Community Pages are a new type of Facebook Page dedicated to a topic or experience that is owned collectively by the community connected to it. Just like official Pages for businesses, organizations and public figures, Community Pages let you connect with others who share similar interests and experiences.

Amid the outcries against Facebook’s aggressive push to allow public access to all profile data (including personal private information), the introduction of Community Pages has not received much attention. However, this move by Facebook has significant implications for churches and their social media strategy.

Facebook’s Community Page strategy is aimed at creating more content and pages against which Facebook can serve advertisements. How Facebook does this is by automatically aggregating content on new Community Pages by scraping users status updates and importing content from existing Wikipedia pages and the result is a centralized page around a specific topic. As you can see for the new Unconventional Method Community Page (pictured above), statuses that contain the phrase “unconventional method” are being automatically displayed regardless of their relevance.

Community for bots

However, despite Facebook’s claim that these topical pages are “owned collectively by the community connected to it“, there is currently no way (as far as I can tell) for anyone outside of Facebook to influence or control what content is displayed on the page. In fact, individual Facebook users are often unaware that their private status updates are publicly visible on these Community Pages. A (hilarious) example of this is the “My Stupid Boss” Community Page which displays status updates that contain the words “my”, “stupid”, and “boss” in them. Now your private Facebook rants may be visible to everyone without your knowledge or consent.

What does this mean for churches?

What little control you have on Facebook is being further eroded.

Facebook has shown consistent disregard for privacy and control over information and is aggressively pushing forward with feature updates with the end goal of being the information currency system of the entire web. Will Facebook succeed and become the central hub for all personal activity online? Probably not, but it’s clear that because of Facebook’s popularity and its “it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach Facebook will access and use information about you and your church for it’s own purposes, without your permission, and with little recourse available for what they do.

You have no control over your church’s Community Page

It appears that every aspect of the creation and updating of a Community Page is entirely automated by Facebook. Currently, neither your church nor your community of supporters has any ability to influence the page directly.

The way Facebook is creating these Community Pages can only be described as “sneaky“. Instead of having users initiate page creation, Facebook introduced a process by which users can inadvertently and unknowingly initiate a page’s creation.  Recently, logged-in users have been redirected to a page which asks them which pages they would like to link to their profile. The choices appear to be generated from the user’s profile information (e.g. employment and education) and are all selected when the page appears.

Facebook does state that linking to certain pages “may also create additional Pages“, but it is not immediately obvious what this means. I believe Facebook is hoping users will not pay much attention to what’s happening, resulting in the creation of more Community Pages. Since this confirmation page loads automatically, disrupting the user’s activities on the site, it is very likely that users will simply click “Save Changes” to return to what they were previously doing. Additionally, the options that are presented correspond with existing information that the user has provided, so a natural assumption is that linking will just confirm what is already in place.

Once created, Facebook is posting a message to visitors of each page which imply that some level of influence will given to Facebook users in the future. The message asks you to indicate your interest by signing up but no indication is given of when users will be invited to contribute nor the level of influence they will have.

Platform changes are frequent and unpredictable

Moves like this one and Facebook’s recent half-step that restricted the ability to set up custom landing tabs, show that Facebook’s drive for profitability has the company barreling forward with platform changes with little to no regard for organizations that rely on the social network. We can expect this to be the norm moving forward. The challenge becomes that just when you think you’ve got Facebook figured out and are starting to achieve real ministry impact and ROI, Facebook is likely to change the rules on you. Churches will need to be agile if they expect to keep up.

Should churches abandon Facebook?

I’ve argued in the past that Facebook is important because it is where people are. Does the fact that Facebook keeps changing the rules of the game mean that churches should abandon the platform entirely?

No. But churches need to have realistic expectations of how Facebook will work with them. Churches should not expect for Facebook to be aligned with their interests. Despite being the world’s largest “social” network, Facebook is and always be a business. We should not expect Facebook’s profit motive to ever be subordinate to our churches’ people-motives.

For that reason, a church should also never find ourselves in a position where it is completely reliant on Facebook for it’s social media strategy. Churches and ministries that are seeking to change lives and serve the common good must always be thinking “beyond web”. Because of it’s popularity and prevalence in our society, it is easy for churches to make Facebook the only platform for their web strategy. This is a short-sighted strategy and will ultimately leave churches at the mercy of Facebook’s business plan. An effective church social media strategy engages through diverse social media platforms.

How to best use Facebook

Understanding the true nature of the organization is Facebook will tp define the real opportunities for churches and will shape church social media strategies. In Part 2 I will dig into the implications of these changes for churches and point out some strategies for making sure taking advantage of new opportunities that are being created.

He said that the main thing they are trying to figure out is “How do we mover our people to be passionate about the kingdom of God?” Not just who they are as individuals in Christ but about getting involved in what the church is doing as a whole.

Within that Keith sees a number of things they as church leaders could be doing better: helping people to understand their own gifts and how they could be used; communicating about existing ministry opportunities; identifying and going after new ministry opportunities.

To Keith, the challenge isn’t that there aren’t enough people in their church participating in ministry. They have plenty of volunteers.

He wonders, though, if people look around don’t see opportunities to step in to help, so they don’t get involved. It made me think of how a new member to my church described a previous church they had been members at:

The church met in borrowed space and even in the sanctuary you could see boxes and stacks of things that hadn’t found a home yet. Everywhere you looked you could see something that needed to be done and as a result it was easy to roll my sleeves up and dive right in.

Keith’s desire resonates with me. At our last Elder meeting I expressed my frustration that it didn’t seem like we were doing anything to try and set the people, who are currently comfortable or indifferent about their faith, on fire with a passion for what it truly means to be a child of God. To me, the urgency of this is made obvious when you hear Jesus’s warning to the church in Laodicea in Revelation 3:15-16:

¹⁵“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! ¹⁶So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

Keith and I are going to find a time to talk again soon to discuss this further. I’d love to hear from you what your experiences have been. Is this an issue your church has faced? What do you believe can be done?

1. The opportunity for extensive culture-making in the U.S.
2. The rise of Islam.
3. The new non-western Global Christianity.
4. The growing cultural remoteness of the gospel.
5. The end of prosperity?

I recommend you head over to the Redeemer City to City website and read what Keller has to say about these issues. It helps to focus on these shifts in the evangelistic landscape of the West. Doing so will help us to anticipate new opportunities and threats to our efforts to achieving our goals as Kingdom strategists.

One thing I am encouraged by as I read these is that in many ways the Western Church has already begun to address these issues. In particular, the Business as Mission movement exists primarily either in response to these changes or as a means of addressing them.

For example, Keller addresses “The opportunity for extensive culture-making in the U.S.” by referring to an interview with sociologist Peter Berger. In the interview Berger notes that the make-up of U.S. evangelicals is shifting from mainly blue-collar and is more represented by people who have a college education.

Berger anticipates that these evangelicals, as they engage in professional careers (like the arts or medicine), will do one of three things:

His question is–will Christians going into the arts, business, government, the media, and film a) assimilate to the existing baseline cultural narratives so they become in their views and values the same as other secular professionals and elites, or b) will they seal off and privatize their faith from their work so that, effectively, they do not do their work in any distinctive way, or c) will they do enough new Christian ‘culture-making’ in their fields to change things?

My Business as Mission research has shown that the leaders of the Business as Mission movement have resoundingly chosen the third option and are intentionally seeking to change the culture of global business through their entrepreneurial efforts. Not only that, but Business as Mission represents a worldview where the first two responses (assimilation and isolation) aren’t even options.

I am encouraged that the men and women who engage in Business as Mission have been so transformed by the Gospel and so inspired by the call of Jesus in their life that they are aggressively seeking to be on mission in the cross-cultural context of global and local business, facilitated by the authenticity that their knowledge, training, and experience creates.

The Church needs creative strategies (like Business as Mission) as it seeks to be agents and servants of the kingdom of God.

Read Keller’s full post here.

The following is another excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Business as Mission Companies Create Eternal Value Through Strategic Management

Whereas evangelism, profit, and (to a lesser extent) mission to the developing world were the historic points of contention for the Business as Mission movement, BAM leaders have built a foundation on these elements and are now working to clarify the principles under which Business as Mission companies operate. This focus on clarification has become necessary as Business as Mission is one of many strategies in existence that mixes general business activities with evangelism and ministry efforts aimed at unreached people groups. Though similar in nature to strategies like tent-making, micro-enterprise, micro-development, and workplace ministry, there are important distinctions between each in terms of intentions, methods, means, and outcomes. Irresponsible mixing of terms and tenets has leads to confusion and distraction and ultimately hinders the Business as Mission movement from gaining further momentum.

Currently the Business as Mission movement does not have a systematic, integrated approach for defining, organizing, and analyzing methodologies, and metrics that drive kingdom impact. Through our research, we are able to draw on the collective experience of Business as Mission leaders and lay the foundation for the development of an applicable framework for transforming strategy into action.

Clarification of Objectives

Not all Business as Mission undertakings will or should have the same objectives; nor should BAM practitioners rule out the possibility that their operations will be used for some type of transformation that they did not plan for. This is important because integrating specific BAM objectives (whatever they should be) along with the business’s financial, creative, and productive goals requires clarity in order to maintain productivity towards accomplishing all goals.

Our research shows that, according to respondents “Very Familiar” with Business as Mission, the most agreed upon objective of BAM is to Build the local economy and bless the nation^[1] (Table D). The second most agreed upon objective is Providing access to many locations^[2]. Survey data also indicates that making a profit, evangelizing and targeting the developing world are key objectives of the movement.

These objectives highlight the perceived advantages Business as Mission adds to the goals of traditional, donor-driven mission efforts – a self-funded vehicle that provides creative access to evangelize and minister to unreached people groups. However, they also highlight the need for further refinement of how strategic Business as Mission objectives are formulated and set. Behind each objective identified in the survey lies an assortment of motivations, interpretations, and expectations for fulfillment. These factors further magnify the complexity of Business as Mission and can make it difficult to know how day-to-day activities and operations contribute to the strategic BAM objectives.

In talking about Business as Mission goals we must resist the tendency to become myopic in our orientation. Ultimately, we are not in control of whether or not we accomplish these goals. Thus, Business as Mission goals and objectives must be understood as guidelines that describe the potential for kingdom impact that BAM companies have. Our discussion of factors that contribute toward these goals is aimed at furthering the Business as Mission movement’s understanding of what experience has shown to be effective.

The following is another excerpt from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 3)

Business as Ministry

It is clear from the survey results that the belief that missions/ministry work can be done in the business context is widely accepted (Exhibit 4). In fact, as many survey respondents believe that Business as Mission is beneficial to the kingdom as those who believe Missions work is beneficial to the kingdom (96 percent agree with each) (4.1 and 4.2). However, it is not as widely accepted that general business (operated ethically) is beneficial to the kingdom (only 60 percent agree and 21 percent disagree) (4.3). The fact that 83 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry (4.4) suggests that the Business as Mission movement distinguishes between the impact a business (organization) can have and the impact that individuals within a business have.

Business as Mission is more than just doing business ethically

It’s particularly interesting that respondents in the Business, Non-Profit, and Education fields all agree to the same extent that Work in a business is a ministry (82 percent, 82 percent, and 85 percent respectively). However, fewer Business respondents agree that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom (59 percent) compared to Non-Profit and Education respondents (64 percent and 63 percent respectively).

This may point to an increased awareness among Christian businesspeople of the importance of being intentional in using business as an opportunity to minister. Whether this is a result of experience or in response to increased scrutiny and criticism the business world receives as a result of the sacred/secular divide is unknown.

In Business as Mission, the company itself is a part in the ministry

One of the core distinctions between Business as Mission and other approaches to integrating business and mission/ministry (e.g. workplace ministry, tent-making, micro-development, etc) is that in BAM some or all aspects of the business (organization) contribute to the missional purpose. Business as Mission involves the manifestation of a missional purpose at both the individual level and the organizational level. What the missional purpose is and how it is manifested at both levels is influenced by many different factors.

Given that respondents universally accept the benefit of Business as Mission (4.1) but do not completely accept individual (4.4) and organizational (4.3) impact in business implies that some people do not understand how Business as Mission incorporates both. Only 53 percent of all respondents agree that Work in a business is a ministry and that Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom. Additionally, 22 percent of respondents who agree that Work in a business is a ministry did not agree Any ethical business is beneficial to the kingdom.

Thus, a majority of people understand the individual aspect of BAM transformation; but, a significant portion of the movement does not understand or agree with the organizational aspect. In order to address this disconnect, it is important how BAM leaders run their companies to create impact. In the next section we look at four aspects of Business as Mission strategic management: objectives, organization and coordination, metrics, and resource allocation.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

This is the third installment sharing highlights from the BAM Survey 2007 Report. Today we take a closer look at the global leaders of the Business as Mission movement and the beliefs that drive their efforts in spreading the Gospel through global business entrepreneurship.

The BAM Survey 2007 Report is an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 2)

Embracing the Priesthood of Believers

Our research shows that businesspeople around the world are enthusiastically responding to God’ s call for them in the workplace (72 percent of respondents believe they are called to business) and are forging ahead to use their business activities to create transformation (83 percent of respondents believe that Work in business is a ministry^[1]) (Exhibit 3).

Results highlight a greater prevalence of being called to business versus being called to missions.

• Nearly three-quarters of all respondents indicated that they believe they have been called to the business world (72 percent). A slightly lesser percentage of respondents believe they are called to Business as Mission specifically and to missions (69 percent and 67 percent respectively).
• 86 percent of respondents from the Business field feel called to business compared to 72 percent of Non-Profit respondents that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are “Very Familiar” with Business as Mission, 82 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 75 percent that feel called to missions.
• Of survey respondents that indicated they are either “Not Very Familiar” or “Not At All Familiar” with Business as Mission, 63 percent indicated that they feel called to business compared to 43 percent that feel called to missions.

Respondents from different age groups demonstrate different degrees of feeling called to business, missions, or Business as Mission.

• Of respondents in the 18 to 29 year old group:
  • 66 percent feel called to business.
  • 64 percent feel called to missions.
  • 58 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 30 to 44 year old group:
  • 75 percent feel called to business.
  • 72 percent feel called to missions.
  • 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 45 to 59 year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 63 percent feel called to missions.
  • 67 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
• Of respondents in the 60+ year old group:
  • 71 percent feel called to business.
  • 74 percent feel called to missions.
  • 66 percent feel called to Business as Mission.

Feeling called Business as Mission is linked to feeling called to either business or missions.

• Respondents that feel called to business (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 2.6 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (84 percent compared to 32 percent respectively).
• Respondents that feel called to missions (relative to those who expressed no opinion or do not feel called to business) are 1.4 times more likely to feel called to Business as Mission (76 percent compared to 54 percent respectively).
• Of respondents that feel called to both business and missions (45 percent of all respondents):
  • 91 percent feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 2 percent do not feel called to Business as Mission.
  • 8 percent expressed no opinion.

We’re continuing with sharing excerpts from my BAM Survey 2007 Report, an in-depth assessment of the state of the Business as Mission movement based on survey responses from 497 people in 38 countries. You can purchase an electronic copy of the BAM Survey 2007 Report for $14.99 here.

Today we look at the demographics of the survey respondents in order to get an better idea of who makes up the global Business as Mission movement.

Who are the Business as Mission leaders? (part 1)

For the first time, the survey results enable us to describe the community of BAM leaders that has formed around the core elements that define Business as Mission (Exhibit 2). Of survey respondents that rated their understanding of Business as Mission as “Very Familiar”

Our data reveals that the 30 to 44 year old group has the ideal temperament for facing many of the challenges of the next stage of the Business as Mission movement — 75 percent feel called to business and 79 percent feel called to Business as Mission. What’s more, this group’s support networks (church, social communities, and companies) understand and pray for Business as Mission more than any other group’s.

However, it is clear from the data that the 45 to 59 year old group is driving the movement forward and paving the way for the next generations of Business as Mission leaders. The 45 to 59 year old group:

According to a 2005 Market Audit Survey by Claritas, the median net worth of 45 to 54 year olds is greater than twice that of 35 to 44 year olds (Table C). The median net worth for 55 to 64 year olds is nearly four times greater than that of 35 to 44 year olds. The improved financial position of the 45 to 59 year old group suggests two benefits: a greater ability to invest capital in BAM and a more stable financial base to endure challenges in operating a BAM company.

Due to their experience, positions and access to resources, the 45 to 59 year old group is the most prepared to create impact in the world through Business as Mission. This group is the key to executing Business as Mission and leading the movement as it faces new challenges.
********************************************************

Did you enjoy this? Click here to purchase the full survey report. Enjoy instant access to the full survey report, including more in-depth analysis, charts, graphs and figures. Only $14.99. Purchase your copy today!

We have not had much traction in finding groups looking to set more standards that they would then have to adopt/invest effort to measure up to.  It is a particularly challenging time for mission organizations trying to do as much as they can, as well as they can with shrinking resources.

The current period of declined giving and constrained resources has taken a toll on the strategic outlook of ministry leaders. The current conditions seem to be overwhelming some organizations and as a result they are content just doing what it takes to get by. According to another leader in a missions organization:

Our organization is just trying to get something semi-useful up on the web.  We do not have the expertise, finance, or skills to do it in a highly professional fashion.

I by no means think that these or other missions leaders are giving up. I know that commitment and sacrifice that these men and women make in their lives. It is amazing the level of dedication that you will find in all levels of missions organizations and it is an honor to get to know and work with them.

I'm doing the best I can.

What do you think? Is excellence online somehow related to the amount of resources at your disposal? Or can an organization be excellent even in this period of budget cuts? And if so, how do we convince mission leaders who are just trying to get by that there is more? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

And I invite you to join with us as we explore these issues in greater detail. Visit us at the State of Ministry Online website to learn more about the Online Kingdom Excellence project and to explore ways that you can be involved.

Loose talk can cost lives.

Last week, at the end of a long day, I wrote about my experiences in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. Writing it was a surreal experience for me, no real goal in mind, it just started coming out me and onto the screen. I didn’t edit it. I didn’t polish it up. I did try and add something prolific at the end, some commentary that would show how profound the feelings I was expressing were.

And though what I wrote was true, I really don’t think September 11th is about me. That’s one of the reasons why I have a hard time thinking about and talking about it. Sure, I feared for my life that day in a way I never had before and never have since, but for me, one of the hard things about September 11th is how I feel distanced from it.

Part of it, I think, is self-preservation, my inner-psyche is minimizing/compartmentalizing/transferring my experiences so that I don’t have to reconcile the tragedy and impact of being that close to such violence. I recognize that that is definitely the case.

But I also think there’s something else and the best way I can describe it is something like “survivor guilt” (though not as extreme). I find I’m having more and more difficulty thinking about what I experienced on September 11th as (for lack of a better term) noteworthy. Which doesn’t mean I diminish the experience or the affect it’s had on me. I just feel like I walked away from that day really no worse for the wear, especially when compared to tragic impact that day has had on thousands upon thousands of victims and their families.

I lived.

I was not hurt.

I was not in the direct path of danger.

No one I know was killed or injured.

The violence of that day did not touch my life anywhere near the way it has for the 2974 victims and their friends and families. I got off easy.

And so over this past week (especially on the eighth anniversary of the attacks) I find myself reacting negatively to most of the commentary or personal recounting of the day. This feeling particularly came to the surface tonight when I saw two things (via social media).

The first was someone posted on Flickr a photo set of images from September 11, all of which showed the damage and chaos of that day and the following days. The second was an article pondering what September 11 would have been like if today’s social media tools had been as available and popular back then. I’m not including links to either of these because the point in writing this is not to call them out or admonish them.

***Before I get to the point, let me say: It is self-righteous of me to judge anyone’s intentions or methods for acknowledging, memorializing, or even expressing interest in September 11th. I confess this as sin and am grateful that Christ’s love washes me clean.

The point I want to make is this, both of the things I saw tonight focused on aspects of September 11th which, though interesting, detract from the tragedy of that day. Neither site so much as mention the loss of thousands of lives that occurred that day.

In this era of increasing social media usage, the goal of generating and linking to unique and engaging content may cause people to lose sight of what is truly significant about the things they commenting on. And since the power of social media is its ability to spread content to great extents, the chances of our content being seen by someone who has been profoundly touched by something like September 11th. We must not become desensitized to events by the media we use to share those events. By doing so we might touch a wound or cause some pain with our carelessness.

I’m not advocating censorship or saying that social media is bad. All I am saying is that as servants of the Kingdom, it is important that we watch what we say.

Matthew 12:36-37 (English Standard Version)
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Image: http://flickr.com/photos/adrianjmoss/504318642/

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. –Winston Churchill

In an article in The New York Times Magazine from August, 2007 William Safire discusses how title “Strategist” is replacing “Adviser”  in American politics and the nuance behind the shift. What says it reveals a desire to differentiate oneself from the overused “campaign manager” and “political adviser” and while implying high status within the ranks of a staff.

I personally have been frustrated by how most business labels which describe my profession, skill set, or the value I offer are either so commonly used that they’ve become sterile and weak or carry some negative connotation (think: consultant). I have often struggled with how to succinctly and accurately describe myself (while trying to remain humble) and have routinely settled on “strategist” after much soul-searching and field testing (What word comes to mind when you hear the word: AWESOMESTAR?)

The difference between Strategist and Adviser? Safire quotes Joe Pickett, editor of the American Heritage Dictionary: “A strategist is someone who has a plan of battle and the situation is always one of contention.” (emphasis mine).

Kevin Ring is a Kingdom Strategist.

An early version of my personal mission statement reads:

I serve individuals and organizations that are set about a purpose greater than themselves to anticipate, neutralize, overcome, and rise above the threats that they face.

This version captures a key aspect of my calling: to serve an ideal greater than myself. For me (and I hope for you as well), that ideal is the Kingdom of God. My purpose is to serve God’s purpose.

As a servant of God’s Kingdom, I choose to stand up against the ways of this world so that others might see Christ glorified in me. As Christ said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).

I know that the work is and will continue to be difficult. I know that I will make enemies. I know that there will be suffering. Make no mistake, I struggle with this. I want to be liked. I want to be comfortable. I fear confrontation. This is (like most things) is easy for me to say but harder for me to actually live out.

But I do what I do in Christ’s name, assured by His promise and strengthened by His grace. And so I will count it all as blessing, because I know what I stand for.

Do you?