Comments on: Lo-Fi Tribe on Church Websites http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/ Worship Leader. Family Man. Jesus Follower. Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:19:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: worshipcity http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-795 worshipcity Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:14:38 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-795 Wow, this has gotten as good as the conversation over at the original post :) I think my opinion is beginning to form. What's the point? Having a hip, classy website that's flashy and attractive? Does that represent the church? Church ABC is church more focused on giving to the community and uses the school's gym and throw words white words up on a black screen using powerpoint on a portable projector. Is a high tech saavy crazy flashy website appropriate to them? I'd think no. They may not even know or care what stock photography is! I think technology is a tool. It's how we use that tool to represent who we are. With churches I think we want to be good stewards of technology. I doubt that anyone using stock photos has a manipulative marketing scheme to convince people to come to their church and if they did we need to talk about something deeper than photos :) For Church DEF who does use technology to relate to a new generation and engage congregants in exalting God then they have to decide how to use what they have at their disposal. Stock photos or not. $ .02 Wow, this has gotten as good as the conversation over at the original post :)

I think my opinion is beginning to form. What’s the point? Having a hip, classy website that’s flashy and attractive? Does that represent the church? Church ABC is church more focused on giving to the community and uses the school’s gym and throw words white words up on a black screen using powerpoint on a portable projector. Is a high tech saavy crazy flashy website appropriate to them? I’d think no. They may not even know or care what stock photography is!

I think technology is a tool. It’s how we use that tool to represent who we are. With churches I think we want to be good stewards of technology. I doubt that anyone using stock photos has a manipulative marketing scheme to convince people to come to their church and if they did we need to talk about something deeper than photos :)

For Church DEF who does use technology to relate to a new generation and engage congregants in exalting God then they have to decide how to use what they have at their disposal. Stock photos or not.

$ .02

]]> By: ohamanda http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-789 ohamanda Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:10:42 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-789 Sarah, I think we're misunderstanding each other. I'm not suggesting that a stock photo argument is what non-Christians dislike about the church. (and yes, it IS just an excuse, but it's still a reason that's valid to them!) What I AM saying is that non-Christians DO NOT LIKE when Christians start bickering and arguing amongst themselves about stuff within their church world. They say "SEE? We knew they were hypocrites. We knew they were legalistic. They major on the minors." (And I hang out with a ton of Christians who feel this same way, they are Christians but detest Christianity. That's another conversation...) And I realize by even typing a response to this, I'm perpetuating it. So, I truly hope a non-Christian doesn't stumble upon this post. Sarah, I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I’m not suggesting that a stock photo argument is what non-Christians dislike about the church. (and yes, it IS just an excuse, but it’s still a reason that’s valid to them!) What I AM saying is that non-Christians DO NOT LIKE when Christians start bickering and arguing amongst themselves about stuff within their church world. They say “SEE? We knew they were hypocrites. We knew they were legalistic. They major on the minors.” (And I hang out with a ton of Christians who feel this same way, they are Christians but detest Christianity. That’s another conversation… ;)

And I realize by even typing a response to this, I’m perpetuating it. So, I truly hope a non-Christian doesn’t stumble upon this post.

]]> By: klampert http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-787 klampert Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:42:35 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-787 interesting sarah...but i dont agree. the church is a business and we do have something for sale...Christ...now our "product" is free but free is always a harder sell. I think that we are given gifts and tools to bring people in and while Christ draws sometimes he draws through us. I think Apostle paul would have had a website and it would have been killer. the truth of the matter is we should market the church we should advertise and use technology. What we should not do is misrepresent who we are or water down what our beliefs are. The site should still be clearly a church because it is one. We are in the world not of it is very true but waiting for christ to bring people is not biblical. He told us to go...and this means using things that will bring others in. This goes with an analogy. Imagine the church is in a car and there are many places we can go in it to reach people. Christ is steering and we have our foot on the gas. If we don't press it. He can't move us. I think thats what God calls us to do have action. Marketing the church, talking to people, outreach, ministry...its all pushing the gas...and then he can use our obedience to steer that car. interesting sarah…but i dont agree. the church is a business and we do have something for sale…Christ…now our “product” is free but free is always a harder sell.
I think that we are given gifts and tools to bring people in and while Christ draws sometimes he draws through us. I think Apostle paul would have had a website and it would have been killer. the truth of the matter is we should market the church we should advertise and use technology.
What we should not do is misrepresent who we are or water down what our beliefs are. The site should still be clearly a church because it is one. We are in the world not of it is very true but waiting for christ to bring people is not biblical. He told us to go…and this means using things that will bring others in.
This goes with an analogy. Imagine the church is in a car and there are many places we can go in it to reach people. Christ is steering and we have our foot on the gas. If we don’t press it. He can’t move us. I think thats what God calls us to do have action. Marketing the church, talking to people, outreach, ministry…its all pushing the gas…and then he can use our obedience to steer that car.

]]> By: Sarah Chia http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-786 Sarah Chia Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:10:06 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-786 Billy, Should we market the church? I think we ought to step back from tactics and let Christ <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2012:32%20;&version=31;" rel="nofollow">draw all men to himself</a>. I get pretty put-off when people get caught up over the image of a website. Is the church about being all put together and showy, or is it about being the body of Christ? Is it all about being hiply relevant, or is it about being Christ to the world around us? I think that Rick McKinley answers this well in "This Beautiful Mess": "relevance is a consequence of kingdom living, not a cause...love given without any other agenda is always relevant." So, should we market the kingdom of God like a product for sale? No. We should <em>be</em> the kingdom of God and stop trying to grow it based on our worldly understanding of growth. (BTW, I do think that stock photography is okay. I just don't think that marketing the church is.) Billy,

Should we market the church? I think we ought to step back from tactics and let Christ draw all men to himself.

I get pretty put-off when people get caught up over the image of a website. Is the church about being all put together and showy, or is it about being the body of Christ? Is it all about being hiply relevant, or is it about being Christ to the world around us?

I think that Rick McKinley answers this well in “This Beautiful Mess”:

“relevance is a consequence of kingdom living, not a cause…love given without any other agenda is always relevant.”

So, should we market the kingdom of God like a product for sale? No. We should be the kingdom of God and stop trying to grow it based on our worldly understanding of growth.

(BTW, I do think that stock photography is okay. I just don’t think that marketing the church is.)

]]> By: Sarah Chia http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-785 Sarah Chia Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:52:27 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-785 Amanda, It's very tempting to look at the things that the church does wrong (for example, arguing about whether stock photos should be used) and declare that this is why non-Christians hate the church, but the truth is that they hate the church because they hate Jesus. (Dan Kimball just happens to be wrong about his idea that they like him.) Jesus promised us that we would be hated because of him (Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=21&verse=17&version=31&context=verse" rel="nofollow">Luke 21:17</a>). That is the reason that non-Christians hate the church. All other reasons are simply convenient excuses. This is not to say that we shouldn't be more unified and agreeable. We certainly should. But we shouldn't confusedly place blame on these faults as the reason people hate us. Amanda,

It’s very tempting to look at the things that the church does wrong (for example, arguing about whether stock photos should be used) and declare that this is why non-Christians hate the church, but the truth is that they hate the church because they hate Jesus. (Dan Kimball just happens to be wrong about his idea that they like him.) Jesus promised us that we would be hated because of him (Matthew 10:22, Mark 13:13, and Luke 21:17). That is the reason that non-Christians hate the church. All other reasons are simply convenient excuses.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t be more unified and agreeable. We certainly should. But we shouldn’t confusedly place blame on these faults as the reason people hate us.

]]> By: ohamanda http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-777 ohamanda Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:37:05 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-777 My answer: why wouldn't we? Coke markets coke b/c they want money and think they have a good product. Are we not motivated by something better--a better product and a better return? I just don't like people making things super-spiritual. Stock photos should not a religious debate... it's not a moral issue. It's a design issue. Period. (THIS is why non-Christians hate the church.) My answer: why wouldn’t we? Coke markets coke b/c they want money and think they have a good product. Are we not motivated by something better–a better product and a better return?

I just don’t like people making things super-spiritual. Stock photos should not a religious debate… it’s not a moral issue. It’s a design issue. Period. (THIS is why non-Christians hate the church.)

]]> By: Billy Chia http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-773 Billy Chia Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:23:54 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-773 Joel, Your thoughts on being misleading echo my point exactly: It's not whether or not to use stock imagery, but rather <em>how</em> you use it that counts. Amanda, lol - thanx for your candor. I will say that for those of use who are passionate about marketing and communications that this is a valid issue. I would agree that often times we make a big deal about small issues. Your comment does raise the question: Should the church be marketed in the same way Coke or Honda are? Joel,
Your thoughts on being misleading echo my point exactly: It’s not whether or not to use stock imagery, but rather how you use it that counts.

Amanda,
lol - thanx for your candor. I will say that for those of use who are passionate about marketing and communications that this is a valid issue. I would agree that often times we make a big deal about small issues.

Your comment does raise the question: Should the church be marketed in the same way Coke or Honda are?

]]> By: klampert http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-772 klampert Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:18:28 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-772 I am a designer and a marketing consultant...there is nothing misleading about using stock photos as long as they aren't...misleading. they should represent reality. Stock photos give a church a more high end look then regular photos. you also dont deal with any issues of jealousy or people in photos who are no longer in the church. I think church sites should be as best as they can be and be designed to achieve a specific goal or target audience. I am a designer and a marketing consultant…there is nothing misleading about using stock photos as long as they aren’t…misleading. they should represent reality. Stock photos give a church a more high end look then regular photos.
you also dont deal with any issues of jealousy or people in photos who are no longer in the church.
I think church sites should be as best as they can be and be designed to achieve a specific goal or target audience.

]]> By: ohamanda http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-771 ohamanda Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:55:55 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-771 I just really can't believe someone would dedicate a whole blog post to whether stock photos are appropriate or not. (I'm not talking about you, of course.) I guess I don't understand why in the heck it matters. What moron really thinks that the guy happily sipping a coke on the coke website is not getting paid for that? Who really thinks that the people gushing over their new car on the Honda commercial are for real? People looking at church websites are not that stupid. Use a stock photo or don't use a stock photo. Who cares? I just really can’t believe someone would dedicate a whole blog post to whether stock photos are appropriate or not. (I’m not talking about you, of course.) I guess I don’t understand why in the heck it matters. What moron really thinks that the guy happily sipping a coke on the coke website is not getting paid for that? Who really thinks that the people gushing over their new car on the Honda commercial are for real? People looking at church websites are not that stupid. Use a stock photo or don’t use a stock photo. Who cares?

]]> By: Billy Chia http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-770 Billy Chia Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:10:05 +0000 http://billychia.com/2007/09/17/lo-fi-tribe-on-church-websites/#comment-770 "they want to make their website in Word using the supplied office clipart" Gordon, wow, you have your work cut out for you. Yeah, I agree. At times stock photos can be a more authentic representation of a church that poorly taken photos of actual people that go there. “they want to make their website in Word using the supplied office clipart”

Gordon,
wow, you have your work cut out for you. Yeah, I agree. At times stock photos can be a more authentic representation of a church that poorly taken photos of actual people that go there.

]]>