youth pastor, worship leader, children’s director, small group leader, senior pastor and every other person of influence help people to connect and grow. It’s an environment where the entire church engages the community and encourages each other to take their next steps. It’s as much their story as it is our story.
Of course, this approach to the Web would require far more time, resources and leadership. It would be much less expensive than building a new building, but it would require a shift in thinking and a shift in focus. Because it’s new, it would be hard. Because the staff and volunteer leadership team would have to embrace this new approach, it would be challenging.
We’d rather stick with what we know. It’s a lot easier to maintain our online bulletins. And that’s another reason why we are the new traditional church.
__________________
Other Posts in This Series:
Thanks Tony. These last few posts have been very helpful, especially for someone like myself who is at the beginning of creating, wrestling, and exploring all the things in which we want to do as we begin our process.
Excellent blog! You said what a lot of us have been feeling for a while. We “advertise” to the people we’ve already reached rather than “connect” to those who haven’t engaged. In an ever increasing culture asking spiritual questions, we’d better believe these people are online, and the questions aren’t as much “What does this church believe about infant baptism?” as much they are “How can I connect?” Thanks for giving the tough questions!
Not sure I agree. While I agree that it needs to be more than a billboard, I don’t think the best place to “help people to connect and grow. It’s an environment where the entire church engages the community and encourages each other to take their next steps.” is a website. In fact trying to do that might be more of a shortcut to real community.
FB, twitter, websites are great tools but are not good replacements for the things listed and can get in the way of authentic connection if allowed.
I guess the question is purpose. Is the best purpose of a website to replace church or supplement and draw people to it?
Don’t get me wrong online church is cool, but if it never grows from there I don’t think it hits the mark. To promote an online only church interaction is a bit short sighted. The bible does talk about “compel them to come into my house” and I think that can’t be done by cool 3D walkthroughs, forums, or great FB updates.
Broadway’s website for The Little Mermaid is very nice, but the full experience will happen when we sit in that seat and experience it.
A website should be a means, not the end.
Right on target. I spoke to a room full of pastors this weekend and told them this exact thing. You should have seen their faces. Like, “Wait, I thought church websites were meant to ‘inform’ people about our church.”
This fits perfectly with The New Traditional Church series. At the turn of the century, that’s pretty much all you *could* do with a church website. Toss up some html and change it when events change.
Now, the Internet is no longer the “bullhorn” it used to be. It’s a conversation.
Sorry to restate what you’ve already said here, but it’s so dang good!
Great post and points. Churches in general are about 6/10 years behind on what is possible on the Internet. Most churches are operating on “proven edge” methods and technology rather than bleeding edge. Including ours. We are struggling with focused priority on Internet and new technologies. Pastors mostly push what they are comfortable with until they make the decision to empower and trust someone who does understand.
Good stuff. Love the comments as well. All right-on
I agree with the premise of your blog post Tony. Today’s church has to look at the Web as more than just a bullhorn. Churches should let people know who they are on the web, or else people won’t know if they can or will connect there. But, you’re right in the sense that we have to engage the web culture. A church’s website must allow visitors the opportunity to get involved and participate, just as much as our worship services should.
But, I nod my hat in full agreement with Michael Buckingham. The church website is not a replacement for community, but merely and means to that end. In my experience on Twitter, the people I have connected with still long for a face to face meeting or at least an iChat or skype conversation. But Twitter/Facebook have allowed me the opportunity to make initial connections and being the process of engagement. People will never fully know community in the church, unless of course they actually experience it. In our digital age, individuals will most likely take the first step towards community via websites, twitter, facebook , and the like, but the reality remains, people still people more than just a digital format, they need and greatly desire a personal interaction.
So use the tools, God gave us sense enough to do so, but take it the next step and engage people personally through actual relationship. Know each other personally. It makes a difference. Thanks Tony for beginning the conversation.
WOW, I’m 53 yrs. old and not very computer savy, but I found your blog! Some great points from alot of you. We do need to see BOTH sides. I don’t believe most churches use this tool well enough. I know my church of 4 thousand plus does not. I ‘m not sure if it’s lack of knowledge or not wanting to, but believe it is becoming neccessary if we want to keep the traditional church GROWING. I do know however that the Bible says (as I’m sure you know) forsake not the asssembling of yourselves… I feel, because of my lack of knowledge about this tool, a little powerless to suggest a change. Any advice?
I think that this approach could be the answer that churches are looking for to help them embrace the Communities they live in. When my wife and I were searching for a Church, the first place we went was the Church’s website. Looking back now, if I had seen live interaction of life change, community driven events, and real time updates similar to the walls that I see on Twitter/facebook, that would have been pretty cool. It would have really impressed me. Look forward to what others have to say about this topic!
Hey Tony,
Couldn’t agree with you more. I think there are a few key barriers church leaders will have to overcome to reach this level of online interaction (not necessarily in priority order):
1. Control – Achieving this level of interaction means giving control over to the masses and most leaders are scared someone’s going to use inappropriate language or content on their church website. As church leaders we can’t be scared of this. Aware? Yes. Fearful to the point of indecision? No.
2. Resources – Remember that the level of interactivity “we” are used to from sites like facebook, twitter, our bank’s websites, etc were funded well with personnel and financial resources. Church leaders in large do not prioritize the resources necessary to engage our world online… yet. It’s coming and online pioneers like LifeChurch, Newspring, and others are helping to make the case.
3. Vision – As with anything, it has to be led with vision. The reason the LifeChurches and Newsprings are pioneers in this field is that they’re led with vision from the top and funded as such. Team Digerati @ LC is a prime example. Vision -> Resources -> YouVersion.com.
What you’re championing isn’t a matter of if, but when. Thanks for keeping the dialogue of this need at the forefront. Someone’s going to figure it out (or have they already and I just don’t know? Anyone out there doing it right?)
Excellent post.
Please provide some examples of churches (or organizations in the general marketplace) that are doing it right. It’s one thing to tell us we’re doing it wrong – but another to show us how to get it right.
Regards,
Brian Beatty
Communications Director
Christ Community Church
St. Charles, IL
Can a church website not be both? Certainly reaching the new culture demands a shift in thinking from the church website only being a place to advertise to being a place for people to connect. But I would think that both can exist just fine.
Show some examples tony. Everyone isnt as smart as you :)
[...] 23, 2009 by claytonfaulkner From Tony Morgan… Rather than looking at the Web through the eyes of a Facebook and YouTube and Twitter user, [...]
Tony – I agree a church website should be more than a bullhorn, announcement page. It should portray lifechange in real people. It should have a place for people to interact, ask questions.
But I think churches would be wise to invest as much time reaching out where people are already gathering, i.e. facebook, twitter, community ning pages. If you direct your congregation to these places and communicate there, friends of friends will see those conversations who may never have visited your church website. We are having more conversations on facebook and hope to start promoting events there soon… events that the community at large could attend.
I agree. However, I’m not fully sure how you do this with a single website. Obviously it can be done, I guess I just lack the ability to know how to make it happen. Our church is just 2 years old and we pretty much stumbled into something that has revolutionized our church.
I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s called Unifyer (www.unifyer.com). At first I thought facebook could do the same thing but facebook is more like a busy shopping mall whereas Unifyer is more like a quiet boutique, dedicated solely to our church. It’s enabled everyone in our church to have a voice. People can emerge as leaders on here. We have full on discussions about Sunday’s message, our small groups are organized on here, giving each group the ability to communicate with each other and others in the church the ability to join. We don’t see these as virtual relationships but rather an extension of real relationships already formed or about to form. We canned our bulletin and online newsletter and just drive everyone to Unifyer every week, including guests. The best thing is hearing about people who talked on Unifyer first and then met in person on Sunday.
So I think this is a little different than what your are talking about. We still have our website that dissemenates information and is our type of front door. Unifyer serves as the place where community takes place.
This costs us money but I think it’s priceless. This kind of turned into a shameless pimping session but I really think it’s that good.
I also think that facebook,twitter, etc is limited in it’s organizational ability. Unifyer will be making a facebook app in the near future that will integrate it right into one’s facebook profile. We use all of those other mediums as well. Unifyer hasn’t replaced any of them. It’s something that you have to try out to really understand just how good it is. If anyone wants to see a demo, let me know. *plug finished. And no, I’m not paid to say this! I’m just one really satisfied customer!* haha.
Tony — Great post. I do feel like a website can be both. For instance, you can have a page/pages that serve as your “billboard” to communicate upcoming events. Perhaps you could even take that further and allow feedback to occur around each advertised event. I think there could also be a page/pages that are designed to have a “facebook” feel. Feedback, dialogue, etc.
Good stuff. As always, thanks for asking the probing questions, and thanks for getting us thinking.
tony,
great post. i’d love to hear about who you think is doing this or at least on the right path with their web strategies. do you have any links of churches doing what you’re talking about?
michael
Amen, Tony. I think one of the points you made astutely is that no one can see the web strategy as an add-on. It needs to be integral to the church’s whole strategic vision and direction.
I saw the danger of the add-on approach when I was working with a media company for the last two years of my marketplace career, and although they had great intentions to go “web first,” the institutional culture was so focused on traditional journalism that they completely missed where the audience was going … through an unwillingness to make the cultural shift.
With just three months of experience with the NewSpring Web Campus, it’s obvious that a fair number of “traditional” churchgoers are seeing web ministry as just a “natural” extension of their church experience. We put a lot of time and effort into programming Sundays … I think it’s time to leverage the web Monday through Saturday, and apply our excellence values to that potentially even larger and more engaged audience.
Would be a great goal for the “unchurched” to have a place to interact with those trying to reach them. Great stuff, Tony! Appreciate you taking time to focus on this. Might be great to hear of ways you’ve helped or led churches in doing this.
Preach!
Dude! You are right on target AGAIN! Love this series…Don’t look now but I think this might be next for you. Keep it up!
mark
We have begun a series of research projects (surveys, analytics) involving 100 churches to evaluate these ideas. Definitely agree people want what you are suggesting, yet much of website use is first time visitors seeking information about ‘attending’ a service. We plan to start releasing more of our findings but it has led me to seek a two-website strategy for our church based on the findings to connect to two different audiences.
Churchteams certainly isn’t just an online bulletin. But I know what you mean. We’ve been working for a decade to show how much more we can do. I don’t think just SNS is the whole answer.
[...] Shared a link on Google Reader. The New Traditional Church: Web Strategy [...]
Right on. Churches have these two connected hurdles – seeing past brochure-ware, and also seeing past an insider-focused website that is written primarily for members with the vague hope that outsiders will connect with the language and concepts. Internet Evangelism Day’s church site self-assessment tool tries to help churches see some of these issues, and even suggests getting some non-Christians to test their sites! Of course, if many churches subconsciously or consciously think of themselves as being a building where meetings happen, how can they project a more biblical understanding of what they really are.
It would really help churches to see what could be possible, if we could all offer examples of church sites that really have made these leaps.
Blessings
Tony
Great post Tony!
[...] Tony Morgan had a great take on what most churches see their website as: It’s a one-sided relationship. The church views the web as a place to promote their agenda. No interaction with the audience. No stories of life change. No solutions to help people experience community or discipleship online. At best, you may be able to watch a video of a service, but you certainly won’t have the opportunity to engage a conversation with others about what you’re watching. [...]
[...] The New Traditional Church: Web Strategy | TonyMorganLive.com How churches must view their websites through the eyes of typical Facebook, YouTube or Twitter users, not as electronic notice sheets. (tags: church webdesign website) [...]
Right on! Community engagement is the key element in the web today. If you don’t get a conversation started, provide the tools to talk wherever people are, your website is going to stagnate. The people we have to be reaching are the 2.0 generation – all those Gen Y types and down who text, blog, tweet and expect interactive experiences. The days of static sites are well and truely over!
Thanks for the spanking… we try to supplement the bulletin website with our facebooks / twitters etc… what do we do with the dinosaur? How do we make our sites more interactive?
Great post! I’ve been thinking how to incorporate blog/facebook/twitter/ustream, etc. to create an online community for our church. Could you provide me with a few examples of organizations that are doing it right? Also do you have any connections with web designers that could help?
Thanks Tony!
Bobby Jones
Auburn Church
[...] then Tony Morgan talks a bit the new traditional church and websites… This entry was posted on Monday, May 25th, 2009 at 9:35 am. You can follow any responses [...]
[...] and then Tony Morgan talks a bit the new traditional church and websites… [...]
Is anyone seeing lives changed because of a church twitter or facebook? would love to hear about it
in our next church wide survey, we’re going to ask this question
Do you use the internet primarily for information or conversation?
i anticipate that those under 25 will say conversation, and those over 25 will say information.
ml
[...] Tony Morgan writes, “I’m amazed at the number of churches that still view the Web as primarily an advertising mechanism to let people know who they are and what they’re doing. Go ahead. Visit several church websites. Really doesn’t even matter what size the church is. With few exceptions, you’ll find their web strategy is essentially a bullhorn approach.” Read more. [...]
The community where I pastor has limited internet connections. Someone once saw that a pastor had an affair over the internet, so I don’t even have it at the church.
Even still, I am the only one who Twitters. 7 facebook, and a handful more have email. There are three families who have high speed; the rest use dial-up. But those who use it seem to stay in touch better than those who don’t.
The downside – I have to be careful that the pastor’s office isn’t open 24/7.
It’s funny when people tell me that MY experiences & connections within MY community online aren’t authentic or real.
I compare that to someone falling in love and someone else trying to negate that.
Chris Hill is right.
I am routinely told that contacts I have through the internet don’t count as “real ministry.” But understand, we’re talking about people stuck in a mindset that “church” has to be on Sunday from 11 to noon, the oak pulpit has to be on the middle of the stage, and there is no way the pastor can work on his message any place other than the church office. And since we don’t see it done any other way, we don’t approach in any other way.
Church websites are the same thing. Amazing!
Great post.
Do you have any examples of churches that are doing it right that we can check out?
For those that have asked, i’m not really aware of any churches that are hitting the ball out of the park. I think LifeChurch.tv is gearing up to make a run at it, but most of their current online strategy revolves around the weekend service and not necessarily the next steps beyond that. I know that’s part of their vision, though, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the future.
There are a couple of other tools that I’m curious about. Those include The City (http://www.onthecity.org/) which was originally developed at Mars Hill. And there’s also Monvee (http://monvee.com/), which appears to be a solution for spiritual development, however, I’m still trying to figure that out.
But, this is a team effort. Are you all aware of any churches that have embraced this vision for their web strategy?
tony
I don’t know of any churches that have their own websites which fit with what you are talking about but I do know of many pastors and ‘lay people’ who are utilizing Facebook, Twitter and other such tools quite effectively.
I try to use them well, but I’m not sure I really do… yet.
Not sure of any churches doing this, but Carlos Whittaker is trying to take his blog (www.ragamuffinsoul.com) to this kind of communication level by hosting live prayer services and new album listening parties where everyone there can participate either by webcam or chat.
It seems like he’s trying to transition from a one (maybe two) dimensional information style blog to a user/viewer/community created space.
Sunday night, there were over 200 people from around the world gathered there listening to an entire album together, chatting live, and connecting with one another. There are certain experiences that can only (practically) take place online. I think those are the kinds of experiences that the Church can embrace in order to create an effective web strategy.
Tony – totally agree! Are there a few specific churches that you see doing well with their web strategy? Would love to see seen some good examples of what it looks like for the church to really do this right.
[...] The New Traditional Church: Web Strategy | TonyMorganLive.com ………. [...]
[...] 6. Tony Morgan had this great post the other day on the new traditional church. [...]
Tony writes, “Instead, the churches that have influence within our online culture look at ministry differently.” Which churches? Get specific. Provide me a link. I want to see what you’re talking about. Show me one church website that is applying this online vision you speak of. I want to see it in action.
But, Tony admits in his reply, “For those that have asked, i’m not really aware of any churches that are hitting the ball out of the park.” What? I thought the whole post was to inspire me to become more web savvy and tweak my vision to become “like the churches that are having influence with the online culture.” Isn’t that why every other comment asks for an example.
[...] Morgan shares a new web strategy for the [...]
[...] Morgan clearly lays out the The New Traditional Church: Web Strategy and it has got me [...]
I’m not sure what I think. Everything you say sounds good. But, most sites (church and otherwise) are still interactive online brochures. The question is what are you doing outside the building or website. Are you posting videos on FB and YouTube, do you interact on Twitter, do you blog. The online community shouldn’t be built on the church website but out in the real online world. I do agree that most churches are doing a poor job a utilizing blogging and Twitter to engage in spiritual dialogue both inside and outside the church. Some are starting to get it with Facebook though. The Church of the Highlands has a great FB strategy for their One service. http://bit.ly/BYxvB
[...] The New Traditional Church Web [...]
Hmmm, interesting an enlightening post, and I have to agree with it.
It needs to be a place where people can ask questions – anonymously – that they may be afraid/scared/ashamed of asking in real life. But there needs to be a fine line I guess, between creating something viewed as nothing more then just ‘another’ social networking site, and a site that gives answers people want.
[...] continuing with the digital theme of yesterday, I readthis post from Tony Morgan a couple of weeks ago about church [...]
[...] initiatives should be to constantly engage and strengthen our little communities (Tony Morgan recently posted some great thoughts on this). If our content isn’t built around this objective, the future is [...]
[...] was struck by something Tony Morgan wrote in his blog discussing this topic: I’m amazed at the number of churches that still view the web as primarily [...]
[...] his article make you think: http://tonymorganlive.com/2009/05/23/the-new-traditional-church-web/ | Coaching Works | July 17th, 2009 | Category: Website Design [...]
[...] [read more] [...]
IF you run across any good examples of your own or shared by others, would you please do another post on this subject in order to share with us? I agree with the premise but also recognize the friction with time, money and resources. No doubt churches should be reallocating resources into the web, not just in brochure sense but in engagement and interactivity. My only issue with it is that balance between what our church will use and what those we are trying to reach will use… often two different stages.
Tony, your dead on here. I believe churches tend to come across selling their product, which is church attendance. Churches with good intentions use church advertisements (like the web) to get people involved at their campus, then to share the Gospel. They can have the right intention, though a capitalistic or Corporate America means to an end. I like your ideas here and pray we, the church can incorporate them.
Hey Tony! love our church…hate our website! but you are right when you say it takes a shift in our thinking, and 4 sure its not easy! Can’t believe how many times I’ve heard, “our” people are not on the web, most of them don’t even have e-mail. “Our” demographic is different. Its not a part of “our” culture.” Like if you looked at us on a map, we live in the “stupid” region of the country or something? Don’t believe that is our reality but its perception is keeping us from engaging in some real community that is happening outside of our building walls.
Yes! There are so many websites that think it’s about spewing out information. That isn’t what people want. They want connection and genuine community.
When will the church jump on this bandwagon? Give it a few years. We’re always about a decade behind.
I’m not sure I agree.
Like any organisation a church has to tell it’s own story which can only ever be a one way conversation – unless you open that up for comments. That could get very interesting!
I totally agree that LifeChurch.tv are leading the innovation wave with online services.
Tony, it would be a huge help to provide some concrete examples of what you think is working!
Thanks for all you do!
Although I do agree with some of your posts and find it helpful, where are the churches that are doing it ‘right’ or examples according to you. What about your church? I would think with all this insight and opinion, that the church you serve would be an example.
Great post. I think one of your next posts should tackle why some churches look and feel like the lines at the DMV and how to get out of that cycle.
Excellent thoughts on this, but I have run across many situations where devout people say the Internet is the devil. This mentality will be hard to change with the “old school” thinkers, unless there is tangible evidence that it provides a benefit (probably money in most cases).
I feel, though, as the younger generation takes over at these churches or builds churches of their own, the web and social media will be viewed as more of way to build community and branch out much easier. Allow people to tell stories and get real-time advice without going to the church. There could be excellent value in streaming your mass or sermons live. It allows your followers to never miss a Sunday and gives potential followers a flavor of what you have to offer. Could even make it subscription based where people get five free viewings and then need to donate to be able to continue viewing.
The bullhorn will be turned off when people start showing how they have added or created value. It may take a bit longer than the other niches and industries, but it will happen.
[...] “Traditional” Church Web Site By Daniel Pedersen In Tony Morgan’s The New Traditional Church: Web Strategy he fairly characterizes how most church web sites are formulated: as bull horns. He then states [...]