Once upon a time, electronic communication meant phoning a friend. Now we don’t use phones to make phone calls—we text! Considering this, should your church use text messaging?
While the pastor in my cartoon may have the right idea, he probably needs a different phone number! It may sway some parishioners to text some less-than-positive feedback. Still, isn’t it amazing we can use technology to such a degree today?
It’s a good thing I didn’t have a cell phone in school. Would I have received a call from Mom? Probably not. But I most likely would have been calling for a lifeline every few minutes.
Today, can you really trust if it’s your mom calling you? Scammers can mask any number and make it appears it is coming from your loved one. If your mother is calling to ask for your social security number, it’s probably a good sign that the person on the other line is a scammer. The deep, bass voice may be a giveaway too.
There was a time when giving at church was as easy as passing the offering plate down the aisle. But these days are different. Welcome to texting to give at church!
Of course, when a new technology appears, there is always someone trying to exploit it. When I thought about that, it led to this cartoon.
Granted, texting to give doesn’t allow for IOU’s. Because if that did exist, we know someone would exploit it. Rather, a donor’s cell phone carrier typically bills them.
Here is a good article on how text-to-give works for nonprofits and churches. The concept goes back to 2010 when the Red Cross raised funds for the earthquake in Haiti. At that time, the campaign raised $487.6 million for the cause.
Some of us would assume that church culture is not ready for text-to-give. But we would be wrong. According to the article I cited above, 96% of Americans own a cell phone today.
In churches, seven out of ten parishioners text. Those stats have changed dramatically since text-to-give was first introduced eleven years ago!
So do not fear! When it comes to texting to give at church, we have entered a new era. And you need not worry about the wise guy that formerly added an IOU to the offering plate!
I drew this cartoon for the November 2022 CHOGNews.
The more we automate information-handling, the more we will have to create opportunities for effective communication.
Pete Drucker in The Effective Executive
Communication doesn’t get more effective with today’s technology. It may get faster, but something gets lost in the process.
The other day, I discovered an email sent in my department was misunderstood. The message was correct, but the context and way it was said came off blunt, rude and made a customer feel like we were bossing him around.
Of course, that wasn’t the intention. But an email doesn’t show body language. The tone of voice can only be interpreted through the words. A please and thank you go a long way in showing politeness and a friendly tone in an email. It may sound overly polite in a conversation, but just right in an email.
The cat in my cartoon is wise to assess the dog’s tone and body language. Unfortunately, we don’t have those advantages in texts and emails. We have emoji’s and our words. And a smiley face in business correspondence may not be quite the professional feel you are going for!
Texting anyone? Or do you tweet, post an update or prefer only to communicate with chatbots? Do you email your request? Or do you prefer to snail mail your correspondence?
We have so many easy, fast ways to communicate now. We can send instant messages to someone across the world. Yet, do we stop to consider if our favorite mode of communication is effective?
A handwritten note from a hundred years ago can still speak effectively. Books printed centuries ago can still give wisdom and insight. Some communication is good for the immediacy of the Internet. Some are meant for more permanence.
As we near Valentine’s Day, consider what mode of communication you are using. There are times a quick text to my wife is an appropriate way to say I love you. But the handwriting in a note or card may last longer than I’ll ever know.
