Letters to the Editor of The Observer can be sent to   letters@ucobserver.org

You are correct, Chansen.

Inukshuk, severak years ago when word was rumbling about WC closing. I gathered testimonies from posters about why it shouldn't close. I sent them off or The Observer. WE were totally ignored..They responded that they were sorry but no go.

So beware they probably won't publish them.

The more I think about this, the worse it looks.

So Pinga is asked to write a commentary about Wondecafe as a potential congregation, and the UCCan slips into that commentary their own line about why Wondercafe is closing because of newer options, when it wasn't close to what Pinga wrote, nor does she agree with it, though it was the line the UCCan tried to use on us.

So much for the Observer having any independence from the UCCan.

It is my fault. I should have reviewed but was juggling priorities whilst travelling

I am sure the person read and accepted message from united church

Honestly chansen, i would not presume the other

Chansen, please. General Council staff are totally separate from the Observer. We don't get to edit their articles to our own specifications. If Pinga's article was modified editorially (which happens with all magazines), and she has a concern, she should speak to them about it. 

I have no concern.

As indicated, if anything, I screwed up, not the Observer.

'the observer' sounds like the name of a newsletter for theoretical physics :3

congratulations on it still being so old, too -- good to see some old things are still valued

Exactly and i hope we get more press. It is a great way to get coverage

good thinking, Pinga :3

i'd love to be the archivist for the observer--there's a lot of history there

Please, what? Your talking point ended up in Pinga's commentary.

Maybe, but it's going a bit further to say "the UCCan slips into that commentary their own line..." and to question the editorial independence of the magazine.

Oh oh,

Potential ban coming?
Thread disappearing in the night?

Shut up and walk away chansen, walk away.

Is Gary Paterson really Aaron's sock puppet?

Does Aaron in fact run the UCC?

Stay tuned for the next episode of zeitgeist.

SnP, I don't think "threads disappearing in the night" or any of that other drama is going to happen. I go to bed early!

I can't tell if you are serious.
it's the glasses

Okay, so why would the Observer write that, if Pinga didn't? It's a line lifted directly from you guys.

Chansen.  

Seriously.  

It's my fault. I should have proofed it when it was sent to me.

There was an intro to be added to put it in context, ie wondercafe shutting down etc.  I was busy didn't proof it, didn't notice the logic was put in (which is a message that has been shared in statements, etc, though argued by us) regarding why it was being shutdown.

I have been tryign to remember what computer i wrote it on, coz it was so long ago.

Do you really want to damage any good relationships that we might have built through that post, by pushing on this point?

Sorry, Pinga. I'll drop it.

Back to Pinga's original question wondering about us remaining some sort of a protectorate of the United Church.

I think that it is time for us to start sailing on our own ship and cut the bonds to the United Church.  I am enthusiastic about the way things are going.  I certainly appreciate the work Pinga and others are doing to bring this about.

The Admins chose not to sever all the bonds with the UCCanada. They want their ship to sail free - but they've also kept it tied with long ropes to the UCCanada's dock.

The analogy does not work Jae.   Not going to buy into your negativity, just saying "no"

Jae, if your Fellowship of Baptists wants to link to us and promote us, we'd be fine with that link as well. Like the UCCan, they wouldn't control us, our policies, or our content.

There is a loose connection to the UCCan in recognition of them starting this community, and it endures because they have agreed to link to and promote us. If your fellowship had the confidence to extend the same connection, they could be equal to the UCCan at WC2. As we've discussed before, I predict there is no way in hell the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Chruches are sending people here where the message and dialogue are not under their control.

That isn't entirely correct - as far as the content goes - WC2 is using - with permission - some of WC's graphics.

I agree with your appraisal that WC2 is not in keeping with official Fellowship style.

The analogy is not perfect Pinga - I agree - but then no analogy is. I'm not saying that the ties to the UCCanada are wrong - just they exist - thus WC2 is not truly independent.

An independent state, such as the United States of America, has ties to other governments through ambassadors.   Independent organizations have liaisons.

WonderCafe started in the United Church of Canada, it was birthed and visioned by the United Church of Canada and nurtured for 7 years.  I am thankful that the liason is willing to provide resources and wisdom from those times as we learn to walk in a new way.

Jae, is there any place for FEBCC members to discuss online? Even in a closed setting? I can't find a single one, either run by the fellowship or a separate group of members.

Thinking about joining us? 

We have nothing like Wondercafe. I keep in touch with Fellowship members through email and email lists.

No, it's just that one of the things I appreciate most about the UCCan is their willingness to engage online. Now, they're not especially adept at creating or administrating these websites, but they are willing to engage with anyone. From what I can tell, that is extremely unique among Christian denominations.

You keep on bringing up the connection to the UCCan here, but your church doesn't connect with anyone. The FEBCC is about as insular and withdrawn as they come. Sure, you'll hand out tracts, so you'll engage one-on-one, but there is zero interest shown in public engagement online, where the beliefs and the sales pitches from the FEBCC can be addressed publicly, by multiple people, and available to all.

To me, that demonstrates a weakness of faith. If you are evangelical, as the "E" in FEBCC is, you'd think in this day and age you would welcome public discourse. What I think is that FEBCC churches, and others like them, want to approach people individually, with the intent to convert weak minded people individually. Divide-and-convert, as it were.

I think the obvious reason the FEBCC doesn't have a public forum like WC, is that the last thing your denomination wants is to engage with people who can form arguments against your denomination's positions and allow those discussions to become public.

For all the UCCan's faults, and their lack of strict beliefs, they've demonstrated the courage to do this. Wondercafe.ca has been around for 7 years. The FEBCC, for all their supposed confidence in their beliefs, sure looks like it lacks confidence that it would benefit from open discussion.

Chansen, it would be hard to go on their site because it would just be reams and reams of scripture, brother.

sister crazyheart,

but it would be a step in the right direction?

i really like what chansen is doing here

here's fellow seeker & sit-down comedian Zach Anner, being fortunate to get to see some Baptists

hopefully, Jae's congregation can eventually feel comfortable enough to reach out in a manner like this...to be able and willing to let nonbelievers in his particular congregation to experience his (one of the things i like doing still)

EDIT:  but maybe Jae's congregation is more like a sangha or gentleman's club, a 'safe place' where these believers can charge up and recharge their faith without The World interfering?  i don't really know...I'd have to find out from the Source (Jae, Jae's congregation, etc)

Why couldn't Baptists run a site like this and invite all to visit? So what if the answers come with scripture? That would be a consequence of a site run by Baptists. But then, if it were as accepting as this place is of alternate viewpoints, someone like me could post as well. And that's the dilemma for a group like the FEBCC - if they open discussion to outside influences and create a place where ideas are on a (relatively) level playing field, I think they'll get crushed. And, I think that on some level, they know that. I think that's why most churches are not interested in fosterning online communication with groups of nonbelievers, prefering to engage people one at a time on streetcorners, than engage people who have the opportunity to collaborate (as the church can) and respond to them with complete, considered answers.

I don't say this enough, that the fact that the UCCan would even create a place like this is a huge feather in their cap. No other Canadian church would have the guts to do this. I wish the UCCan would learn how to implement and run a discussion site, because they aren't very good at it, but their willingness to try puts them well ahead of the lack of courage exhibited by the rest of the churches in Canada.

chansen,

i think the Observer should interview you :3

ditto or have you be guest speaker on  the uccaan's new  chat thingie. - can never remember he name.

The Fellowship welcomes encouragement by one and all in our evangelistic efforts.

As far as the Internet goes - let me share with you that most of our churches have websites upon which they provide at least one email link should anyone desire to ask us questions. We also have regional and HQ sites - all worth visiting.

While we may not be operating something like Wondercafe - we are certainly reaching out to the communities we serve.

Consider my own church for example. We hand out tracts - we give out cold water on hot summer days - we hold a free monthly breakfast for community seniors - we offer a free weekly dinner and Bible study - we invite people into our amazing worship experiences - and more.

Fellowship Baptists across Canada are reaching out to bring people the good news of Lord Jesus. We are also planting new churches - and we involve ourselves in international mission.

Rich blessings.

First - I honestly doubt that would be true.

Second - even if that were to be true - how would that make going on the site difficult?

I could just open my bible, Jae

I agree, Jae. If a FEBCC forum were created, and this is how many FEBCC responded, with scripture, that wouldn't necessarily be "hard" to visit.

Sweet.

At any rate, we Baptists are certainly able to discuss things without necessarily posting Scripture. You don't have to take my word on that. There are general Baptist forums online if you want to go check them out. I rarely post Scripture on Wondercafe - preferring rather to discuss. 

How is talking to people one-on-one on the street corner in any way easier than talking to people one-on-one on the internet?

Where, at any of those venues, can indepent, contrarian views be found? Here, when someone proselytizes, I can freely say, "That's bullshit, and here's why..." Nowhere in the FEBCC evangelizing strategy is there any room for engaging in a venue where the people being evangelized to would encounter a pushback against your message.

Again, the FEBCC approach seems to be to get to people when they are alone and potentially vulnerable, then attack. The materials you pass out, I assume, if they have any Internet addresses on them at all, point to the email addresses and static websites you explain above.

I think the FEBCC knows that if they created a place where people could go to ask questions in the open, and answers could be provided by anyone, they would lose. It would be an unmitigated disaster. The FEBCC needs total control of the message. If it had a strong message that could withstand scrutiny, it wouldn't hang out at subway stops, looking to pick off the stragglers.

Only a confident church would create an online presense like this. Or, maybe a church that really isn't too bright. The jury is still out on which describes the UCCan more accurately, because I don't think this place really helped the church more than it hurt them. But again, that they were willing to do this, shows that they were either courageous, or reckless, or both. Don't point to people handing out thin folded papers on the street and say that's close to the same thing. That's the coward's way of doing it in the modern age. If people start openly questioning the distributors, the people handing them out can just run away and pop up somewhere else tomorrow. Online, in social media, if your message is getting pummeled, there is nowhere to hide. If you know your message can't survive on an open and level playing field, then what the FEBCC does makes perfect sense.

People on the street can't sit down and think about their answers. Plus, they don't have the advantage of others weighing in from different perspectives. That conversation is an ambush - the proselytizers are prepared, and the targets are not.

Also, when you get owned on the street, you can pretend it never happened and walk away. When your argument gets picked apart online, it lives on for years. Your own flock gets exposed to its own leaders looking less confident, less relevant and/or less intelligent than they remembered them.

Look, I think it's the right call for the FEBCC to not have an open online presense like this one. I think it would be a disaster for you, and it would turn into either a self-inflicted thorn in your side, or a banfest where you'd be kicking out atheists as fast as they could sign up. I'd love to see former FEBCC members come by to discuss why they left with current members. I'd love to see the beliefs picked apart systematically. I'd love to see the reaction of the 12-year-old kid of FEBCC members reading the discussion.

I think the best way to reduce the influence of religion is to discuss it openly, especially online. 

Whereas I feel that religion and faith communities locked away are missing the point of their faith.

My presence on line is not to defend faith perspective.

Rather, it is to live it out in community, providing a place where folks can explore topics from their own perspective if they so choose

If every faith dialogue results in attacks from the fringe then soon enough folks will quit coming. We have seen that to some degree

Yuppers, its easy to practice whatever it is one believes in & acts by themselves...it becomes more challenging when they do it with people not of their belief (Jesus' "the world"?)

And to be able to live in a community (a global community ultimately -- again, Jesus' "the world") where Universal Human Rights are a part of it...

And when a believer feels chagrined, hurt, clumsy, to be able to retreat to a 'safe place' (the sangha) where they can recharge their belief...

So I'm a stutterer.  I went to a quite intense & long therapy program in Edmonton.  I learned how to practice proper speaking.  When I went back into the World, it was very tough to do so...there are 'refresher courses' at this program (so, a sangha, a safe place...)

My church welcomes the general public at all our events - with - understandably - the exception of the seniors' breakfasts - which take place in a seniors' residence - and where we are not allowed to evangelize.

Certainly not everyone who attends our events is a Christ-follower - and we welcome respectful interaction with one and all. One of the reasons our church exists is to share with people the Good News about Christ Jesus that they might be saved. In keeping with that - we welcome those who don't already follow Christ - that they might hear our witness - see our love - and choose to believe.

We see our church building as a gathering place where we can come together - give praise and glory to God - and become reenergized for our work out in our greater community.

Rich blessings.