Design does matter. Aesthetics do matter. Profoundly. And for many aspects of a place of worship more important than its website.

They do not, however, grant those with a critical eye the license to "school" a congregation of fellow believers before the watching world.

Let's follow your sense of mission to it's logical conclusion. Instead of stopping at web site design, let's have our mystery shoppers, our panel of experts, review the ushers, the sermon, the music, the architecture, the seating, the carpet, the congregation's physical appearance, the lighting the children's programs, the bulletin layout, the pastor's attire, the pastor's wife, the acoustics, the refreshments, etc. Let's take it upon ourselves to offer the world an impartial, unflinching, expert opinion about the "experience" offered at random churches--random churches readily identifiable by the details offered in our reviews. You could start a new "Zagat's" guide to places of worship.

Speaking generally (i.e., NOT targeting an actual church body), I can say with some learning and a pile of arrogance that the vast majority of protestant churches in the USA fall far short of the aesthetic standards (including architecture, music, ritual, vestments . . . ) historically observed by churches of the Anglican tradition. It would not be difficult to assemble a panel of experts who would concur. It does not follow from these facts that it is sensible for me, a follower of Christ, to apply such understanding in a public critique of a particular church.

I stand by the grade I assigned. The grade was not given on account of a disagreement about the importance of aesthetics. It was assigned because of the unedifying manner in which you chose to make use of your aesthetic aptitude.

Will the Holy Spirit have to work extra hard to overcome that church's shortcomings? Does
web-site design rank near the top of human prejudices the Holy Spirit must overthrow to bring an individual into relationship with Jesus Christ and fellowship with a local congregation of his beloved body?

First Impressions, as a concept, deserves a failing grade. If you have advice for a specific church, you should offer your consulting services to them directly. If you have generic advice for the church, offer it humbly without reference to a particular body. This is no way to treat the bride of Christ.

We as a church will fail if we continue to elevate performance above grace.

Apart from deeper concerns as to how the medium might degrade the message, I can say, as one flooded by all manner of media, that these seem cheesy and annoying. It reminds me of bumper stickers (including fish), tattoos and those Easter Seals and Cancer Society stickers some folks used to put on their personal correspondence. They make me feel like a captive being fed propaganda. especially when i am stuck in traffic.

In Facebook, it is tacitly understood that folks are going to parade this stuff about for all to see. (And I have finally gotten to the point where I ignore all offers for my friends' stuff to take up residence on my own profile.)

However, just because I give someone my e-mail address or choose to follow them on Twitter or enter into a forum, why should I have to endure all manner of personal advertising? So, personally, I would be less inclined to heed a message tagged with one of these doo-dads. Maybe that's just me.

I think the church's message will not likely be advanced terribly much by bumper stickers, flair or twibbons. In fact, I can think of no good coming from putting it out there alongside such earth-changing messages as NKOTB, veganism, Billie Mays, "I'm a Mac", etc. These gestures tend to reinforce the notion of the Gospel as one of many relatively trivial, trendy lifestyle options from which one may choose.

Need I remind anyone?:

Stan, Chotchkie's Manager: "We need to talk about your flair."
Joanna: "Really? I-I have 15 pieces on. I also--"
Stan: "Well, 15 is the minimum, okay?"
Joanna: "Oh, okay."
Stan: "Now, you know, it's up to you whether or not you wanna just do the bare minimum or, uh-- Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair on today. And a terrific smile."
Joanna: "Okay, so you want me to wear more?"
Stan: "Look, Joanna--"
Joanna: "Yeah?"
Stan: "People can get a cheeseburger anywhere, okay? They come to Chotchkie's for the atmosphere and the attitude. Okay? That's what the flair's about. It's about fun."
Joanna: "Yeah. Okay, so more then, yeah?"
Stan: "Look, we want you to express yourself. Okay? Now, if you feel that the bare minumum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that. Okay? You do wanna express yourself, don't you?"
Joanna: "Y-Yeah."
Stan: "Okay, great, great. That's all I ask."
Joanna: "Okay."

"Aren't sermon illustrations today just modern parables?"

Yes and no. The following aspect of Christ's parables cannot be said to be true of our human illustrations:

Luke 8:9-10 (New King James Version)

9 Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?”
10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

‘ Seeing they may not see,
And hearing they may not understand.’

Perhaps I am hung up on overuse. That may well lead to the same practical conclusions, as overuse is no small phenomenon. I'll comment later on the peculiar prominence of "hearing" throughout Scriptures, time permitting.

Thanks, Bill. Little did I know I had a Rhett-and-Link-song-about-Shamwow-shaped-hole in my life.

Another passage of Scripture that speaks to how we transmit Gospel truth:

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (New King James Version)

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

While I do no believe we are to seek to be humanly unpersuasive in presenting Scripture, I think we should think hard about whether our presentational techniques tend toward the "wisdom of men" or the "power of God." I believe the media itself, even if intended only as the conduit of the message, can project a sense of earthly power. That doesn't mean, to my thinking, that we lay aside all manner of modern media. It means, though, that we are not entitled to assume that it doesn't matter, that it is neutral, that it is necessarily good. It means we have to catch ourselves when we begin to measure the effectiveness of our communication by the world's terms.

We do allow technique to smother content. Preaching can too often be hard to distinguish from motivational speaking. Too much preaching seems more concerned with tickling men's ears than kindling their souls. I have heard many, MANY sermons where illustrations and anecdotes and jokes crowded out substantive engagement with God's Word, where the preacher's "performance" was the central focus. I left entertained, but undernourished.

I find this kind of risk far more palpable among those who tend to preach thematically rather than with an expository emphasis. There the temptation is to try to cram Scripture into human categories of the age or the moment. It is one thing to begin with "What do the Scriptures have to say?" and another to start with "What do the Scriptures have to say about...?"

I find your observation embedded in this question apt, but I think you prove too much: "If so, what about a joke or humorous illustration told by the preacher as part of the sermon? Is a dramatic Scripture reading on video considered entertainment?"

I lament the adaptation of vaudevillian technique into preaching, whether or not video is employed. Sermons saturated with illustrations and humor often, quite often, detract from the raw power of the Word.

Wearing too much make-up (up to and including clown make-up) obscures one's natural beauty and/or renders one's sincerity suspect.

Psalm 119:103 declares: "How sweet are Your words to my taste, Sweeter than honey to my mouth!" Yet, like Mary Poppins, we insist on adding a "spoonful of sugar" to help the medicine go down ("in the most delightful way"). How ever will God's people develop a deep taste for God's Word if we insist on adding flavors and toppings? (What percentage of Starbucks customers would enjoy a cup of black, strong, unsweetened coffee?)

I also lament the generally naive approach we take to co-opting the world's modes of entertainment. We invoke (and reinforce) either (a) a pathetic appetite for the ephemeral junk food typically found on the 24/7 media buffet or (b) a deep-seated cynicism, selectivity and/or and disdain hard-wired into most of us after years of exposure to media's blandishments. We offer salt water to those who've just come ashore from a long spell adrift at sea, some delirious from having imbibed and others, still possessed of their faculties, wanting nothing more than fresh water.

We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow.