Website question

[Eric Buell]

Our church is finally making the decision to launch a website. We are looking at Clover to help us. Does anyone have any experience with this particular company? If not any suggestions on user-friendly companies to help those just entering into this brave new world?
http://www.cloversites.com/

[Zach Wingo]

I'm not familiar with the company but I'll give a few thoughts from looking at their sites.

1.) Their sites are all built using all flash which has some issues, although it's worth mentioning they do have some support for mobile devices and search engines. However flash still brings other challenges such as accessibility problem; Screen readers don't work with flash and text isn't re-sizable. Flash does not support multiple tabs so you would have to manually open a new tab and load the site. In Firefox if you try to load a new tab using CTRL+T it doesn't work. Flash sites also have a much slower initial load time which according to some recent studies by Google, users are getting more impatient and sites with an initial delay as small as 200 milliseconds can make a significant difference.

Traditionally most professional web developers from Yahoo to Google to small design studios do not recommend all flash sites unless you are reaching a very narrow niche market that is expected to have full support. Examples are usually bands, promotional sites, etc..


3.) The $1000 initial price tag is very high IMO since you aren't actually buying a site. You are only buying the right to use a site. In fact, I don't know of any professional company that does something like this. In my opinion anything over $100 is too high for what they offer.

4.) Although the $1000 is insanely high, the monthly subscription fee is very reasonable. If you can get past being paying a $1000 entrance fee then the cost is reasonable.

5.) Because you aren't actually paying for the site, you can't make major changes down the road or customize your site such as adding a forum/discussion board, photo galleries, etc.. In other words you are dependent upon them to add/remove functionality and if you decide to move to a more advanced system in the future you will have to start over from scratch instead of improving what you already have.

6.) When doing a search on them I found this post (http://www.churchtechreview.com/church-cms/clover-sites-cms/) which highlights some of the very things I mentioned above. In the comments a user on dial-up mentioned the site is very slow loading. I was very turned-off by the next comment from a user claiming to work for Clover:



If you’re complaining that Flash is terrible on dial-up… um, you shouldn’t be online. If you’re driving a Pinto you should stay off the Autobahn.


This is a shockingly poor response IMO and would immediately disqualify them for me. It shows a complete lack of concern for customers and their needs. If I was the owner I would fire the guy immediately. I'm surprised no one else called them out on it.

The only benefit I see is the sites look nice visually (eye candy), it's supposedly very easy to use/learn, the monthly fee is very reasonable.


What do you plan on using the site for? Will it only be used for informational stuff like service times and mission statements? Will you be posting lots of media like pictures , sermons, etc.? Blogging?

[Zach Wingo]

To support the comments that small delay's can have a significant impact on your users take a look at this special lecture at a conference where two guys from both Microsoft and Google give the talk and discuss their research.

It's a little technical but it's important to know.

Edit: This is a quote of their closing statements.



"If you've done any reading in the academic literature in the field of human-computer interaction, you'll see statistics that say 100-200ms is something that no user can actually perceive. Well, regardless of that we have empirical data that suggests in fact that delays of that magnitude do have a clear impact on business metrics. We've also demonstrated that the cost of the delay increases over time and persists."

[Rich Schmidt]

To support the comments that small delay's can have a significant impact on your users take a look at this special lecture at a conference where two guys from both Microsoft and Google give the talk and discuss their research.

It's a little technical but it's important to know.

Edit: This is a quote of their closing statements.

Is there a link to that lecture hiding in your post? I don't see it, if it is.

Personally, I would never use an all-Flash site. Nor would I spend $1,000 on one. But I like to build my own on top of WordPress (free), so I can afford to save the money. :)

[Dave McClung]

Our church is finally making the decision to launch a website. We are looking at Clover to help us. Does anyone have any experience with this particular company? If not any suggestions on user-friendly companies to help those just entering into this brave new world?
http://www.cloversites.com/

I would just mention that quite a few churches use ReachOne to get started with a web site. The cost is reasonable. http://www.reachone.com

[Zach Wingo]

Ooops...I meant to post the link but forgot :rolleyes:

http://blip.tv/file/2279751/

[Eric Buell]

Great advice - thank you all so much. After spending 8 years in World Mission (MAC Region) and using Reach One sites and email I completely forgot about checking into them for a local church.

[Rich Schmidt]

I would just mention that quite a few churches use ReachOne to get started with a web site. The cost is reasonable. http://www.reachone.com


I can't speak to their pricing for web design, since their website says to "call for individual pricing," but the cost of their web hosting is ridiculous for what you get. 20 MB of space for each website?? I didn't know anyone even measured hard drive space in megabytes anymore!

[Gary Creely]

A church plant in my community used them, and I looked them up because I was impressed with their site (wich for me is rare).


I'm not familiar with the company but I'll give a few thoughts from looking at their sites.

1.) Their sites are all built using all flash which has some issues, although it's worth mentioning they do have some support for mobile devices and search engines. However flash still brings other challenges such as accessibility problem; Screen readers don't work with flash and text isn't re-sizable. Flash does not support multiple tabs so you would have to manually open a new tab and load the site. In Firefox if you try to load a new tab using CTRL+T it doesn't work. Flash sites also have a much slower initial load time which according to some recent studies by Google, users are getting more impatient and sites with an initial delay as small as 200 milliseconds can make a significant difference.

Traditionally most professional web developers from Yahoo to Google to small design studios do not recommend all flash sites unless you are reaching a very narrow niche market that is expected to have full support. Examples are usually bands, promotional sites, etc..

This has everything to do with who the target is. The kind of people you expect to reach with the site will determine be a factor in determining if flash is a good choice.



5.) Because you aren't actually paying for the site, you can't make major changes down the road or customize your site such as adding a forum/discussion board, photo galleries, etc.. In other words you are dependent upon them to add/remove functionality and if you decide to move to a more advanced system in the future you will have to start over from scratch instead of improving what you already have.

I think you can do most of those things through their UI


6.) When doing a search on them I found this post (http://www.churchtechreview.com/church-cms/clover-sites-cms/) which highlights some of the very things I mentioned above. In the comments a user on dial-up mentioned the site is very slow loading. I was very turned-off by the next comment from a user claiming to work for Clover:

This is a shockingly poor response IMO and would immediately disqualify them for me. It shows a complete lack of concern for customers and their needs. If I was the owner I would fire the guy immediately. I'm surprised no one else called them out on it.

"If you’re complaining that Flash is terrible on dial-up… um, you shouldn’t be online. If you’re driving a Pinto you should stay off the Autobahn. "

That is a fantastic response. It true. I would not design a church site around dial up speeds. This again comes down to your "target" and who you are trying to reach with the site.


The only benefit I see is the sites look nice visually (eye candy), it's supposedly very easy to use/learn, the monthly fee is very reasonable.

I have been advocating for a while that church sites need to be more visually appealing. It is one of those commonly overlooked issues. I know about these guys because I found one of their sites so compelling I wanted to know who did it (http://www.lvlegacy.org/). The idea that "eye candy" is some sort of minor consideration misses the mark IMO. This is a matter of first impressions, and marketing. If the goal of this site is to put your best foot forward to what is more and more your new front door, I believe clover is a good value considering the end product.

If you are looking for the web site to serve more of an internal purpose it may not be worth the expense.

As a side bar, the church that is using this service started 6 months ago and they are already larger than the Nazarene Church I am pastoring that has been around for 40 years. (they started with 3 people). I am not saying this site is why, but is is part of the broader picture of understanding marketing the church to the unchurched.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I know you guys are quite sharp about web design, etc. so my approach may be hopelessly out of date.

When I do a site I have two objectives in mind:
1. Why do I think people came to the site in the first place.
2. What do I want them to know that they don't already know.

Most people, I think, come to a church web site:
1. To get the location, phone number, schedule
2. To learn about the church and pastor.

I don't think they come:
1. To watch impressive whirly gigs
2. Listen to background music
3. Search for information

Therefore, I want a church site to load quickly, to have easy to understand navigation and be easy for them to spot the information I think they are looking for. Since a major question is "what does your church believe" I include a section on "our faith." I also include a some Sunday Sermon samples because people like to know what to expect from the pastor's sermon.

I also want them to come from the site knowing some things about the church:
1. I want them to know that we are like a family, so I give them a current photo album
2. I want them to know what to expect when they arrive - that we aren't a mega church, that we dress "smart casual," and that we are a Church of Second Chances
3. I want them to know about any current events (that is possibly what brought them to the site in the first place)
4. I want them to be exposed to the Gospel, so I include information on how to seek the Lord

[Gary Creely]

I know you guys are quite sharp about web design, etc. so my approach may be hopelessly out of date.

When I do a site I have two objectives in mind:
1. Why do I think people came to the site in the first place.
2. What do I want them to know that they don't already know.

Most people, I think, come to a church web site:
1. To get the location, phone number, schedule
2. To learn about the church and pastor.

I don't think they come:
1. To watch impressive whirly gigs
2. Listen to background music
3. Search for information

Therefore, I want a church site to load quickly, to have easy to understand navigation and be easy for them to spot the information I think they are looking for. Since a major question is "what does your church believe" I include a section on "our faith." I also include a some Sunday Sermon samples because people like to know what to expect from the pastor's sermon.

I also want them to come from the site knowing some things about the church:
1. I want them to know that we are like a family, so I give them a current photo album
2. I want them to know what to expect when they arrive - that we aren't a mega church, that we dress "smart casual," and that we are a Church of Second Chances
3. I want them to know about any current events (that is possibly what brought them to the site in the first place)
4. I want them to be exposed to the Gospel, so I include information on how to seek the Lord

I don't think you are out of date.

I just think that we assume that the key to communicating those things is words. The quality of the overall visual presentation of the site will communicate more about the church, quicker than the entirety of the rest of the content. That is why something like clover might just be worth its salt.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I don't think you are out of date.

I just think that we assume that the key to communicating those things is words. The quality of the overall visual presentation of the site will communicate more about the church, quicker than the entirety of the rest of the content. That is why something like clover might just be worth its salt.

I think you have a point about visual content especially if you're thinking of having, say a 2 minute video of the church, as long as its selectable by the site visitor and doesn't just start loading when you arrive on the site.

I'm not as on board if you're talking about having whirly gigs meant to impress me. That kind of stuff feels amateurish to me. But, again, that's possibly just me.

[Zach Wingo]

This has everything to do with who the target is. The kind of people you expect to reach with the site will determine be a factor in determining if flash is a good choice.

This has nothing to do with audience, it's all about accessibility and usability which affects all audiences. My statement is not just an opinion but it's a theme that is reiterated over and over again by the biggest names in web development/design to the biggest companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.. The only time all flash sites should be used are on a case by case basis where you are trying to reach a very niche market such as promotional sites, band sites, etc..





I think you can do most of those things through their UI


No, I actually just called them to confirm this. If you want to add a forum you would need to have one setup externally (since they host the sites) and then link to it. As I said before, you are dependent upon them just like when you use a product like Gmail. They can add/remove functionality at any time.



That is a fantastic response. It true. I would not design a church site around dial up speeds. This again comes down to your "target" and who you are trying to reach with the site.

No it's a horrible response. Again the issue isn't about dial-up it's the response, "then you shouldn't be on the internet". It's horrible customer service and it's why I would and have fired employees for responses like that. Then again I actually cared about my customers.



I have been advocating for a while that church sites need to be more visually appealing. It is one of those commonly overlooked issues. I know about these guys because I found one of their sites so compelling I wanted to know who did it (http://www.lvlegacy.org/). The idea that "eye candy" is some sort of minor consideration misses the mark IMO. This is a matter of first impressions, and marketing. If the goal of this site is to put your best foot forward to what is more and more your new front door, I believe clover is a good value considering the end product.


I completely agree and have complained about church sites for years but again this is a completely separate issue from the framework upon which the site is built. It doesn't matter how much "eye candy" you have if the site has poor usability and accessibility. There is absolutely nothing on the site you linked to that couldn't be done with HTML & Javascript and it would be faster, more usable, and accessible. Mars Hill (http://www.marshillchurch.org/) church is a great example of a well designed site that is usable and accessible and doesn't rely upon flash. It uses flash but it's not dependent upon it.

In my opinion it's a ripoff and your money would be much better spent seeking a good design studio which will research your needs and your target audience and develop a site that will reach them effectively. If their professional and follow current web standards you will end up with a site that is just as visually appealing but it will also be unique, and you can expand and grow the site however you want. You could even take your site to another design studio or hand it off to someone in the church with experience later on if you so choose.



As a side bar, the church that is using this service started 6 months ago and they are already larger than the Nazarene Church I am pastoring that has been around for 40 years. (they started with 3 people). I am not saying this site is why, but is is part of the broader picture of understanding marketing the church to the unchurched.

The site is nothing more than a tool that will facilitate what God is already doing. The last business I ran we had one of the worst visually appealing facilities that wasn't even fully finished, out logo was quite blah and yet with no traditional advertising our business grew at about 22% annually because everyone talked about our service. If your church is faithfully preaching the Gospel and calling people to repentance then I assure you whether you have a website or not will make no difference.


Note: Here are a few websites I've seen recently that are well designed by some great design studios:

This Youth For Christ Campus Life (http://icampuslife.com/) site was done by Cultivate Studios (http://www.cultivatestudios.com/) . If I remember correctly, at least one of their guys volunteers with YFC which is why they did the site.

Tim Challies (http://www.challies.com/) is a talented designer who is also a Christian. I don't know how expensive he is but he's does amazing work and it's done right.

David Sudarma (http://www.26am.com/) is someone I only know from Media Temple's forums. I know he's a talented designer and again I believe he's a Christian.

There are thousands of others and although they are probably more expensive initially, one the site is done you own the site and can host it yourself, add whatever functionality you need when you need it, and it will be far more usable, accessible and faster. IMO that's the best way to go.

[Zach Wingo]

About ReachOne, they are a local company to the Seattle area that provides lots of service to churches. Their monthly hosting fees are not much higher than other shared hosts until you compare features like storage and bandwidth and they are become extremely high. They have some limitations that I found very annoying like a 2MB upload limit via PHP. This prevent me from having an upload form for the sermons so the secretary has to upload them via FTP. I offered to host the site for free at Media Temple (http://mediatemple.net) but for some reason I was told they wanted to stay with them. ReachOne and Clover Sites are both companies that like Guided Fishing trips market to those who either don't really know anything about fishing or simply don't want to take the time to do things themselves.

[Gary Creely]

No, I actually just called them to confirm this. If you want to add a forum you would need to have one setup externally (since they host the sites) and then link to it. As I said before, you are dependent upon them just like when you use a product like Gmail. They can add/remove functionality at any time.

So of the things you previously mentioned "forum/discussion board, photo galleries, etc" the only one that would not be supported is a forum which is something most churches don't do. I just don't see this as an issue for most ministries.



I completely agree and have complained about church sites for years but again this is a completely separate issue from the framework upon which the site is built. It doesn't matter how much "eye candy" you have if the site has poor usability and accessibility. There is absolutely nothing on the site you linked to that couldn't be done with HTML & Javascript and it would be faster, more usable, and accessible. Mars Hill (http://www.marshillchurch.org/) church is a great example of a well designed site that is usable and accessible and doesn't rely upon flash. It uses flash but it's not dependent upon it.

Fair enough, but I did not notice that the clover sites were too sluggish and I have a so-so DSL connection. Mars Hill likely has a full time staff person (or several) to do their site, I would guess they have over $60k a year into staff to do their site. Some of the other larger ministries I work with will not hesitate to put 20-30k into a website.



In my opinion it's a ripoff and your money would be much better spent seeking a good design studio which will research your needs and your target audience and develop a site that will reach them effectively. If their professional and follow current web standards you will end up with a site that is just as visually appealing but it will also be unique, and you can expand and grow the site however you want. You could even take your site to another design studio or hand it off to someone in the church with experience later on if you so choose.

Maybe so, but $1000 does not get you real far in a "good" studio. I think the end product with clover is much better than say faith highway. Faith highways basic package is $35 a month and about $400 to set up, in 5 years the total investment is $2500 and clover would be $2200 not really too disimilar. The difference is the clover site would be much more professional looking.

I think what Clover is trying to push is the idea of ease of use. I worked with the FH UI and it was awful, it seems Clover is a bit more user friendly.



The site is nothing more than a tool that will facilitate what God is already doing. The last business I ran we had one of the worst visually appealing facilities that wasn't even fully finished, out logo was quite blah and yet with no traditional advertising our business grew at about 22% annually because everyone talked about our service.

Marketing and branding is a big deal. That is not to say that some don't find a certain level of success without it, but I wonder what that same business could have done with the addition of decent marketing.


If your church is faithfully preaching the Gospel and calling people to repentance then I assure you whether you have a website or not will make no difference.

I disagree. I sincerely believe most Nazarene churches preach the Gospel and call people to repentance, unfortunately I know most of them are in decline. Is a web site alone a make or break issue?, absolutely not, however it is indicative of the larger picture of how they are engaging the culture.

There is a fine line between trusting God to work and relying on our own strength and wisdom to see our own path to kingdom growth. What I have observed more frequently is folks trusting in God and preaching the right stuff, but doing little else.

[Gary Creely]

ReachOne and Clover Sites are both companies that like Guided Fishing trips market to those who either don't really know anything about fishing or simply don't want to take the time to do things themselves.

Agreed.

[Rich Schmidt]

I know I said earlier that I would never spend $1,000 on a website. That was probably too absolute of a statement. :)

For those wondering about the value of how your website looks to the average visitor online, maybe it helps to compare it to other "first impressions" you make on people thinking about visiting your church:

- Your building. You probably keep the building looking nice outside, right? Curb appeal? Do you mow the grass, do some landscaping, plant flowers, keep the building in good repair, painted, etc? My guess is that most of us do and consider the investment in it worthwhile. We understand that their first impression of us will be shaped by the appearance (and style) of the building in which we worship/meet/etc.

- Fliers/postcards. Do you ever mail postcards to people in your community or hand out fliers inviting them to an Easter service or other event? Do you use a typewriter and cut'n'tape clip art onto an original, then make photocopies on plain paper? Do you design something yourself using a Microsoft Publisher template and print it on colorful paper? Do you do a full-color design in Photoshop and have it printed professionally? These are all options, and different churches make different choices in this area.

These were the first two parallels that came to mind. Our church has spent thousands of dollars on postcards over the years, but for the past several years we haven't spent more than the $10 annual domain registration fee for our websites. (Dreamhost.com hosts non-profits for free, and I use WordPress to build & maintain the sites.) So I can understand a church choosing to invest in a professional (and good-looking) website.

[Zach Wingo]

So of the things you previously mentioned "forum/discussion board, photo galleries, etc" the only one that would not be supported is a forum which is something most churches don't do. I just don't see this as an issue for most ministries.


Not exactly, I didn't have much time so I only asked about the forum. The point though wasn't anything specific but that you are dependent upon them for add/remove functionality just like you are with anything else where the product is not owed by you but only allows you use of it. Gmail is an example, Google can do whatever they want to the product/service and you are at their mercy.




Mars Hill likely has a full time staff person (or several) to do their site, I would guess they have over $60k a year into staff to do their site. Some of the other larger ministries I work with will not hesitate to put 20-30k into a website.


True, but again the point was it can be done. Having said that, technically speaking there is absolutely nothing special about their site that would cost large amounts of money. The only thing stopping me from making an identical site is I'm not very good at design but if I had the Photoshop files I could easily make the same site for essentially $0 minus labor costs.



Maybe so, but $1000 does not get you real far in a "good" studio....


Again, I agree that clover is probably better than a lot offerings targeted at churches but $1000 to simply get a subscription to use a site is insane. There are plenty of sites out there with nice templates for a few hundred that are just a visually appealing and could be moved to a system like Textpattern (http://textpattern.com) with very little work. I'm sure Clover is a fit for some churches but I think most could do much better in other ways.




I disagree. I sincerely believe most Nazarene churches preach the Gospel and call people to repentance, unfortunately I know most of them are in decline.


This is where we have a big disagreement. The CotN is in decline (at least in the U.S) because it's failing to preach the Gospel and call people to repentance. In their attempts to become culturally relevant they've changed the message.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but as someone who is from the generation the church has been trying to reach I know exactly why I and my peers have been turned off from in the CotN and other traditional churches and it's not because of their "cultural appeal" or lack of it. There's a reason why my friends and I listen to Mark Driscoll every week and I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with their "cultural appeal" as you see it. But from my experience, the CotN is more concerned with trying to imitate what they perceive to be the "cultural appeal" in churches like Mars Hill, than they are about actually listening to why we run to churches like them in the first place. The only reason I haven't left the Nazarene church is I keep hoping there will be a change but then I see comments like yours that only affirms the older generations don't get it. I highly recommend you listen to Mark Driscoll's message on "Putting Preachers in their Place" which can be found on their iTunes podcast. The other pastor I listen to weekly is in his late 50's, their websites is the most blah website I've seen and yet they have hundreds of teens and young adults show up to their weekly bible study where they preach from the KJV (how's that for cultural appeal?) and yet dozens of teens and young adults are being baptized weekly. But again, I'm sure you guys all know what we want more than we do so just forget my rant.

[Hans Deventer]

I don't expect you to agree with me, but as someone who is from the generation the church has been trying to reach I know exactly why I and my peers have been turned off from in the CotN and other traditional churches and it's not because of their "cultural appeal" or lack of it. There's a reason why my friends and I listen to Mark Driscoll every week and I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with their "cultural appeal" as you see it. But from my experience, the CotN is more concerned with trying to imitate what they perceive to be the "cultural appeal" in churches like Mars Hill, than they are about actually listening to why we run to churches like them in the first place. The only reason I haven't left the Nazarene church is I keep hoping there will be a change but then I see comments like yours that only affirms the older generations don't get it. I highly recommend you listen to Mark Driscoll's message on "Putting Preachers in their Place" which can be found on their iTunes podcast. The other pastor I listen to weekly is in his late 50's, their websites is the most blah website I've seen and yet they have hundreds of teens and young adults show up to their weekly bible study where they preach from the KJV (how's that for cultural appeal?) and yet dozens of teens and young adults are being baptized weekly. But again, I'm sure you guys all know what we want more than we do so just forget my rant.

Zach, do you think this book makes sense? http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?677-Rainer-Thom-and-Sam-Essential-Church-Reclaimng-a-Generation-of-Dropouts.

[Zach Wingo]

Zach, do you think this book makes sense? http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?677-Rainer-Thom-and-Sam-Essential-Church-Reclaimng-a-Generation-of-Dropouts.

From what I read in the review and sample chapter....yes. I just ordered a copy and look forward to reading it.

[Gary Creely]

I know I said earlier that I would never spend $1,000 on a website. That was probably too absolute of a statement. :)

For those wondering about the value of how your website looks to the average visitor online, maybe it helps to compare it to other "first impressions" you make on people thinking about visiting your church:

- Your building. You probably keep the building looking nice outside, right? Curb appeal? Do you mow the grass, do some landscaping, plant flowers, keep the building in good repair, painted, etc? My guess is that most of us do and consider the investment in it worthwhile. We understand that their first impression of us will be shaped by the appearance (and style) of the building in which we worship/meet/etc.

- Fliers/postcards. Do you ever mail postcards to people in your community or hand out fliers inviting them to an Easter service or other event? Do you use a typewriter and cut'n'tape clip art onto an original, then make photocopies on plain paper? Do you design something yourself using a Microsoft Publisher template and print it on colorful paper? Do you do a full-color design in Photoshop and have it printed professionally? These are all options, and different churches make different choices in this area.

These were the first two parallels that came to mind. Our church has spent thousands of dollars on postcards over the years, but for the past several years we haven't spent more than the $10 annual domain registration fee for our websites. (Dreamhost.com hosts non-profits for free, and I use WordPress to build & maintain the sites.) So I can understand a church choosing to invest in a professional (and good-looking) website.

Great points, and they all play into that bigger picture. Some of us have the skills to do sites on the cheap that look ok. The real cost in a site is the graphic design, for instance you mentioned word press, well to have a custom wordpress template designed can be pretty pricy.

By the way a really great way to have high quality graphic work done on the cheap is this site- http://99designs.com/

[Rich Schmidt]

This is where we have a big disagreement. The CotN is in decline (at least in the U.S) because it's failing to preach the Gospel and call people to repentance. In their attempts to become culturally relevant they've changed the message.

We've officially moved off the topic of this thread now, I believe. But as a 35 year old who's been pastoring for 10-11 years now, I wanted to chime in that I disagree with this statement. Sorry, Zach. I imagine there are plenty of Nazarene churches out there preaching the gospel & calling people to repentance that are nonetheless experiencing decline, simply because people aren't coming in the doors to hear the message. First impressions do make a difference. They're not everything, but they are significant. And a website is just one of those first impression-makers.

Sure, a church can thrive with a terrible website. But why not fix it?

(Please notice that I agree with you that a church can have a great website for a lot less than $1,000. :))

[Gary Creely]

This is where we have a big disagreement. The CotN is in decline (at least in the U.S) because it's failing to preach the Gospel and call people to repentance. In their attempts to become culturally relevant they've changed the message.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but as someone who is from the generation the church has been trying to reach I know exactly why I and my peers have been turned off from in the CotN and other traditional churches and it's not because of their "cultural appeal" or lack of it. There's a reason why my friends and I listen to Mark Driscoll every week and I assure you it has absolutely nothing to do with their "cultural appeal" as you see it. But from my experience, the CotN is more concerned with trying to imitate what they perceive to be the "cultural appeal" in churches like Mars Hill, than they are about actually listening to why we run to churches like them in the first place. The only reason I haven't left the Nazarene church is I keep hoping there will be a change but then I see comments like yours that only affirms the older generations don't get it. I highly recommend you listen to Mark Driscoll's message on "Putting Preachers in their Place" which can be found on their iTunes podcast. The other pastor I listen to weekly is in his late 50's, their websites is the most blah website I've seen and yet they have hundreds of teens and young adults show up to their weekly bible study where they preach from the KJV (how's that for cultural appeal?) and yet dozens of teens and young adults are being baptized weekly.

I will not disappoint, and disagree.

I am extremely familiar with Mark Driscol, and I am a gen Xer myself who was not in the church until I was a teenager. If you are a Nazarene who is comfortable with a neo-Calvinist like Driscol I am not sure how much you bought in to Wesleyan/Arminian theology in the first place. What is odd to me is you talk about him (and he talks about himself) as if to say he is bucking this marketing system, when in fact he is a master at it. You are pointing me to their podcast, half the pastors I know don't even know what a podcast is. Don't get me wrong the guy is a gifted speaker, but it is not his speaking alone that propelled them to where they are.

The content of his preaching is indeed not new, he just understands how to comunicate to the community he is in- the thing that I am promoting here. It strikes me as odd the you introduce a guy who is doing all the things I am promoting, as a good reason not to be worried about those things? I know he talks like these things don't matter, but the fact is he spends a lot of money on things that don't matter. He also thinks woman should not preach, in many ways he is a neo-fundamentalist and not the best example to take cues from.



But again, I'm sure you guys all know what we want more than we do so just forget my rant.

You talk as if you represent the wants and needs of your entire generation? You aslo site exceptional examples as the norm. For instance as a general rule the KJV only churches I have worked with have all been in decline. None of these things are magic bullets, but they are all part of a mosaic that comes together for a church to experience growth.

I am not sure what generation you refer to when you say "we", but my generation is one of the ones that has gone missing. I work pretty hard at being a student of my generation, and from what I know of them some of Driscols approach would be pretty abrasive. It works for some and praise God for that, but I would say Rob Bell gets my generation much better than Driscol- just my opinion.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Dreamhost is highly rated and and Lifehacker has a code that brings the price down to $2.69 a month for the next two years: http://lifehacker.com/5546722/best-personal-web-host-dreamhost

[Rich Schmidt]

Dreamhost is highly rated and and Lifehacker has a code that brings the price down to $2.69 a month for the next two years: http://lifehacker.com/5546722/best-personal-web-host-dreamhost

If we're talking about a church website, then Dreamhost hosts non-profits for free. (I mentioned this earlier.)

If you're talking about a personal site, then using the promo code LIVINGHOPE will get you $50 off and help pay for our church's domain name for a few years. :)

[Zach Wingo]

I imagine there are plenty of Nazarene churches out there preaching the gospel & calling people to repentance that are nonetheless experiencing decline, simply because people aren't coming in the doors to hear the message.

Do you know of any? I would love to be wrong but I have never seen it happen.

[Rich Schmidt]

Do you know of any? I would love to be wrong but I have never seen it happen.

Well..... with so many Nazarene churches in decline, are you really willing to operate from the assumption that none of them are preaching the gospel and calling people to repentance? I mean, the church I pastor has had its ups and downs over the years, but we've consistently preached the gospel and called people to turn from sin and follow Christ. I could probably look at our district stats and see which churches are in decline currently....

[Gary Creely]

Do you know of any? I would love to be wrong but I have never seen it happen.

Churches decline for a multitude of reasons. Simply preaching the Gospel alone is not a magic bullet. What about living and being the gospel. What is nobody is there to hear the gospel being preached. Was preaching the Gospel the only thing Jesus did in his earthy ministry?

I am also curios what your definition of preaching the Gospel is? Sometimes when I hear folks say "preaching the Gospel" it is code for regularly preaching sermons that inform people if they do not repent they will go to hell. When I look at the Gospel in its entirety that does not seem to me to be the moral of the story. That is not to say it is not part of the story, just not the over arching theme.

[Roy Richardson]

Not to jump around here, but isn't there someone on Naznet who is a website developer? I seem to recall that but cannot find a post to that effect.

[Rich Schmidt]

Not to jump around here, but isn't there someone on Naznet who is a website developer? I seem to recall that but cannot find a post to that effect.

If there is, I hope they speak up. I can't think of who it is off the top of my head.

I've made a handful of websites, including our church site, using the free WordPress blogging software. I'll tell you more about it at lunch on Thursday. :)

[Zach Wingo]

I am...but I have mostly provided support and consulting service to other developers. I've done some contract work but it's more of a love for the technology than anything else.

[Charlene Clevenger]

Our church web site is finally up and running and we're getting the hang of working with it. Find it at www.tcnaz.net (http://www.tcnaz.net/). We're using Weebly.com (http://www.weebly.com/). We paid for the premium service, but it's very reasonable. I just added the Reflecting God link that gives each day's devotional automatically. It's funny, though. On my computer the text for RG is black against our dark background, but on the pastor's computer the background for the text only is white, so you can read it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Our church web site is finally up and running and we're getting the hang of working with it. Find it at www.tcnaz.net (http://www.tcnaz.net/). We're using Weebly.com (http://www.weebly.com/). We paid for the premium service, but it's very reasonable. I just added the Reflecting God link that gives each day's devotional automatically. It's funny, though. On my computer the text for RG is black against our dark background, but on the pastor's computer the background for the text only is white, so you can read it.

Try this: in the Reflecting God code,

<iframe src="http://reflectinggod.com/embed" width="600" height="800" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">Make one addition, so it looks like this:

<iframe src="http://reflectinggod.com/embed" width="600" height="800" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" style="background-color: #FFFFFF">That should give it a background color of white.

Also, maybe you should add a link to service times. Often people look at a website to find service time, a map (which you have) and a phone number.

[Charlene Clevenger]

Thanks! So often it takes new eyes to see what's missing. I'll try the addition to the link.

[Charlene Clevenger]

Scott, Your fix worked great!

I also wanted to brag on the young couple that does the announcement video. Nick & Courtney are in their early 20s, and manage to do in 2 minutes what it takes the pastor 10-15 minutes to do. :) They do it in a different style each week. The latest video is on the home page of our site.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Just one more minor change, I'd change the fixed width=600 to a percentage, so the text would fill the width of the screen. Change it to width="100%" and see how it looks. I think you'll like it better.

[Charlene Clevenger]

That worked great! Thanks! I found another problem. Somehow, when I was working on both the devotional page and the missions page they ended up with the same banner. When I change one they both change. I'll ask the pastor about that. He's worked with it more than I have.

[Zach Wingo]

And just think...it will take you about 18 years at Weebly's most expensive price to break even with Clover's initial upfront cost.