If Jesus Had A Website

While reading two different articles/webpages today, I was struck by the dichotomy of evangelism that is posed to Christians. Take the following pages for example:

• Chick-fil-A and Church Marketing takes a look at the passive approach that Chick-fil-A restaurants take. They simply observe the sabbath by being closed on Sundays and strive "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A", according to their mission statement.

• Wikipedia's Family Force 5 page, which I came across while trying to learn more about the band after hearing them on internet radio, brings up a complaint that Christian-based bands often receive from the Christian community: their lyrics aren't "overtly Christian".

So how are we supposed to act as Christians? Are we to be brazenly Christian and possibly turn people away from the Lord, or are we to passively lead by example and only try to take advantage of the few heart-to-hearts that we get, or is there an effective middle ground?

Ultimately, the decision about this approach rolls over to our congregations and websites. Are they overly preachy, too Christian-centric (and not reaching out to searchers), too flashy or friendly and not faith-driven, or do they manage to balance everything into one quality, effective site?

It's an intersting thought to take into consideration: how do we, and should we, display our faith and evangelize the world?

While looking into Ajax in my spare time (which, admittedly, I haven't had too much of lately), I found out that this is another case where Internet Explorer and the rest of the browser world.  The basis of the functionality of AJAX is the XMLHttpRequest object, which is built in JavaScript.  However, IE builds this object differently from most other browsers by using ActiveXObjects to do so:

<script>

var xmlHttp = false;

try {

  xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");

} catch (error) {

  try {

    xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

  } catch (error2) {

    xmlHttp = false;

  }

}

</script>

Now, you may be wondering why there are two different types of calls to create our XMLHttpRequest object.  The reason is that Microsoft's browsers support both XML, an international standard, as well as MSXML, which is an extension on XML designed to help it play nicer with non-browser applications like Microsoft Office.

Now, if we reach the point in the try statement where xmlHttp is assigned to false, then we're likely dealing with a non-IE browser.  If we're working with another browser, then we're only going to create one kind of XMLHttpRequest object, which we can do in a single line:

<script>

var xmlHttp = new XMLHttpRequest object;.

</script>

With these two different standards for the groundwork of AJAX, we're going to need a way to support any AJAX-enabled browser.  Otherwise, a number of people may never have access to certain features of the site.

<script>

var xmlHttp = false;

try {

  xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");

} catch (error) {

  try {

    xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

  } catch (error2) {

    xmlHttp = false;

  }

}

if (!xmlHttp && typeof(XMLHttpRequest) != 'undefined') {

  xmlHttp = new XMLHttpRequest();

}

</script>

The reason we don't immediately assume that we can use the non-Microsoft browser implementation of the XMLHttpRequest object is because there is also the chance that the browser being used does not support the use of AJAX.  In that case, we do not want to try and build the XMLHttpRequest object because the page will throw an error.

Now that we have the basic object for AJAX functionality, we will next need to put it to use.  In the next part of this series, we will look to do just that.

I came across this a week or so ago while at work. It turns out that there is a limitation on Microsoft's implementation of javascript in IE7, but not one too many people might run into.

It comes in regards to array allocation. Whereas IE6 had no limit on the amount of array elements that could be allocated in memory, IE7 has a limit of about 8000 array elements. I'm not sure of the exact number, but that's usually about the point we were getting our cryptic "syntax error" messages. And to clarify, that's about 8000 total array elements in one page, not just in one array.

The good news is that you can get around this problem by using table objects instead of array objects. While a little more complex to work with in javaScript, they don't have any size limitations and can still get the job done.

Being a blogger myself, I am a regular reader of Darren Rowse over at ProBlogger.net. Well, he's having another writing project, and this post is a direct result of that. While there is a prize, and it would be nice to get, the reason I like participating in his writing projects is that they usually encourage me to break out of my posting patterns and try something new. In that vein, I bring you the top 5 things that I've learned while running this site:

1. This Blogging Gig Ain't Easy – Honestly, when I started this site, I expected it to be pretty easy. I figured one post a week about topics I'm already familiar with would require pretty minimal effort. However, I learned that trying to run a site that makes a difference requires more time, participation, reading and learning on my part than I had ever expected.
2. Patience Is A Virtue – A year and a half ago, I had very modest expectations for this blog. I had hoped that at least a few people would be impacted and work to improve their church or church-related websites. Today, for the first time the blog has hit 100 feed subscribers, and the site is better know than I had ever expected.
3. I Have Great Readers – Since I mentioned the number of subscribers, let me just say that I have great readers, who help provide feedback and insight into the website topics discussed here. I'm also very thankful that everyone was so patient and understanding during my last few months of personal turmoil (even now, I'm still trying to get back on a regular schedule). Your continued support over this time has been very much appreciated.
4. There Is No De Facto Template For Church Websites – Yes, I admit that when I started out, I looked at putting together as a pretty simple equation (something like A + B + C = Church Website). However, I've learned that there are places for a number of different approaches to a church website, depending on community, location, congregation makeup, and a number of other factors. There are basic sections that should be on every one of these sites, but the rest is up for grabs. The important thing with the rest of these sections is to make sure they are implemented as effectively as possible.
5. Running This Site Is Rewarding – Honestly, I've gotten more out of running IfJesusHadAWebsite.net than I had ever expected. I've learned more about site design and implementation, developed more relationships, and had a bigger impact than I could have hoped for. I hope to continue serving the Lord's will for the web for a while to come, because I still feel that he's got a lot in store for all of us!

Interestingly enough, over the last few months, I've learned that Lent is much less practiced than I had originally thought. Maybe it's because every church I had been a part of until a few years ago observed Lent and I have friends whose churches practice it, but I definately was mistaken. It turns out, at least among you readers, that Lent isn't a major focus.

I'd be curious to hear more about your different experiences with the observation of Lent in the comments below, if you're willing to share.

Our next poll asks if you consider your church to be a hub, connecting visitors to useful information that can be found elsewhere, a destination, providing original information for visitors to consume, or a business card, just covering the basics that need to be there.

Once we see where people are, I'll be putting together a piece on the advantages and disadvantages of each. But for now, let's just take a look at where we all are.