What does this mean? It certainly makes me consider the impact a single blog post or video could have if it “goes viral” (gains massive popularity on the internet). How will we handle all of this information?

I saw an article the other day talking about Web 3.0, “taming the deluge of data.” The author of the article, David Griner, gives the following definitions of Web 1.0 through 3.0:

Web 1.0: Mainstream media and retailers dominate, using traditional approaches to broadcasting and sales.

Web 2.0: Blogging, peer-to-peer sharing and Google empower the masses to communicate openly. The old guard struggles to remain relevant.

Web 3.0: Mainstreaming of social media creates a constant flow of information. Challenge for users and businesses alike is to harness the flood without drowning.

Griner cites Twitter as an example of Web 3.0, or at least of its emergence. What do you think? Is Web 3.0 just another cliché or it a genuine shift in how the internet is being used? What does this mean for you?

Related posts:

1. Socialnomics
2. Social Networking "Friendonomics"
3. What is Christianity 2.0?

Thanks to Facebook, I never lose touch with anyone. And that, my Friend, is a problem.

Hey, want to be my friend? It’s more than possible; it’s probable. Hell, we may already be friends—I haven’t checked my email in a few minutes. And once we are, we will be, as they say, 4-eva. A perusal of my Facebook Friend roster reveals that I, a medium-social individual of only middling lifetime popularity, have never lost a friend. They’re all there: elementary school friends, high school friends, college friends, work friends, friends of friends, friends of ex-girlfriends—the constellation of familiar faces crowds my Friendbox like medals on Mussolini’s chest. I’m Friend-rich—at least onscreen. I’ve never lost touch with anyone, it seems. What I’ve lost is the right to lose touch. This says less about my innate lovability, I think, than about the current inflated state of Friendonomics.

Yes, I know he said ‘hell’, so did Jesus — get over it. Aside from that, this raises a serious point. I’ve written about Facebook before, and I’ve even mentioned how you never lose touch with people using the service, but Brown really hit the nail on head when he said, “What I’ve lost is the right to lose touch.” He goes on to say:

“A friend may well be reckoned the masterpiece of Nature,” Emerson wrote, not bothering to add, “and like most things natural, friendship is biodegradable.” We scrawl “Friends Forever” in yearbooks, but we quietly realize, with relief, that some bonds are meant to be shed, like snakeskin or a Showtime subscription. It’s nature’s way of allowing you to change, adapt, evolve, or devolve as you wish—and freeing you from the exhaustion of multifront friend maintenance. Fine, you can “Remove Friend,” but what kind of [person] actually does that? Deletion is scary—and, we’re told, unnecessary in the Petabyte Age. That’s what made good old-fashioned losing touch so wonderful—friendships, like long-forgotten photos and mixtapes, would distort and slowly whistle into oblivion, quite naturally, nothing personal. It was sweet and sad and, though you’d rarely admit it, necessary.

And maybe that’s the answer: A Facebook app we’ll call the Fade Utility. Untended Friends would gradually display a sepia cast on the picture, a blurring of the neglected profile—perhaps a coffee stain might appear on it or an unrelated phone number or grocery list. The individual’s status updates might fade and get smaller. The user may then choose to notice and reach out to the person in some meaningful way—no pokes! Or they might pretend not to notice. Without making a choice, they could simply let that person go. Would that really be so awful?

I thought this was a neat idea about a ‘Fade Utility’, but aside from that, why has “friendonomics” become such an issue? I think a lot of people in my generation and younger migrate from Myspace to Facebook once they get a few years into college, in order to do away with the past, but often the old friends find you there, too. Myspace is even trying to replicate Facebook lately, with the creation of “Apps”, “People You May Know”, and other Facebook-cloned programs.

I think this causes a huge stunt in maturity for many Web 2.0 kiddies. And it’s beginning to stunt the growth of Busters and Boomers who are new to the technology as well, as they get caught up in the friend-o-drama of “friendonomics”. In real life, you simply “fall out of touch” with people, but in Web 2.0, you have to intentionally delete them as a friend. That causes a major crisis of conscience for many, and so they stay connected to hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of people whom they never interact with on a regular basis, aside from social networking antics such as “getting poked” or being invited to take part in some ridiculous application or cause.

What does this mean for Christianity 2.0? I really don’t think is a whole lot different from how the faith looks now, actually. What do I mean? Well, you show up for church on Sunday mornings, and there’s a whole slew of people you only interact with in that setting. In many cases, neither party really opens up to the other in a real and meaningful way, and they may even be annoyed by each other. Still, they continue to say “peace of the Lord” to one another every Sunday with a smile, never making any real connection. Take this over to the Web 2.0 realm, where now they’ve become friends on Myspace (or Facebook). They look at each others’ family photos, comment on one another’s walls on holidays and on each others’ birthdays, and they may even be sure to include them in their “top friends.” But what constitutes a “top friend”? And why so cordial with no real connection?

I’m not exempting myself here, I do it all the time — but I’m sick of it. My wife and I have been very blunt and authentic with people lately, and it’s not very popular. But you sure learn who your friends are quick. How can we be more blunt and “real” using Web 2.0? What can the church do to ensure that Christianity 2.0 isn’t a game of Schrades, where we all play our respective roles?

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts.” –William Shakespeare

Church folks typically hide their sins and trade more noticeable sins for ones that are easier to hide. I think one of Satan’s best tactical deceptions has been to get God’s people to associate most sins with shame, guilt and embarrassment — and thus not share them. The worst part is that Satan has gotten church people to view people who struggle with sin more negatively. Most people in church will readily confess that they are sinful, but few can point to specific sins they struggle with or have been delivered from. Without real sin, there is no real Savior! But if your sin is real, then your Savior must be also! The reason we struggle with “dead churches” is that we have lost our gratitude — because we do not truly see ourselves as being sinful.

The Bible says to “confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). I don’t know about you, but I long for that healing, and the transparency and profound relationships that come through it.

So where do we go from here? I’d say being yourself, i.e. becoming authentic is a great start. And after you can do that, it’s time to do some friend-purging. . . .

Related posts:

1. Developing a ‘Sticky Church’
2. I ate at Houlihan’s… it reminded me of church
3. Social Gospel

When it comes to growing a healthy church, Pastor Larry Osborne doesn’t survey the front door to see how he can attract large crowds and wow them with a special program. For the most part, his eyes are glued to the back door.

That’s because so many churches have been losing people, and some, without even noticing.

“As long as the front door is larger than our back door or even equal, we often think things are okay. And if the front door is larger, we’re excited that we’re growing,” Osborne said as he explained how many churches lose almost as many people as they reach.

“Rather than reaching 100 people, 20 of which we keep, I’d rather reach 50 people, 40 of which we keep,” he told The Christian Post.

He goes on to talk about how to develop a “sticky church,” that is, a church that bonds and connects, a church that focuses more on keeping people than on reaching people.

While the familiar first half calls Christians to go into all the world and make disciples, the second half goes further in urging believers to teach others to observe all things Jesus taught them. . . .

The sticky church concept is about discipleship, Osborne stressed, not church growth.

At North Coast, discipleship is best played out through sermon-based small groups. Osborne has found small groups to currently be the most effective way of being a sticky church and helping people to grow spiritually.

George Barna has been saying this for awhile. The current president of the Barna Research Group, David Kinnaman, even wrote a book entitled unChristian, which deals with the church’s failure to monitor the back door and maintain a positive public image in the world. I wrote a three part series on this book at prayeramedic.com a couple months ago that you should check out for more information.

The church has been missing the boat! The church has been so busy focusing on programs and agendas to grow the church that it has entirely missed the bottom line: an authentic and intentional Christ-focused community. Campaigns and flashy gimmicks might get people in the door, but if we don’t deliver the true gospel and facilitate the necessary resulting fellowship, we might as well stop claiming that it’s all about Jesus. In that case, it’s just about man and bigger numbers. I grow weary of pastors boasting about how many people “got saved” or “got baptized” last year, but maybe 25% of them are sitting in the pews! Osborne suggests that this does even more harm than good:

“When we keep people for only a short time, what we’ve done is more likely inoculate them to Christianity rather than help them get the real disease,” Osborne noted. “Once someone’s been to church for a while, kind of connected and then fades out, it is really hard, outside of a major crisis in their life, to reach them again.”

After all, Osborne writes in his book, Jesus didn’t call churches to draw big crowds or just sign people up. “He told us to make disciples,” he says.

For Osborne, it’s about fulfilling the second half of the Great Commission, instead of just the first half.

I hope there are more pastors like Osborne who bring us back to the central focus and correct execution of the Great Commission.

Developing a Sticky Church… 2.0
When reading this article, I couldn’t help but wonder if there are any Christianity 2.0 principles to be gleaned here?

In many ways, Web 2.0 allows for a community to be “sticky” much easier than face-to-face group interactions. For example, prior to my generation, you basically fell out of touch with most middle and high school friends after graduation and moved on in life. Because of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, staying in touch with folks from the past has gotten much simpler — almost too simple! Some things are best left forgotten as we mature, but social networking can awaken old wounds and drama if we aren’t careful. At the same time, I have several friends from the past who I still don’t interact with, I simply visit their profile on occasion to see how they’ve been doing. Have you ever thought, “I wonder what John is doing these days”? Now you can find out (unless John’s profile has been set to private and he won’t add you as a friend), without having to have cordial chit-chat with the individual.

But despite the drawbacks of social networking, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Last week I was invited to a small get-together via Facebook. I was able to chat with the host of the event briefly in an instant messaging window to find out more details, and then submitted my RSVP as “Maybe” through an electronic form moments later. I didn’t have to mail anything back to someone, nor did I need to pick up a phone. Within five minutes of receiving the invite, the host knew my inclination to possibly attend. Can you imagine the implications for events at your church?

Wrapping It Up
Ok, I know I spent a lot of time focusing on the ‘event’ capability of Facebook, but I want to be sure to give specific examples of using social networking in Christianity 2.0. Many complain that people talk about Web 2.0 but never explain how to actually break into this new and exciting world. Hence my examples in this post and starting points in my explanation of Christianity 2.0. I hope this post has helped you understand that building a “Sticky Church” is necessary, and Christianity 2.0 can help make this a reality with its unique platform.

• I mentioned digging up old drama and past wounds, what are some other dangers of Web 2.0 connectivity?
• Do you feel the advantages of Web 2.0 outweigh the disadvantages?
• How can we be more “sticky” in real life and in web interactions?

Related posts:

1. What is Christianity 2.0?
2. Social Networking "Friendonomics"
3. It's All About… Me!

Yesterday I posted a video that talks about the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Since many are confused as to what Web 2.0 is, I offer a great definition from Stilton Studios’ glossary of terms:

Web 2.0 is a trend in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to facilitate creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users. These concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies (the practice of categorizing content through tags). Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the internet.

Three terms that jump out at me are “collaboration”, “communities”, and “social-networking”. These three terms define Web 2.0 fairly well. prayeramedic.com is a blog that will discuss how revolutionary change within our culture, such as Web 2.0, affects our concept of community and Christianity in general. I have dubbed this transformation “Christianity 2.0,” that is, the emerging technological movement within the culture that changes the parameters of social interaction in our faith. As a young adult, I offer you a perspective on Christianity and church from a generation that has all but disappeared from both. This is a forum for people of all ages to discuss this transformation and learn from one another.

prayeramedic.com wants to help you make sense of the emerging technological movements in our world today that are reshaping and defining social interaction and what it means to be in community, both areas in which Christians should be known for leading lasting change. We cannot stand by and let an entire generation slip out of the church’s fingers because it is unable to relate to them. We also cannot afford to completely compromise to cultural standards and allow culture to dictate how we “do church.” We must emerge as leaders in social networking, and set the standards for how community can exist in a Web 2.0 world, with Christ at it’s center.

Why does any of this matter to me as a Christian?

All the believers were together and had everything in common. (Acts 2:44, NIV)

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25, NIV)

The older women. . . can train the younger women. . . . Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. . . . (Titus 2:3-7, NIV)

There are numerous passages of scripture dealing with the need for community and fellowship amongst believers. We must encourage, teach, rebuke, guide, and train one another. In yesterday’s post about the anthropology of Web 2.0, I posed the question, “In a cultural context that continuously values individuality, could Web 2.0 have something to do with a longing within each of us for community and collectivism?” I would assert that that’s exactly what it’s about, and as Christians it is vital for us to be leaders in this emergent form of community.

I cited Titus 2 because it is crucial for older and more mature believers to embrace the Christianity 2.0 community so that they can mold and help mature it. If the only people who embrace this cultural shift are young adults, then we will look to each other’s input to grow and mature. Wouldn’t it be so great if older and more mature individuals were contributing valuable input to the community? Not only is this a great idea, it’s necessary for optimal growth!

The Greek word from which we get our English word “church” is ἐκκλησία (ekklesia). This word literally means “called out ones”, and in ancient times was used to denote an “assembly, congregation, or council.” Even the word itself invites us to be “called out ones” in a new and exciting age where we can embrace and shape the early foundations of Christianity 2.0.

So What Can I Do?
At this point you might be saying to yourself, “Well that’s all fine and dandy, but I have no clue how to even begin with Web 2.0. How am I supposed to relate to this generation and keep up with all this technology?” It may seem overwhelming at first, but it’s really not too bad. My first recommendation is to get young adults in your church involved. They will probably be your subject matter experts on this stuff. Here are four things every church should have, that give you at least a basic presence in the Web 2.0 world:

1. A web site that has pictures of your worship experience and a design theme that captures the atmosphere of your church, with at least one element of dynamic content. A static page is one that is rarely changed or updated, such as a biography of your church. A dynamic page continually features new content, such as a church events calendar. This is actually really simple and cheap to do using vCHURCHES if you don’t have the money to drop on a custom design. I know several pastors in their 30′s – 50′s who are able to maintain very relevant websites using this tool, who had little to no technical background to begin with.
2. A church blog (linked to or incorporated into your web site), or blogs for various lead staff members of the church. There are tons of free blogging platforms for you to get started with such as WordPress, Blogger, or LiveJournal.
3. A Myspace or Facebook account (preferably both, with links to and from your web site). Not only can you have a main profile for your church, individual ministries within the church can have their own profiles as well with custom themes best portraying their unique attributes. Be sure to add all of your sub-profiles to your top friends!
4. A lead staff member who regularly checks, updates, and maintains the three above-mentioned items. I cannot emphasize this one enough. DO NOT rely on a volunteer to handle all of this. You must be sure this becomes the responsibility of someone on the payroll. Too many web sites go stagnant when a young adult decides to leave a church or when an irresponsible youth inadvertently allows a spammer to get a hold of your Myspace profile and post links to pornographic websites on it.

For individuals, I recommend steps two and three for you. These are just a few suggestions to get you started in the Web 2.0 world, and to help you become a leader of lasting change in Christianity 2.0.

The church is rapidly evolving and becoming an organic network of communities, moving away from the traditional focus on a building and a local activity-oriented agenda. Change is being made towards a global and boundary-free approach to social networking, which is changing the way we “do church” and think about Christian community.

• What have you been doing in the Web 2.0 world?
• How can you share your faith with people you have never even met?
• What are some challenges to authenticity that are posed by a Web 2.0 world?
• What are some possibly unexplored new trails in the world of Christianity 2.0?

Related posts:

1. Developing a ‘Sticky Church’
2. Pagan Christianity
3. The Church is failing…

If you take the time to watch this, I’d love to hear your thoughts! Whether or not you watched the video, here are some questions to ponder:

• In a cultural context that continuously values individuality, could Web 2.0 have something to do with a longing within each of us for community and collectivism?
• What are some pro’s and con’s to this sort of community?
• Being that Web 2.0 incorporates text, video, photos, interactive applications, surveys, and more; what might Web 3.0 look like?
• How does Web 2.0 affect Christianity? Could we call the new internet phenomenon within the faith “Christianity 2.0?”

Related posts:

1. What is Christianity 2.0?
2. Setting the Gospel Free
3. Weekly Wisdom