off the top of me head, iiiiiiiiii'm for the idear of considering this a congregation, but my hackles rise at the notion of having an official in group and out group, that of 'members' and 'adherents'...i'd want chansen & Mendalla to have all the rights that people have here, right now...if WCers want to consider what they do a ministry, let them i say...

one of the advantages of WC, imho, is that it tries to get beyond that...go beyond 'Religion' and get into the sharing of the common human experience...

but, whatever people decide is what people decide...and yer brainstorming here, Pinga, which is totally cool :3

ina, i get the concern re chansen and mendella, and to be fair, chansen and mendella have even discussed would a new wondercafe be willing to have non-uc be admins.

I think that 90% of the folks woud be like you & me and say "of course".  the question of adherents and what you need to say "yes" to be a member might be more open,....ie, would there be UCC-members, other-members, and adherents.

This is  a creative suggestion, Pinga.......

The world is changing rapidly, and just as the media has had to accept a virtual reality, so , too, will the church if it wants to continue.

The fact is, as chansen and others have pointed out, church attendance is in decline for most of the established churches in the west.

Sooner, rather than later, the church will have to address does it want a community of faith to exist for future generations? Is faith more important than filling up pews in a building?

If the answer is yes then it's time to consider cyber as a location.

(Just hope it's possible to retain my membership of the Uniting Church of Australia as well as cyber membership of UCC).

A church will sometimes choose to share a physical structure with other groups, I can think of a congregation that built a church with a synagogue.  the cedars in waterloo

so, though the forum may start as being heavily structured within united church of canada circles, there is nothing that wouldn't stop the structure from being shared and co-led by others using the same structure/forum, and i would love to see that that model of embracing other unitng type groups to be a part, such as the unitarian idea that mendella through out there earlier.

I think it's a very creative idea Pinga. if we were to be a virtual congregation, requiring presbytery involvement and fees I think that could be very tricky. Gosh there are soooo many rules about and for congregations.

As someone said, what is our "roll" . I think our current presbytery fees in Toronto West are something like $28 a head.
.

I like the idea of us being an outreach/mission branch but then again, we sort of already are with head office.

Like any individual congregation, "ours" has decided it can no longer afford us.

Realistically that happens with all congregations. Churches have programs they stop funding due to costs, or numbers or .......
.

I wonder if a particular presbytery or church might consider taking wondercafe on as a mission outreach. But I do think that is a process. Finding a congregation, making a proposal to them, getting some support, having that committee of that congregation present it to their board for approval....... And of course what it might mean to that particular congregation, if we match their philosophy.
.

Particularly when Chansen goes on one of his regular rants about how stupid, outdated, ignorant..... Pick an adjective, ... The Christian church is.

Then the particular Board of that church or that presbytery says. "Wow, this isn't how we want to be presented...."
.
.
.

With all the talk you tech guys have had about how cheaply Wondercafe could be operated I wonder instead about a proposal to the head office

A proposal about how wondercafe could continue to operate, with our current UCC affiliation in a stripped down , streamlined way.

If we can operate it ourselves for a few hundred dollars, why can't they.
.

A proposal that looks at one of these cheap sites you have all found, one that takes a small registration fee or a donation link $5 annually?, one that operates under general council but with a volunteer board.......one that includes a funding proposal.
.

A lean wondercafe, with none of the bells and whistles. No groups, no blogs, (people host those individually ) no church find. Just discussion and a link to the main UCC page

Damn, the lengths you people will go to, to get me to join a church.

"I know! We'll build a church around the bastard! Let's see him get out of that one!"

What are you going to do next? Break into my house and replace my soup crackers with communion wafers?

dang, he caught us

This sounds really good to me!

Well, chansen, in our virtual church, your soup crackers are communion wafers, just as they are. No belief in transsubstantiation necessary. The universe is our God. You can't squirm your way out this Holy ONE!

Regarding wondercafe as an on-line congregation, there is no precedent for it, but there wasn't a precedent for anything until the first precedent was established. We can be first, and form an on-line UCCan congregation—if we find a presbytery that will accept us. Or we can attach ourselves to an existing congregation as an auxiliary.

The advantage of remaining within the UCC is that we can retain our records, which belong to the United Church. Maybe we can even retain Aaron as our record keeper?

Yes, it would be a good idea to keep it as lean as possible: A virtual congregation with an ongoing discussion service.

Lean Cuisine sounds good to me too.

Crazyheart and Arminius, 

Good discussion. It is helping me see the light about the decision to close Wondercafe. 

It was a very ambitious project but so much of the site has never been fully utilized. The discussion forum caught on to the extent that we have formed a meaningful community here. I hope we can continue in some fashion. And I especially hope that our history of posts, user names and avatars will be maintained. Not sure how I feel about wondermail - - I don't tend to retain mine but I know some people like to keep them and reread them for inspiration and so on. 

The blogs, the church search function, the friends function, the groups - - I wouldn't regret the loss of any of these things at all. 

I worry about how we would continue to attract newcomers, that's all. We don't want to become a "club". 

Facebook doesn't do it for me. I don't plan to join the group if that becomes the option. 

Chansen, I was waiting for your comment about becoming a church :)

Y'all are just trying to give me an aneurysm.

Congrats Chansen.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If WC remains within the UCCan, then I see some merit in this model. It gives it a clear place in the church structure and, as suggested, makes it easier to get charitable status and such.

What does having a presbytery (or other church body) overseeing us mean, though? Lastpointe brought up a concern that crossed my mind as well - what if some well-meaning presbytery rep or executive comes on the site and reads some of chansen's posts (or even some of the conservative Christian posts; SaulnowPaul and Jae can get pretty down on the UCCan at times). Would they be able to go back to presbytery and initiate some kind of process to pressure the WC Board/Council to have the admins tighten up on such posters (which would be ironic, and slightly bizarre, if chansen was one of those admins). This board is about free and open discussion and how do we make sure that whatever court of the church takes responsiblity for WC realizes that and recognizes that opinions like those of chansen and SnP are a valid part of the discussion?

Another oddity that comes to mind. What I rejoin the UCCan through my involvement with WC? I am baptised and confirmed in the UCCan but, as I understand it, to come back I need to reconfirm or profess (or whatever the manual term is) my faith. Could this be done through WC (assuming it has a minister) or would I need to join a local UCCan and gain membership that way? An online welcoiming of new members might be a neat idea but does it gel with UCCan practice?

Much to think about and glad pinga has put the idea out there because it's one that has kind of been alluded to before without being directly addressed.

Mendalla

I believe Rev. John has already "hinted " that he doesn't believe the UC wants us ( we weren't consulted about the WC closure he said  ). I also believe  that they aren't willing to spend a nickle or a dime on our sustenance. We can  starve for all they care.

Something tells me that Rev. John doesn't speak lightly or frivolous. Otherwise, the ideas presented here with the  minimum UC involvement are just fine and dandy. We can all contribute toward the cost. I don't see that as being a major problem.

I think this is the beginning of a good idea. I do wonder how it will work within the polity and structure of the UCCan. Others have commented on some of the issues involved: calling a minister, memberships, assessments, etc. I think we would need to move beyond those issues and somehow convince the UCCan that a pastoral charge/mission can exist outside of traditional lines. Instead of just colouring outside the lines, we need to ditch the lines and draw our own picture. I think this is the time for the church to have cyber communities. Those communities need to be able to include the chansens, Jaes, Witches and others who have helped make this a community.

Look, if this place came under the domain of a UCCan presbytery, and they wanted me to modify my post content in any way, I'd tell them to sodomize themselves with a splintered axe handle.

This place becoming a virtual church would mean it wouldn't be Wondercafe. It would be a church. If that's what you want, that's great, but it's not a continuation of what we have.

Chansen and others.

You will note that I said the membership and adherents would be compromised and expected to be of multiple groups,

The mission would be to continue wondercafe .ca

The goal would be to ensure that communication is available...

chansen, the kind of thing you mention above is exactly what we woud work to ensure does NOT happen.   As northwind said, draw outside of the lines.

For me, adherents are any one who signs up to post and the guidelines of conduct are what draws them in.

members are those who choose to participate to a greater extent, whether it be volunteering as a moderator, admin or financially...kinda like a congregation

I see that there are United Church of Canada Members, Unitarian members, atheist members...etc.     There may have to be different classifications of what membership entails. 

Lastpointe, if the board of wondercafe could not sustain such a presbytery message then the wondercafe would not deserve to exist and should fold.

I'm at work, was dashing off a comment quickly over lunch.  Will respond in a clearer fashion later.

Hi Pinga,

True.

Not much of a congregation if everytime somebody needs help we have to contract out though is it?

Which is not me saying that congregations never contract out.

Grace and peace to you.

John

John, you are attempting to put a congregation which is virtual into the space of the physical.  They are different.

*** in the examples below I will speak about support but I do recognize that people come for dialogue, argument, social, etc

Some of the people who wander into wondercafe come from a physical church and find support in the virtual space.  I can think of multiple examples, including myself.

Some of the people who wander into wondercafe come from no church affiliation or a different denomination and receive support in the virtual space, and occassinally through a personal note or phone call.

On rare occassions, those who wandered in needed to have physical presence.     Shucks, in the one case, the wool was being pulled over the eyes of the people on location and in the person's church life.  

Some random thoughts.

First why a virtual cong? That is one that is recognized by Presbytery. Having been involved in outreach missions, new experiements, the very fact of being a cong or outreach ministry has institutional issues.  Like approved by presbytery and having some board;  approval of leadership' oversight like reporting to presbytery.  Etc etc.

House churches if informal are not covered, if an outreach of a cong then oversight there

Some socialogical  thoughts.  Virtural communities are not communitiies but a gathering of interested persons who come and go. Sometimes,but not natural outcome, is some care of those on line  In one sense like a cong a limited care but because of its lack of "knowning" and being "present" ( which takes some flesh and body encounter) the care of one another does not necessary grow, and many pass by posts with little interest in who posts.

There is a high drop out rate in virtual communities. 

For a group to exist in time and space there has to be some face to face enounccouters.

There can be and are small group experiences that are reinforced by the virtual contact, but the face to face comes first to sustain the group.

I have been on some experiments of virtual worship, and for me they do not wokr over the long term.  I may take some points and use them from some of the posters but I reallly don't need to encounter them in person. Over time I move on  and the moving on is unlike moving on from a face to face community.  No regret or missing the people - this is an empirical learning those who study virtual communties have learned.

Foe mw wonderdafe did what it did and is not on my daily checking.  I will not miss it.

I agree that face to face encounters ensure the continuity of a group, more so than virtual communities.

Those of us that have met other Wonderfcafers in "real" life may find, as I have done, that you're more likely to read their posts. They are not just disembodied thoughtsand words on a screen - you can picture them and remember meeting them as you read.

I might add that there are also posters that you wish you could meet face to face - which, in itself, suggests that face to face encounters are important.

I have a friend who has a cochlear implant who belongs to a virtual community for hearing impaired folk. She tells me that they have regular half yearly get togethers -and this ensures that the group is ongoing.

Ahh, that clarification reads much better t'me :3

Panentheism,

don't all orgs have a natural lifespan?

I think if you asked millenials who have never been without the Internet they'd be highly likely to consider an online community a real community. For those of us who come from a different time and culture- maybe not as much.

My cousin was one of the first people I knew to marry someone he met online. And I don't even think the proposal was in person. He's a shy type. They're still married for over 12 years.

Kimmio

I believe in the year 2013 an online community is a real community. Some of us express ourselves and our opinions  better via the written word than we do verbally in the company of others. I mean Sally Jones  would not ( or might not)  talk to me face to face the way she talks to me on the WC or with the same degree of intimacy. Therefore we may know each other's character  better and not less via communicating on the internet. ( This  needs to be    studied  in psychology . I know there are  pros and cons)

  I have my puter since  2004. I've always considered myself an extrovert, out going,  talking to everyone,  and yet I had no idea, no clue about how other people really  "think".    ( I mean   the truth of their thoughts, good and bad  ) until I began to read and post in forums. What an eye-opener, it has been a real education for me, something no school could teach.

I haven't met any of the people on the WC  and yet I feel as if I know them all quite well  from reading their thoughts over the past 7 years. 7 years is a long long time!

 just my nickles worth......

Turning WBC into a congregation appears to me as a step backward. why institutionalize it? Who is missing endless threads of board meetings and financial discussions. Then there will be discussions who is member and who is adherent and people starting to judge if certain ones are trolls or "worthy" being a member.

don't we have enough of that in real life congregations?

i would also question the need to transfer anything over. That sounds very much like congregations who just can't let go of the stained glass windows. Everybody who wants to transfer can use their old name when signing up and add their avatar or decide for a new one.
Certain topics keep repeating themselves anyway. Travel lightly, start over.

mrs anteater

I agree with you. Why hang on to the old mouldy stuff in the basement? Let it go. You're right, so much of it is like beating a dead horse.

For the first time in a long time, the site has been consumed by operational matters.  I take full blame for the amount of threads that I started and the questions being posed.

If nothng else, the focus on itself .....makes it most like congregations.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming

Good points, Mrs anteater! You are a very pragmatic O.T. 

So true. 

The most interesting threads for me right now are United Future and the various conversations about wondercafe's future (or not). 

I think we are a genuine spiritual community!

I think what many of us are craving, but are lacking in daily life as well as in our congregations, is intimacy of mind, or soul. Intimate sharing of mind or soul is the most precious aspect of human relationship, yet, alas, we rarely find it.

Here on wondercafe many of us have found this rare intimacy. I certainly have, and relate in intimacy of mind to many of you here on the café. This is why I want wondercafe to continue, in one form or another. If we continue as a UCC congregation, or part of a UCC congregation, and it is necessary to have a UCC member Board that is answerable and accountable to the presbytery and the greater church, I'd be willing to sit on such a Board (and make sure all is above board ;-)

There is nothing to fear for non-members of the United Church. We'll continue as the open discussion forum that we always were.

Whie I fully agree with thinking outside the box I'm tending to agree with those who question the viability of Wonder Cafe as a pastoral charge. It would introduce a level of required bureaucracy that wouldn't be conducive to the environment. It also assumes that someone like chansen (or others) would want to be described as an "adherent" of a United Church congregation, however informal that term might be.

I don't agree with panentheism that a virtual community isn't a community. I agree that it's not the same type of community as a face to face community, but I do think a community can exist as an online community. Yes, there's a high drop out in such communities, but there's generally a core group as well. I think others have pointed out ways of keeping that type of community going that should probably be explored by those who are interested - particularly those for whom WC has become their primary point of connection with the church or with faith.

As for me, I suspect I'll probably depart once WC closes up next year. I've enjoyed it, but perhaps the time has come to move on. As InannaWhimsey pointed out, all organisms (and a community - even a virtual community - has a life, and could therefore be described as an organism) have natural lifespans, and maybe WC (at last in its current form) has simply come to the end of its.

If wondercafe becomes a congregation I will have to go from being Dcn. Jae to being something else. What's the equivalent... Eldr. Jae? Stwrd. Jae? Okay, so maybe I wouldn't be the one doing one of those jobs, but would we have them at all?

I'm with you on this. While continuing an association with the UCCan would be nice, a full-on congregational model doesn't strike me as the right way to go.

As someone who once preached about online community in the days when forums and Usenet were the primary "social networks", I'm with you on this. Keep meaning to dust that one off and redo it to reflect on things like FB and Twitter but to some extent, I'm not that interested in the subject on that level anymore.

I am starting to think this way myself but I do still like the idea of having an online forum/community where religious and spiritual matters are the focus. I would almost prefer us to go independent and create a non-denominational online community with a new identity (at least to some extent) than go on as WC. A reboot rather than a continuation, if you like.

Mendalla

I threw this out to dialogue, as I feel it is an important dialogue to have.

I think of it like churches.  Some people come in when  they have a crisis, when their kids are born for baptism, when their kids are growing up, when they recently retire,  or come for christmas/easter..  Others come day after day, or week after week and it is a part of their life.  Some consume, some give, some do both.

To me, wondercafe is the same.  People come & go, and that is GOOD.  It isn't always right for someone and that is GOOD.

I floated this one for the reasons indicated.  I'm not sure the thread is done yet or the topic is done, but, it has helped to drive some dialogue about moderation, decision making, funding, community, "reboot", etc.

Let me revise my comment on community.  I agree vitural community exists.  It is means of communication of ideas and concerns.  It can create discussions that probes an issue.  It can educate.  It is some of the qualites of being part of a network that has written material and one joins by reading - learning from others 

The beauty of such things like wondercafe and other such social networks is discussion.  It is much better than such things like comments on face book or arxticles in a journal, nwspaper aticle.  More time and length often is found in responses on such things like wondercafe.

It is not puesdo community.  It has some of the qualities of community by how people do respond to personal issues.  Still it is vitural which is not to asy it is not a gathering that has no commmunity, but that it is a degree of difference from a physcial gathered community.  This degree of difference does matter.  It is easier in a gathered [hysical community to support collective actions, say. In the physical community it is harder to opt out, by that I mean it takes more reflection and some times  a sense of letting people down.  Again it is a degree of difference not kind of difference.  In a physical community when I opt out it is noticed and my emotional attachment is questioned.  Where as when I opt out of a conversation on line, it becomes more out of sight and my emotional level is often not at all questioned - it is out of sight and out of mind and so what on my part.

One thing that can happen in a virtual community there may be some conversational partners that do impact ones sense of self ( community must do that  to be community) and one does wonder who and how those people are. Again, it is a matter of degree for physical community does make on actually physical encounter the other. and that is value added.  I guess what I am saying is while both are community the fact of face to face adds intensity and thus more beauty.  Again, a matter of degree.

When I leave a physcial community there is more intensity of feeling than when I leave a vitual community. Yes, loss in both cases, but more in the physical.

I think this is important and some research suggests vitual communities actually let one off the hook in action.  For example placing like on an issue may feel like one has done the work. Just like signing a petition may let oneoff the hook of political action. Again, a degree of difference which is important to notice. Not all communities are life sustaining and the degree matters here.

I'm not sure you can blame virtual community for that, though. There are plenty of folks I know who think it's enough to put a couple dollars towards M&S on their offering envelope or have their kids contribute to the White Gift service. You are always going to have those who take the easy road and call it social action. Perhaps they are contributing more in that way, but it is still hardly what a serious activist would call social action. IOW, I'd like those researchers to look at those who are letting themselves off the hook virtually and see if they do the same in the real world. It may be a people issue rather than a virtual communities issues, even if the virtual communities may make the behaviour easier.

Mendalla

Hi Pinga,

A congregation is a congregation is it not?  If we want all the rights and privileges of a congregation how can we take a pass on the duties and obligations of one?

Then it is a waystation of sorts not a congregation per se.  Virtual retreat centre.

Is the purpose of getting congregation status for WonderCafe.ca to protect the archives or something else?  We aren't currently a congregation and the only issue we are running into it the fact that the clock is ticking on WonderCafe.ca.

If that is the case I don't think that will actually work.  WonderCafe.ca is currently GC level material and not subject to the oversight of any Presbytery or Conference.  It has no physical assests beyond whatever WonderCafe.ca merch is still floating around and archived material.

And do they wander into WonderCafe.ca because they want a congregation or begause they are looking for a bulletin board?  If we change our designation/description will it attract or detract?

That wouldn't change if we designated ourselves as a congregation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Mendalla,

They shouldn't be able to.  Though sometimes folk at Presbytery aren't clear on what the limits to their powers are and that causes tremendous problems.

As far as discipline goes, members of WonderCafe.ca as a congregation would have the same essential freedom as they do now as members of WonderCafe.ca as a bulletin board.

Any presbyter bringing a complaint about how members of a congregation treat one another is simply being a nuisance and would not find tremendous support at Presbytery for the exercise of oversight.

If WonderCafe.ca becomes a congregation then presumably membership at the Cafe equates to membership within the Church and presumably would be governed by the Basis of Union.

And that would become problematic because the membership requirements of a congregation have more structue than the membership requirements for WonderCafe.ca

In a congregation there is adherent status which means affiliation without membership.  Chansen, Witch and yourself could be adherents I don't know how that would work when it came time to make decisions about the future of the congregation.  What is a temporal matter at WonderCafe.ca (which adherents could be given the privilege to vote on) and which would be a spiritual matter at WonderCafe.ca which only members can vote on?

Banning members only on a congregational vote or the equivalent of a Session?  Session can only be members because of UCCAN Polity.  Any Presbytery taking oversight of WonderCafe.ca would need to know how that is going to work.

Also, membership in two congregations is not something which happens in the UCCAN do members here have to transfer out of their current congregations?  And what of clergy?  We can only be members of one Presbytery at a time which means that we are effectively prohibitted from membership status at WonderCafe.ca should it become a congregation of some presybtery.

Admittedly we have no real authority here as it is so we wouldn't be automatically missing out on something.  If WonderCafe.ca as a congregation calls a minister or refuses to call a minister for some reason all clergy currently active at WonderCafe.ca would suddenly have to be careful about over stepping our bounds.  At present we are free to weight in.  I don't have the same freedom of just walking into another congregation and saying, this is something to consider.  That is considered interference unless I am invited by the congregation or sent by Presbytery.

Grace and peace to you.

John.

Blame?  My point is how does the method lessen actual activity.? Your point is true that giving to CUSO, say, can let one off the hook.  The UBC research suggested that marking like actually had the effect of lessening action - those did not use like were more inlcined to work on an issue.  THe point does on line increases the human tendacy to stop half way or overvalue ones actions? Yes it is a human nature ssue question, but  do some methods actually become counter productive?