Comments on: the providence exchange http://brewingthoughts.com/blog/archives/2006/03/13/the-providence-exchange/ Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:03:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Chris http://brewingthoughts.com/blog/archives/2006/03/13/the-providence-exchange/#comment-805 Chris Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:36:14 +0000 http://brewingthoughts.com/blog/?p=168#comment-805 Shawn, if it were me, I probably wouldn't want to restrict access to a site like this because I think the local church should also take steps to integrate into culture, not separate itself from it. I think giving everyone access would allow potential visitors or just anybody to connect and interact with a church or community of believers without a whole lot of pressure. I think these kinds of site could be a valuable gateway to churches and communities that otherwise people would not enter. However, i do understand the position that our church and other churches have taken in regards to protecting the church membership from spammers, crazy people, and internet predators. In our specific case, we want this site to be a place where single moms, stay-at-home moms, and even youth/kids to be able to connect and socialize. I can understand the fear that can emerge when the idea of making this site "public" is presented. So, at least for now, the site will be public in regards to viewing conversations/content, but interaction will be available only to church members. The rules might change in the future if the site evolves a certain way, but the goal right now is to create a website where church members can share prayers, confess, struggle, and engage in intimate discussions with the assurance that they will not be subjected to "crazy folks". Shawn, if it were me, I probably wouldn’t want to restrict access to a site like this because I think the local church should also take steps to integrate into culture, not separate itself from it. I think giving everyone access would allow potential visitors or just anybody to connect and interact with a church or community of believers without a whole lot of pressure. I think these kinds of site could be a valuable gateway to churches and communities that otherwise people would not enter.

However, i do understand the position that our church and other churches have taken in regards to protecting the church membership from spammers, crazy people, and internet predators. In our specific case, we want this site to be a place where single moms, stay-at-home moms, and even youth/kids to be able to connect and socialize. I can understand the fear that can emerge when the idea of making this site “public” is presented.

So, at least for now, the site will be public in regards to viewing conversations/content, but interaction will be available only to church members. The rules might change in the future if the site evolves a certain way, but the goal right now is to create a website where church members can share prayers, confess, struggle, and engage in intimate discussions with the assurance that they will not be subjected to “crazy folks”.

]]> By: Shawn http://brewingthoughts.com/blog/archives/2006/03/13/the-providence-exchange/#comment-804 Shawn Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:14:05 +0000 http://brewingthoughts.com/blog/?p=168#comment-804 We have discussion boards at UBC and they are a great way to connect with other people. What are your opinions about having a log-in and password on your church discussion boards? In some ways, you would want to have it open to anyone yet at the same time limit it to people who create an account and log-in. This is mainly because people may have private matters, prayer requests, etc. that you wouldn't want discussed with every web surfer. Thoughts? We have discussion boards at UBC and they are a great way to connect with other people.

What are your opinions about having a log-in and password on your church discussion boards? In some ways, you would want to have it open to anyone yet at the same time limit it to people who create an account and log-in. This is mainly because people may have private matters, prayer requests, etc. that you wouldn’t want discussed with every web surfer. Thoughts?

]]>