I’ve been screaming this particular perspective for a while now and I’ve found some more backing from a few guys that “really” matter.

You see, the term “Church 2.0″ is lame, for a number of reasons, and here are just a few (that I could think of this Valentine’s Day Morning). In fact, the term is dying. I’m not necessarily interested in using a term that’s going the way of the dead pool… would you?

I’d expound on more of these if I felt it was worth while (and perhaps I will later). Otherwise, here you go:

1. It’s a borrowed “term” from the marketplace. Using it is “fun” but contextually it’s just wrong. It doesn’t translate as well as people think it does.
2. Historical context is everything. Web 2.0 works because there was a Web 1.0. People understand the evolution of the web and that’s why it works. The Church does not have a “1.0″. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about Church 1.0. What the heck does that even mean? If there is no 1.0, we can’t have a 2.0.
3. Using 2.0 is completely confusing. Again, because of historical context, but also, because it’s much more of a developer and software term.
4. It’s a far too “ambiguous” term. Why use something that’s “nebulous” to begin with? So many people in the market place do not even know what it means. What makes you an expert?
5. Being “cool” and “trendy” with a term doesn’t make it useful. Period. We need to be bit more “wise” when using terms that we don’t really fully understand.
6. Web 2.0 is dead. Or, it’s really really really close. Using it will “date” the church. In fact, it will make the Church look just as backward technologically as it already is. Time to kill the “sins of the father” and make something new.
7. The english language is pretty darn big. I think the collective wisdom of the bunch of us can come up with terms and definitions that more closely “match” what’s really going on, where we’ve been (institutionally and historically) and where we’re going.
8. I think it’s lame.
9. Educating people about web technology is vastly more important than the “name” of technology. I think we spend far more time doing the latter than doing the former.
10. Web 3.0 isn’t picking up and I’m sure that it won’t. I know a lot of industry leaders in the tech space agree. Jumping on a track of taking a development and software application vernacular is easy; jumping off the track is hard. Church 3.0? Please.

Eww.

I feel like I just “vomited” all over my blog. Have a great rest of the day!