Zach Beauvais

Describing a company or concept as "Web 2.0" is so, last half-decade. Nevermind that most people still haven’t heard the phrase. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and poll your office or family: unless you’re not allowed out of the IT dungeon or your family all work as tech-bloggers, my guess is that they haven’t heard or don’t understand the term.

This isn’t really surprising. If you hear about a "new internet phenomenon" on mainstream news, the chances are it’s either on it’s way out or is so firmly entrenched as to be unremarkable. For a perfect example of this, look up ‘Facebook’ in a national publication and note the language used to describe it’s shiny-new cover–regardless of the fact that most people reading this blog will have been on Facebook (or gone off Facebook) at least a year ago!

It even now seems that there may be a financial impact on describing your new startup as "web 2.0". According to Mashable!, several VC’s are stating quite clearly that they won’t back Web 2.0. I have also noticed talk of bubbles breaking and ‘meteoric rises’ with the implication that it won’t last very much longer. So many potential break-throughs won’t see their funding if they’re too 2.0.

This phenomenon is firmly entrenched in ‘techy’ social networks like Digg. When I dugg a news story about the semantic web, I noticed the overwhelming majority of comments were along the lines of "semantic web is so cliche", or "Watch out, here comes Semantic Web 2.0, Run!".

Describing a company or concept as "Web 2.0" is so, last half-decade. Nevermind that most people still haven’t heard the phrase. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and poll your office or family: unless you’re not allowed out of the IT dungeon or your family all work as tech-bloggers, my guess is that they haven’t heard or don’t understand the term.

This isn’t really surprising. If you hear about a "new internet phenomenoon" on mainstream news, the chances are it’s either on it’s way out or is so firmly entrenched as to be unremarkable. For a perfect example of this, look up ‘Facebook’ in a national publication and note the language used to describe it’s shiny-new cover–regardless of the fact that most people reading this blog will have been on Facebook (or gone off Facebook) at least a year ago!

It even now seems that there may be a financial impact on describing your new startup as "web 2.0". According to Mashable!, several VC’s are stating quite clearly that they won’t back Web 2.0. I have also noticed talk of bubbles breaking and ‘meteoric rises’ with the implication that it won’t last very much longer. So many potential break-throughs won’t see their funding if they’re too 2.0.

This phenomenon is firmly entrenched in ‘techy’ social networks like Digg. When I dugg a news story about the semantic web, I noticed the overwhelming majority of comments were along the lines of "semantic web is so cliche", or "Watch out, here comes Semantic Web 2.0, Run!".

Having been reading Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, I’ve begun formulating a few thoughts on what some have called the ‘emergent church’.

Because I work with the internet, I tend to see things from an ‘online’ perspective. When I see a presentation, I ask why it doesn’t link to resources and I tend to Google answers and keep many tabs open with on-the-fly further reading on a subject. One of the most wide-spread of all internet buzzwords is "Web 2.0". The ideas behind it have been summed up (indeed, coined) by the O’Reilly network. To me, many of these have a strong resonance with the ‘newly painted church’ of Mars Hill. For example, there is an emphasis in Web 2.0 on participation and "The long tail" which I see reflected in "every member ministry" and discussions instead of sermons. Teaching has taken on a very interactive flavour, and theology is less about rules.

While the tag ‘Church 2.0′ is wildly inaccurate on one score (e.g. there have been many renditions of the church), the notion of a renaissance is definitely present and many of the tenets of Web 2.0 can be helpfully used as metaphor in the church.

Participation vs. Preaching:

With links to various incarnations of the ‘Cell’ movement, the idea of discussion supplementing or even replacing pulpit-sermons is certainly not new.