Must Haves on a Church's Website?

[Lamb]

BTW, I appreciate all the input and I've been working my church website the past 2 days. WordPress is REALLY easy if you aren't using the classic editor and using the default Gutenberg. I am no expert, but if anyone needs help, just let me know! The tools are the same for a lot of other programs, so for people who are artists or admins on forums, it's intuitive.

 

[tango]

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

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

I'm not saying you need antics, I'm just curious why the presence of something like a clown in one service is enough to write off the church completely.

It's good that the kids in your service could understand that it was time to be quiet.

 

[tango]

BTW, I appreciate all the input and I've been working my church website the past 2 days. WordPress is REALLY easy if you aren't using the classic editor and using the default Gutenberg. I am no expert, but if anyone needs help, just let me know! The tools are the same for a lot of other programs, so for people who are artists or admins on forums, it's intuitive.

I wouldn't call it a must-have but if you're also considering things it would be good to have I'd also list recordings (audio or video) of recent sermons for the benefit of people who weren't able to make it to the service. I'm not sure if WordPress supports scripting languages - if it does it can be handy to have a script so that once you upload the file to the server the script finds it automatically so you don't need to manually tinker with the site every time you upload a file.

 

[Albion]

I'm not saying you need antics, I'm just curious why the presence of something like a clown in one service is enough to write off the church completely.

Looking back through the previous posts, I saw that this was answered earlier.

And also, your scenario described the clown as operating from the pulpit as well as it being something the church would be doing every three months, not just "in one service."

If we rewrite the event like that, it might make a decision to change churches seem premature. In that case, I suppose that a concerned member or two might choose to first have a heart-to-heart talk with the pastor about the matter before doing what I referred to earlier. Nevertheless, my impression is that you see corporate worship in a different way than Lamb and I do.

 

[tango]

Looking back through the previous posts, I saw that this was answered earlier.

And also, your scenario described the clown as operating from the pulpit as well as it being something the church would be doing every three months, not just "in one service."

My thinking was that if you watch a single service and draw a conclusion based on one service you could get an inaccurate impression of what the church is about. Whether the issue is a clown (something that might appear once and only once, or once every few months, or every week - it's impossible to tell with only one data point) or something else that doesn't match what you're ideally looking for, you'd still need to watch a few services to get a feel for the church.

With the clown in particular you might attend a church for months before a clown appeared once but hopefully by attending in person you'd get a better sense of whether it was the kind of church that might do such a thing and, if so, whether it was the kind of church that would do it "for a bit of fun" just for the sake of doing something different, or for a specific purpose in a child-centered ministry.

If we rewrite the event like that, it might make a decision to change churches seem premature. In that case, I suppose that a concerned member or two might choose to first have a heart-to-heart talk with the pastor about the matter before doing what I referred to earlier. Nevertheless, my impression is that you see corporate worship in a different way than Lamb and I do.

I think here you've summed up a couple of key points. If you were a concerned member you could talk to the pastor but if you'd just seen something on a live stream you wouldn't have the connection to the pastor. You could probably email them (assuming the email was listed on the site) but you wouldn't necessarily have the personal connection to figure whether the pastor was one who had given it serious thought and decided it was appropriate, or one who just went along with whatever hare-brained scheme the kids thought up.

... and you're probably right, in that we see corporate worship differently. When something obviously bothers other people in ways it doesn't bother me, I'm curious to know why and to what extent it bothers them.

 

[Albion]

My thinking was that if you watch a single service and draw a conclusion based on one service you could get an inaccurate impression of what the church is about.

I guess that's true, but the most likely scenario in this case would seem to be that the pastor or board had told the congregation what the plans are concerning this clown ministry idea. The idea of springing such a thing on the people seems unlikely.

With the clown in particular you might attend a church for months before a clown appeared once but hopefully by attending in person you'd get a better sense of whether it was the kind of church that might do such a thing and, if so, whether it was the kind of church that would do it "for a bit of fun" just for the sake of doing something different, or for a specific purpose in a child-centered ministry.

Okay, but in the end, if I tuned in to the telecast of such a church service or saw what you've described when I visited, I would surmise that such stuff was not unusual in that particular congregation or parish. This clown idea might be a one-time event, but I would strongly suspect that a casual or informal, etc. style is typical of that church and I'd continue my search.

If, however, this approach appeals to another person who is hoping to find a church for himself, that's his business.

I think here you've summed up a couple of key points. If you were a concerned member you could talk to the pastor but if you'd just seen something on a live stream you wouldn't have the connection to the pastor. You could probably email them (assuming the email was listed on the site) but you wouldn't necessarily have the personal connection to figure whether the pastor was one who had given it serious thought and decided it was appropriate, or one who just went along with whatever hare-brained scheme the kids thought up.

... and you're probably right, in that we see corporate worship differently. When something obviously bothers other people in ways it doesn't bother me, I'm curious to know why and to what extent it bothers them.

 

[Lamb]

My thinking was that if you watch a single service and draw a conclusion based on one service you could get an inaccurate impression of what the church is about. Whether the issue is a clown (something that might appear once and only once, or once every few months, or every week - it's impossible to tell with only one data point) or something else that doesn't match what you're ideally looking for, you'd still need to watch a few services to get a feel for the church.

With the clown in particular you might attend a church for months before a clown appeared once but hopefully by attending in person you'd get a better sense of whether it was the kind of church that might do such a thing and, if so, whether it was the kind of church that would do it "for a bit of fun" just for the sake of doing something different, or for a specific purpose in a child-centered ministry.



I think here you've summed up a couple of key points. If you were a concerned member you could talk to the pastor but if you'd just seen something on a live stream you wouldn't have the connection to the pastor. You could probably email them (assuming the email was listed on the site) but you wouldn't necessarily have the personal connection to figure whether the pastor was one who had given it serious thought and decided it was appropriate, or one who just went along with whatever hare-brained scheme the kids thought up.

... and you're probably right, in that we see corporate worship differently. When something obviously bothers other people in ways it doesn't bother me, I'm curious to know why and to what extent it bothers them.

If a clown is part of the worship service, to me it shows there no longer is reverence toward God who is Holy. That's why seeing a clown at a service is going to be an automatic NO for me.

 

[tango]

I guess that's true, but the most likely scenario in this case would seem to be that the pastor or board had told the congregation what the plans are concerning this clown ministry idea. The idea of springing such a thing on the people seems unlikely.

Depending on the style of the church, quite possible. But sticking with the question of seeing a clown on a live stream, you'd have no way of knowing whether it was a one-off, whether the pastor had discussed with the congregation, whether it was the kind of thing likely to be repeated, whether the congregation loved it or hated it, and so on.

If a clown appeared and much of the congregation was clearly horrified at its presence you'd imagine it wouldn't happen again unless there was a compelling reason for it (and with a clown in particular it's hard to see a compelling reason why it's necessary). Over a live stream you wouldn't know what other people thought about it.

Okay, but in the end, if I tuned in to the telecast of such a church service or saw what you've described when I visited, I would surmise that such stuff was not unusual in that particular congregation or parish. This clown idea might be a one-time event, but I would strongly suspect that a casual or informal, etc. style is typical of that church and I'd continue my search.

Is it fair to say that if you were watching a live stream you'd be looking for a service that is formal in style, and the presence of the clown is a problem because it's indicative of a more casual style than you're seeking rather than specifically because it's a clown?

 

[Albion]

Is it fair to say that if you were watching a live stream you'd be looking for a service that is formal in style, and the presence of the clown is a problem because it's indicative of a more casual style than you're seeking rather than specifically because it's a clown?

It isn't because it's a clown as opposed to Mickey Mouse or Superman. The concept itself is disrespectful as well as unnecessary, and it's made worse by having the clown operate from the pulpit.

As noted earlier, there are churches which specialize in things like bands, concerts, and "sacred" dance troupes or stage plays, or else concentrate on public "healings" and/or "altar [sic] calls." None of that amounts to worship in my view, which is also the view of most traditionalist Christians of whatever denomination, whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

[tango]

It isn't because it's a clown as opposed to Mickey Mouse or Superman. The concept itself is disrespectful as well as unnecessary, and it's made worse by having the clown operate from the pulpit.

Do you see the pulpit as being a space that's particularly "set apart" from the rest of the church? If a clown were to give the message but not from the pulpit would that make a difference?

As noted earlier, there are churches which specialize in things like bands, concerts, and "sacred" dance troupes or stage plays, or else concentrate on public "healings" and/or "altar [sic] calls." None of that amounts to worship in my view, which is also the view of most traditionalist Christians of whatever denomination, whether Catholic or Protestant.

This sort of thing is certainly more associated with the less formal denominations. When you refer to a band are you thinking about a visiting band who come to perform a concert, or a band providing musical accompaniment to congregational singing?

 

[Lamb]

Do you see the pulpit as being a space that's particularly "set apart" from the rest of the church? If a clown were to give the message but not from the pulpit would that make a difference?



This sort of thing is certainly more associated with the less formal denominations. When you refer to a band are you thinking about a visiting band who come to perform a concert, or a band providing musical accompaniment to congregational singing?

A clown mocks God by the sheer ridiculousness of its presence where it shouldn't be.

 

[Albion]

Do you see the pulpit as being a space that's particularly "set apart" from the rest of the church? If a clown were to give the message but not from the pulpit would that make a difference?

I'm not sure that "watering down" your hypothetical event, feature after feature, is worth pursuing much further. Having the clown show up only once rather than quarterly was one change, and now it's that the clown might not be using the pulpit after all.

Anyway, what was described did seem irreverent and could understandably cause some seekers or visitors to think twice about choosing such a church as this one for their own. That's the basic answer.

This clown event would logically raise questions about what other kinds of gimmicks that church finds acceptable. None of this is on the level of denying a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, you know, but it can matter when it comes to the scenario we were asked about.

But yes, many churches do consider the pulpit to be a special item normally reserved for a special purpose. I am reminded of the time I was part of a civic meeting which for purposes of accommodating the size of the audience was being held in a Baptist church, and the pastor asked each presenter/speaker to go to another part of the front of the church when making his or her remarks rather than use the pulpit for the purpose. And that was a Baptist church.

If we were to make a comparison, would you think that using the church's altar for a buffet table on the occasion of a parish dinner would be a good idea? Why not? Congregational meetings are a good thing, right? Maybe that church's social hall was temporarily unavailable because it was being remodeled, etc., etc.

 

[tango]

I'm not sure that "watering down" your hypothetical event, feature after feature, is worth pursuing much further. Having the clown show up only once rather than quarterly was one change, and now it's that the clown might not be using the pulpit after all.

I'm curious to know what it is you find unacceptable about the clown, and whether it's a universal "clown bad" belief or something more nuanced. To be clear, it's about looking to understand where you are coming from rather than trying to say you are wrong - as you said further up it's something that will have different levels of un/attractiveness depending on what sort of service people prefer.

Anyway, what was described did seem irreverent and could understandably cause some seekers or visitors to think twice about choosing such a church as this one for their own. That's the basic answer.

Sure, different people have different preferences. My curiosity is about where different people might draw lines between regarding something as normal, undesirable, or unacceptable.

But yes, many churches do consider the pulpit to be a special item normally reserved for a special purpose. I am reminded of the time I was part of a civic meeting which for purposes of accommodating the size of the audience was being held in a Baptist church, and the pastor asked each presenter/speaker to go to another part of the front of the church when making his or her remarks rather than use the pulpit for the purpose. And that was a Baptist church.

That's an interesting observation. My church has a pulpit that can be moved out of the way to clear the "stage" (it's only up two steps, so not exactly hugely elevated), which is used by whoever is leading the service and usually by whoever is preaching. Some people prefer to use a regular stand at normal floor level when they preach, and others prefer a simple stand on the stage. Every once in a while we have an outside group use the church building for some kind of gathering or another, and they are free to use the pulpit or whatever else works for them. I don't think I've ever regularly attended a church that has a formal, built-in pulpit that even could be regarded as a reserved space.

If we were to make a comparison, would you think that using the church's altar for a buffet table on the occasion of a parish dinner would be a good idea? Why not? Congregational meetings are a good thing, right? Maybe that church's social hall was temporarily unavailable because it was being remodeled, etc., etc.

That's a good question. As with the pulpit, I think the only time I've attended a church with a formal altar has been for weddings and funerals. Having never had an altar at church it's not something that inherently grates against anything for me, although if I did attend such a church I might feel differently.