Comments on: Megachurches: Ugly as Sin? What the Sites Don’t Show…

By: Adeea Rogers

Adeea Rogers — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:39:04 +0000

I don’t understand the real need to publish the photos of the building. If you are a Christian and if the church you belong to really ascribe to helping the community, then it IS NOT about the building, but what GOES ON INSIDE the building. It is not about “bragging” or any such thing, it is simply a means to give people a glimpse into the background, philosophy and inner workings of that particular church. Any church leader that is worth 2 cents will tell you that churches DO NOT COMPETE. There are enough lost souls out there that they don’t have to. Yes, there are a few rotten apples out there who do compete, but they are few and far between. But it’s mainly those OUTSIDE of the church who think that churches compete. But I appreciate your opinion, as a web designer for a church, you give me a different perspective about what people want and think when they surf a church site.

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I disagree, a church is a building. It has walls, a roof and it is an institution. Just because it believes it is above schools and other public buildings gives it no reason to slack off. Isn’t putting up bios or pictures of services bragging to other churches or even religions that their is better?

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

You’re nuts. Perhaps the reason these churches don’t post pictures of their facilities is because doing so might be seen as “bragging” about their buildings - as if that should be the thing that attracts you to their church. Instead, they put things on their web site that are the real attactions - people, ministries, services, etc. A church is not a building, Amy.