I recent Stumbled Upon this fun little quiz. It shows you the picture and asks you to identify whether the person invented a computer programming language or was a serial killer. It’s kind of amazing how not obvious it is. I got 7 out of 10 correct.

According to this article from CNN.com, the Nielsen Company, which measures ratings and other television-related information, estimates that approximately 3 million people were not prepared for the conversion to digital television.  Additionally, the FCC reported that over 317,000 people called it’s help line.

This is not something that snuck up on people.  It wasn’t like television stations turned off their signals with no warning.  This has been coming for years, and yet 1 in every 100 Americans was not prepared.

I don’t know exactly when stations started broadcasting commericals and public service announcements about the switch to digital TV, but I know that I saw my first one late in 2007.  I remember thinking, “it’s over a year away.  They sure are starting the commercials early.”  Those commercials have been commonplace on network TV.  Rarely has a day gone by that I didn’t see at least one.

Yet when the original deadline was approaching in February, there were so many people who weren’t ready (Nielsen reports that it was a little over 6 million), they extended the deadline.  After the extension, the commercials became even more omnipresent.

I will admit that over the last 3 months or so the commercials have improved.  In the early days, the commercials said things like “make sure you are ready,” without saying who needed to be concerned and who did not.  The more recent commercials have been clearer.  They made it clear what people would be affected and who would not be.

If the commercials and reports in the news media weren’t enough, all of the affected channels ran a number of tests.  All people had to do was to turn on their TVs during specified periods of time, and they could see whether they were ready or not.

In spite of all of the commercials, all of the stories in the news media, all of the tests, and even direct mail advertisements from cable, satellite tv, and antenna companies, 1% of the U.S. population wasn’t ready.

This has been well-publicized public knowledge for over 18 months.  The TV stations all talked about it.  The news media covered it in detail.  Companies took advantage of it as a marketing tool.  And still 3 million people weren’t prepared.

I just don’t get it.

According to a study by Pew Internet and American Life Project, a non-profit research group, (as reported by CNN) 7% of Americans use the internet as their primary means of social communication and also feel conflicted about that.  Pew, which broke internet users into 10 categories, refers to this group as “ambivalent networkers.”

You can find out what kind of internet user you are by taking this quiz.

I am a Media Mover.  According to Pew, “If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.”

What type of internet user are you?

This post from ChurchRelevance.com struck a cord with me because it addresses one of what I see as the biggest potential problems of the local church:  we all try to be hammers.

Megachurches make up just 1% of the churches in the U.S.  Yet many (most?) churches try to model themselves after these megachurches.   Christian books tend to focus on the methods and ideas of megachurches and their pastors.  Conferences are designed to share these megachurch ideas.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not complaining about megachurches.  They have a role, even an important role, to play.  They often do excellent ministry, and they can be very effective at reaching people in their communities.  However, that don’t, and can’t, reach everyone.  Some people respond to different kinds of ministry than megachurches can provide.  My issue isn’t with megachurches.  It is with the churches who feel like every church needes to be like a megachurch.

As Church Relevance points out, a good toolbox contains lots of different tools because different kinds of jobs require different kinds of tools.  This is true in the spiritual world, just as in the physical world.  Hammers are useful tools, but some jobs require a screwdriver or a wrench.  Megachurches are great tools, but some people need other types of ministry in order to be reached.

Craig Groeschel of LifeChurch.tv has said that “in order to reach people that no one is reaching, you will have to do things that no one is doing. But in order to do things that no one is doing, you can’t do what everyone else is doing.”  If everyone does what megachurches do, then the church will only reach people that megachurches reach.  In order to reach people megachurches don’t or can’t reach, somebody needs to do things that megachurches don’t do.

Megachurches have good lessons to teach, and those of us in other types of ministries should learn those lessons and figure out how to apply them in our contexts.  However, other types of ministries have lessons worth learning as well.

Hammers great tools.  There are lots of jobs that require a hammer.  But there are some jobs hammers can’t do.  We need to stop trying to all be hammers.

In more “hey, look what I found” news, according to this report, a Florida commercial fisherman working in the Gulf of Mexico reeled in a live missile and kept it on his boat for 10 days before returning to port.

The fisherman hooked an air-to-air guided missile while fishing about 50 miles off the coast of Panama City, Florida.  Both the US Navy and Air Force use the area off the coast of the Florida panhandle for training exercises.  The weapon almost certainly came from one of those training missions.

After catching the missile, the fisherman kept it on his boat for 10 days before returning to port near St. Petersburg.  The missile had apparently been in the water for a long time.  Deterioration from the salt water had left the missile in a live and very unstable state.  Fortunately, an Air Force bomb squad was able to disarm the bomb with no injuries or explosions.

First a dog in a stream.  Now a fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico.  When you go near the water, I guess you never know what kind of weaponry you’re going to pull out…

I came across this article from ChurchRelevance.com discussing a recent study by the Barna Group.  According to the study, half of all Americans agree with the statement “A growing number of people I know are tired of the usual type of church experience.”  This percentage is even higher among African-Americans (59%) and Hispanics (58%).

Let’s be clear.  This is not saying that 50% of Americans are dissatisfied with the typical church experience.  What is really says is that people are aware that there is a growing dissatisfaction, whether they personally feel it or not.  It should also be noted that study doesn’t identify what constitutes “typical.”  One person’s boring, typical church could be another person’s dream church.  I’m also sure that regional and denominational difference have an impact on what a “typical” church looks like to someone.

While there certainly are a number of things to keep in mind about these numbers, I think that that trend is an important one that we can’t ignore.   There does seem to be a growing dissatisfaction about the way “typical church” is done.  In my experience (and I would love to see the Barna’s numbers on this) that dissatisfaction is stronger among people who are under age 30 or maybe 35.  If we don’t do something about it, those dissatisfied people are going to walk out the door and not come back to church, and non-church goers are going to never give church (or possibly even God) a chance.

This doesn’t mean that the current “typical church” is wrong or that we need to blow up the “typical church” and start all over.  There are too many people who are not dissatisfied.  The current church methods are effective for them.  To get rid of the “typical church” entirely would simply change the group of people who are dissatisfied.  Instead, we need to come up with some new ways of “doing” church.  That may be within existing churches, or it may mean planting some new churches.  Whichever way we go, we need some new methods that show how God is relevant to people today.  If we do that, we can reach people that “typical churches” may be losing, or may never be reaching in the first place.

This article from Church Marketing Sucks addresses one of my personal pet peeves in American Christianity: the fact that the church is often a copycat of the world.  When we see something that is cool or successful in the world, we want to use it.  But we don’t use the cool or successful thing.  Instead we have to create our own, “holy” version.  The problem is that the Christian version is never as cool or as successful as the original.

YouTube creates a cool way to post and share video.  Rather than using YouTube, the church creates GodTube, now called Tangle. 

Facebook becomes a great place for people to interact and connect online.  The church responds by creating “Christian Facebook Alternatives” like Faithlight, Faithout (which has the same ad on the frontpage as the most common one on my Facebook page),  or LifeSpace.

There are some great free blogging platforms, such as WordPress, BlogSpot or Vox.  The church responds with things like ChristianBlog.com (where you have to initial a statement of faith saying that yes, in fact you are a child of God in order to register and create a blog) and LifeWithChrist.org.

Twitter becomes a nationwide craze, giving people the chance to talk about what they are doing and seeing what other people are doing, in 140 character bites.  The church responds with alternatives like Gospelr, and according to the xpiritmental blog, Godwitter is coming.

To me, there are a number of problems with this phenomenon.  Not the least of which is the fact that when the church tries to duplicate something, it is almost always inferior to the thing it is trying to copy.  For example, there are hundreds upon hundreds of ways that I could personalize the look of this blog.  If I were willing to pay a little bit of money for additional tools, there would be countless more things I could do.  However, the Christian blogging sites offer few, if any, ways to personalize the look of their blogs.

I am sypathetic to the concerns of people, particularly parents, who want to avoid the seamier side of the internet, but I don’t think a segregated, “Christian” internet is the way to go.  Sure, LifeSpace may not have some of the potential evils of Facebook.  But Facebook gives a way to demonstrate my beliefs and thoughts about God to my friends outside the church.  That won’t happen in a “Christian Facebook Alternative.”  GodTube — excuse me, Tangle — may not have videos that I probably shouldn’t be watching, but it will also never help me develop and practice skills in discernment.

Also, these Christian copycats have a negative impact on people outside the church.  People outside the church, and quite a few inside it for that matter, roll their eyes at these “Christian alternatives,” and people outside the church often think less of us for it.  Some see it as demeaning something that they like.  Others see it as Christians saying “I’m too good to be apart of something you are apart of.”  In either case, it makes it harder for followers of Jesus to reach and have an impact on people who don’t know him yet.

The church doesn’t exist so that Christians can avoid all contact with the rest of the world.  The church exists to help those outside of the church see the love of Jesus.  When we set up a separate, copycat world we separate ourselves from what should be our true mission.

Look what the dog drug in.

According to this article from Yahoo! News, a 40-year-old German woman was walking her dog near a stream on the outskirts of Erkrath, Germany.  She decided to let the dog off of its leash so it could run around for a few minutes.  The dog decided that it was a good time to play fetch.  He picked up a “ball” and started to bring it to his master.

Only it wasn’t a ball.  It was an unexploded US grenade left over from World War II.   As the dog started to bring the grenade to her, the woman recognized it for what it was and called the police.

“She recognised immediately that it was probably an old, rusted hand grenade,” police said. “On the orders of the woman, the dog obediently put his find back next to the stream.”

The police responded to the area, blocked it off, and defused the grenade before it exploded.  No one, not even the dog, was hurt.

Apparently, this is not an isolated incident.  Germany is still littered with live munitions, even 60 years after the war, and authorities frequently evacuate people when weapons are found.

I came across this post on the Church Marketing Sucks blog talking about the newest campus of Saddleback Church.  The campus is located in Laguna Woods Village, which is a gated retirement community.  Only Laguna Woods residents and their invited, escorted guests are allowed within the community.  This means that only Laguna Woods residents and their guests can attend the church.

Saddleback launched the new campus because many residents from the community attend the church, and the church has a number of small groups based there, and these residents requested the new campus.  With an average age in the community of 78, it certainly can be argued that this is an example of taking church to the people.  It is likely much easier for these senior citizens to attend a church in their own community rather than travelling to another Saddleback site.

On the other hand, it creates a situation where a church is being created in a place where the public is not welcome.  It could send the message that Jesus Christ is only for some people.  To complicate matters, Saddleback is a model that is followed by other churches.  Even if we can justify having a church in a gated community of senior citizens, this could lead people to expand the idea to other types of gated or exclusive communities.

I’m really not sure what I think about this.  I think part of this is some uncertainty about what to think of multi-campus churches.  Should be consider an additional campus part of the same church, or is it a new, related church?  Should we consider a separate campus as part of the same church, not really any different from a church that has 2 or more services in the same building?  In a church with 2 or more services, people are encouraged to pick whichever service works best for them.  Viewed this way, the multi-campus church allows people to pick the best location, not just the best time.  The Laguna Woods Village campus would certainly be an easier time and place for many residents of the community to attend, and it would likely allow at least some people to come would would have difficulty getting to another church location.  In this case, a campus in a gated community doesn’t cause a problem because even if a person couldn’t attend every possible service, there should be at least one time and location that would work.

On the other hand, unless the satellite campus is showing the service from the “main” campus on screen, the services at the campus will be different, even if those differences are slight.  It is also likely that there will be campus will have at least some activities and ministries that are independent.   Because of the differences, it might be better to view the different campus as a separate, affiliated church.  If you view campuses that way, then a campus in a gated community is creating a new church where not everyone is welcome.  I think that is a dangerous precedent.

So I’m uncertain what I think about a church campus in a gated retirement community because I’m uncertain how we should view the different campuses of a multi-campus church.  I think answering that broader question will go a long way towards focusing my opinion on the narrower question.

Tonight’s Live Blog is being hosted on Andy’s blog starting at 8 p.m. Central Time.  Click here to visit.