Last week I penned a commentary (see here) on the state of communication at the parish level as I had experienced and learned about anecdotally. It became a rather popular post with lots of comments, Facebook discussions, and emails from clergy and parishioners from all over. Looking over all that was said, here are a few additional "take aways" from those discussions.
- Boundary setting. Many people (priests and their wives in the main) felt that priests have difficulty setting boundaries on communication. Answering phone calls at all hours, responding to emails late into the night, and letting those parishioners who want to spend hours and hours talking to the priest do so. At the other end of the spectrum clergy who, for whatever reason, have pulled back so as to only be available at times shortly before or after services. Some people thought more emphasis should be given on this topic in seminaries.
- The power of the parish council. I was reminded that some churches have parish councils with quite a lot of power over how communication is handled. Priests wrote to me to explain how they were unable to make the necessary changes to update answering machines and voicemail messages, port calls over to cellphones, or even gain immediate access to the parish email inbox. There also seems to be a strong contingent of older parishioners in many parishes who are reluctant to alter things from "the way we have always done it."
- Unintended argumentum ad hominem. One person felt the post was a criticism of priests directly, or more particularly, their intelligence. That wasn't the intent and I apologize for any offense given. The hope was to start a discussion about a problem in communication and how we might ameliorate the situation.
- The necessity of parish websites. One reader questioned the need for many parish websites in the first place. The question being: Would a central diocesan website with all the necessary information (service times, contact information, directions) not be a better option and remove needless (and often conflicting) replication of information? If the diocese holds the information, would the communication not trend toward being more uniformly handled among the parishes? The contrary opinion is that new media is an important tool for drawing in people. A great website is an invaluable tool for parishioners and inquirers alike.
- Ethnicity and continuity. Many people felt that ethnic identity and a desire to continue as normal outweighed an emphasis on evangelization and conversion in more than a few parishes. Consequently, those that need to know (i.e. the current parishioners) when things are happening, are already aware. Those inquirers into Orthodox of visitors from out of town are not of central concern. My feelings on this mentality have already been made known in previous posts. In short, a parish is either in growth or contracting - it is never in stasis.
Posts
Regarding "The necessity of parish websites", I would liken a website to a bulletin board whereas email lists, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are more like personal phone calls and visits. Websites can act like portals, but the portal concept on the internet isn't really all that effective (see AOL). A website is passive, and most parishes simply do not have the interest or manpower to keep them up to date or to keep it updated. Websites are easy to start, they are hard to keep up - parishes are bad at this.
ReplyDeleteI am living in a new city, and I have to say that being added to the email list of a local parish has down more to make me aware of things than anything else. My previous parish priest is active on Facebook and an email list, and I feel like I haven't missed a beat with what's going on there. Apart from when I first moved into town, I've visited these parish's websites rarely, and only ever to get info on a service I couldn't find via an email.
Additionally, I just emailed two Orthodox parishes in out of the way places about Pascha services. We'll see if they respond before Pentecost. One had Holy Week services listed on the website, the other didn't. Of course, both parishes could have closed or the priest died without leaving instructions on how to update the website, so... The phone number listed at one parish was not answered and there was no voice mail or answering machine.
On websites: yes indeed. Often one person makes the website then someone else does his best to keep things up to date. Rarely is this a seamless process.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, RSS is often nonexistent or misconfigured so you have to constantly look at the website for updates.
On mailing lists: That is why I am signed up for every parish mailing list for 50 miles. LOTS of events happen with little fanfare and it is not rare at all to see wonderful photos from parish events a week AFTER the event with no one outside the parish knowing the events were scheduled.
Facebook is great for communication, but it's in vogue right now to turn up one's nose at Facebook, much like people disdain some online forums, pews, and Prius drivers. :)
I had a similar thought as melxiopp on the website issue; however, I would say that keeping the website up is IMHO important.
ReplyDeleteEven if service times, etc. are posted on a diocesan website, what about feast days, Holy Week services, etc.? Those need to be posted for each year as they come up so visitors can know when to come. I would posit that it is easier to change them on a parish's own website than to send in the information to the diocese or whatever.
The only thing I can think would be comparable is perhaps an answering machine greeting that says "our service times for this week are_______________, or you can leave a message at the tone and we will return your call as soon as possible." That also requires upkeep, but maybe it's easier.
I was the webmaster at my previous parish, so I agree an up to date website is important. However, a parish is only accountable to itself whether it has one or keeps it up to date. If the diocese prioritizes accurate schedule information, the bishop, chancellor, etc. will make sure parishes are sending in their schedules. IF, it's a priority for the bishop and diocese, of course.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, OCA.org's parish listings coul provide most of the information most people want or need from a parish website - especially if it can offer links to the clergy bios, a photo gallery, monthly calendar, a customized domain name, and links to a parish email list, Facebook or Twitter account.
Such centralization would also underscore the ecclesiological point that the parish is not the primary unit of the Church.
@ Josephus - I'm the webmaster my way and the new priest is a much better programmer than I. He's done quite a bit - I can see how if the priest leaves, no one knows how to update everything. At least I have the FTP, email, and domain passwords. I share them with the previous admin, so it shouldn't ever get lost.
ReplyDelete@Melxiopp - I agree the OCA's website has lots of great info. Especially on contact info - can't talk to the priest? call the choir master. I hope the OCA's pending upgrade will be just what you're talking.
In regard to what you said about the "primary unit of the Church," the Family is the primary unit of the Church. First family (a monastic community is a type of Family), then Parish, then Diocese, then Local Church.
Centralization is great in theory, but getting every recalcitrant and procrastinating priest and/or parishioner with the information and schedules to send them in regularly can be quite a work. I have the feeling the parishes that currently don't post information or respond to contacts now would be doing the same thing to a central diocesan information board, however mandatory it might be.
ReplyDelete