A look at Page 27 of the Annual Report shows the United Church of Canada National Accounts as having an operating deficit of over $6 million as of December 31, 2012. How is that "in the black?"

I haven't looked at the numbers. I don't get the impression that the UCCan is awash in cash, so I'd be inclined to believe Steven is correct.

But mostly, I think Wondercafe.ca was an experiment that didn't work out. Of the people who were not already in the UCCan, I don't think it brought anyone new to a church, or not enough to justify the expense. Further, I think the discussions here paint a mixed view of Christianity at best, and the place just doesn't reinforce beliefs like many thought it would.

The UCCan is not responsible for providing a place where their message or beliefs are criticized.

Ideally, Wondercafe becomes a completely independent forum. That's what I would prefer, but nothing is moving on that front. Maybe in the new year.

Wondercafe and my church have a lot in common -

- both are made up of people who genuinely feel a relationship with one another - some are more closer to some than others, some are more active and involved, not all necessarily like one another, but recognize that all are still a part of the community, not all believe exactly the same thing in the same way.

- while my church is not in danger of closing at this very moment in time, if it were, it would be like WC in the way that most were very saddened at the news of the closing, discussion and brainstorming took place in a variety of discussions, and some put a lot of time and energy into looking at ways to prevent the closure.

My church and WC are alike in one more way - while those who are active and involved are committed - new life is not being breathed into them.  Just as there are not new members or persons knocking down the physical doors of my church to be a part of and keep it going, new members, posters, and persons who are looking for an online community such as this as not knocking down the doors of WC and becoming a part of the community.

Even if WC were not encouraging persons to actually join a UCC congregation, perhaps the greater church's decision would have been different if they thought that it was a venture that had new people becoming a part of it and keeping it alive.

Really interesting comparison, Beloved. 

Not sure Redhead, but here are some pieces of the puzzle: 

Originally, WC was part of the Emerging Spirit initiative.

I never really understood the mandate of ES although I recall a series of events which took place around the country. No one from my congregation attended any of these events, as far as I know.  My impression was that they focused on the ministry of hospitality. Is your building accessible? Is the signage clear? Are your members intentionally welcoming to newcomers? And so on. 

How did WC fit in here? I never really understood this either. 

We were told that the money for WC came from a bequest that was to be used for innovative ways of doing ministry. Along with the launch of WC was an extensive advertising campaign with a series of edgy and thought-provoking magazine ads. They invited the general public onto WC for open-minded discussion. 

The target group for WC was 30 - 45 year olds and the goal was to engage them in conversation. NOT to recruit them for church membership. However, the church find function could be used to locate a local congregation.

Along the way WC also benefitted from the Atheist Bus Ad campaign and the United Church's response to the campaign. 

Someone (Pinga, I think) recently made a comment about ROI. I believe this is business-speak for Return on Investment. I don't get this. Not if the goal was to engage people in conversation. - - I would say this goal was achieved handsomely. 

Then Emerging Spirit was wrapped up but WC was allowed to continue for a period of time. Without any continued advertising we seemed to stop attracting newcomers. 

We have been told that the cost of upgrading the present software would be prohibitive and I don't doubt this. However, I don't understand why the United Church wouldn't continue WC as a discussion forum only. The many other features of the site don't seem totally necessary to me.  

Hi redhead,

I beleive that Rev. Steven Davis does a good job of pointing out that this is not true.  Any organization faced with any kind of deficit (and for the United Church last year's deficit is 6 million dollars) there is a need to cut services or increase revenue.

Givings to the M&S fund have been relatively flat for the last 10 years and more.

Expenses have been rising steadily.

Since the United Church is not awash in cash services will be cut.  Some services cut will not simply be budget lines but actual people.  Other services cut will be projects like WonderCafe.ca.

The reason for the cut, that has been expressed is that upgrading what we currently have is too prohibitive financially.  What has not been expressed here is whether another platform would be financially feasible.

Pinga and chansen have demonstrated that something similar to WonderCafe.ca can be run on software that is essentially free or, at the very least minimally expensive.  Those platforms do not give the same look or even the same feel as what we currently have they are, for all their deficiencies in the appearance department, better options than Facebook.

As far as I know there has been no comment from the Communications Department of The United Church of Canada as to whether or not they would be willing to move the contents of WonderCafe.ca to one of these cheaper alternatives.

Cheaper is not cost free and if the United Church is going to maintain ownership they will most likely have to pay someone to manage the system.  Not to mention translating what exists here to another platform will require somebody to spend a number of hours doing so.  That expense will come from somewhere.

The decision is not a purely financial one in that it is the result between having to pick and choose which expenses to keep and which to cut.  The decision is purely financial in that if finances were so much better the Church would not be considering cuts to anything.

Grace and peace to you.

John

RevJohn,

Somewhere. on some thread, once it was announced that WC would be shut down due to funding issues, you actually rallied and used the term bullshit.

In the following days, you accepted an explanation (One I have never seen).

Now, you offer a defense that congregations are struggling financially, and I refer to page 27 of the UCCan annual report, as you and Rev Steven Davis have done so.

Yet the ultimate bottom line of the UCCan is in the black - how day to day operations, with declining attendance (perhaps due to issues of faith/belief), fundraising, collections are issues at the community level.  It is not an issue overall according to the UCCan 2012 annual report.  Bottom line.Nor is discretionary funding of projects at home and abroad, according to UCCan official website - with no return on investment; charity for its own sake.

I do understand the need to raise funds in order to sustain an organisation. 

I understand the complicated structure of a merger: Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians.  Uniquely, all have a vision of the Protestant work ethic.  But that makes for complicated governance.

Maintaining WC financially is a drop in the bucket for UCCan:  what is difficult for "the powers that be" (whatever that means, although it has been tossed about in a few threads) is that the online community has not had real life "bums in seats" results (And bums in seats does mean donations on a weekly or annual basis, and bequests - welcome to Pauline tradition).

Money dispersed through M&S and the Foundation supports many non-UCCan specific efforts- so why not support WC in the same spirit?

I have already posted the link to UCCan site: not going to do it again.

The point is this:  supporting an inclusive, diverse, ecumenical, manageable site that is moderated with sincere, liberal consideration to all involved, does not cost all that much.  Cancelling it, without consultation or consideration, will be a human and spiritual cost.  Not only to those who are not UCCan members, but to UCCan members as well.  If the UCCan can operate annually with an overall very healthy bottom line as a national organisation, and disperse funds nationally and abroad to non-UCCan efforts, then it can financially support WC. 

That "those in power" have made a decision to cancel is not good enough.  It is neither a thoughtful or wise decision, and the economic proof is flimsy, at best.

Finally, with reference to the deficit at a congregational level, well,Paul was the first Church fundraiser.  If there are not new bums in pews (which may, over time, bring in weekly donations and long-term financial support, including bequests), then consider the outreach messages.

Certainly Jesus did not operate under a Pauline structure.

Hi Redhead,

I did use the term.  I did not use it in reference to the funding matter.  I used it to to qualify the statement that the United Church wanted to stay in contact.

While more or less true we are told that an upgrade for the platform WonderCafe.ca is cost prohibitive.  Migrating to another platform is probably possible though I doubt it would be cheap.  Whether or not The United Church of Canada will accept the alternative measures posed by various members of WonderCafe.ca has yet to be revealed.

I doubt this is actually employed as a rationale to discontinue funding for WonderCafe.ca  If it was an issue then the plug would have been pulled at GC 40 when Emerging Spirit was given the axe.  I suspect that it has put as many pews in the bums since 2009 as it did between 2006 and 2009.

The difference between now and then was that WonderCafe.ca was not in need of a platform upgrade and many who were on the technical side of the program were folded into the tech team that maintains the central web presence.

The rationale given is that the upgrade necessary for the currentl platform which has had many bells and whistles added is considered prohibitive.

It happens.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I have not contributed much here, but do enjoy reading the different points of view and the diverse discussions.  It is something which I do not experience in my own congregation, but I do feel a need for sharing different points of view and having meaningful discussions.  Somehow, having face to face differences is a lot more uncomfortable and threatening than being on a forum.  -- Reading here, you realize that you are often not alone in your views and are able to say what you are really thinking.

It will be a shame if this is shut down.  If money is needed for "better things", then, for one thing, maybe the paring should start at the top among the beauracracy. 

If I am to remain related to the church as it now stands or as it now functions, then drastic changes will be needed to keep me there.  The only reason that I am still there right now is because of my relationship to the people in the church.  It is not because I am receiving any spiritual insights or excitement or enthusiasm from the chruch service.  It is old and outdated and does not really change significantly in any way. It still forces me to read prayers or creeds which I may not believe or adhere to anymore.

It is time to explore and discuss what we might now believe.  It is time to address the intelligent mind!

It sounds like it is time for you to explore a new congregation.

Ini my experience, we are challenged to look at things with new eyes, while not throwing out centuries of thought by big thinkers.

Maybe it is just your church that is stagnant for you

The problem is that we are in a small town on the prairies and there is no church to go to that would be different.  Another problem is that we cannot afford a full time minister and that even if we could, there just aren't that many that would be willing to come here.  We experienced that from our last call, with it boiling down to only two choices, the one that we chose being unfortunate.

Maybe we should just move, or bow out gracefully!

Perhaps there is a group of members who might take on the role of bible study leader, either themselves or one of the various video series. Might give you some support

I get how difficult it can be when there are few choices. Ii wonder if the minister you have knows they are not connecting. I sometimes think that some ministers preach to what the congregation wants, or at least what they think the congregation wants.

Maybe the minister is waiting to be challenged

Or maybe not

We have had no minister for a long time now.  -- Too long a story to go into, but are just now ready to begin work on a JNAC once again.  It is much too long a process, as most processes seem to be in the UCC.

Hi Redhead.  Thanks for the thread.

I don’t really consider Wondercafe as a “ministry”.  It is a place where we can get together to share thoughts etc and moderated by UCC.

I would love to know from Aaron or someone in the know how many users of this site there are (sorry if it is posted elsewhere) and how many active members there are.

What I read from the posting in this thread is that some of us expect national to do something for us.

I do not know how much time goes into moderating and maintaining the site – and it would be great to have those figures – I would be more inclined for those of us that are interested in keeping the site to raise the money ourselves.

We have 6 months – the money could be kept in trust while we try and reach our target. 

For those that consider WC as a ministry (which I am sure the UCC does) then the donations are also tax deductible.

I am sure I saw this idea somewhere on here……who do we make the request to?

Jobam (or anyone who hasn't been informed)

Here's everything you always wanted to know...and more... about the WC closing. We've had past figures like 4,000 or more members on occasion. In truth I believe there are a few hundred, many of whom are perpetual  lurkers.

If you click on "members" at the left of the main page you will see members  names. As you continue through the members  pages I believe there is a lot of spam ( I heard something like that) and the members appear to look alike. Maybe a bug or a virus got hold of the WC, I don't know.

There may be other threads on the same topic not shown here.

Jobam

The UC has new plans and jobs  for Aaron so I believe he's only allowed to spend  very  few hours a week here on the WC. They are bouncing the poor guy around like a rubber ball, he's doing the best he can.

I am surprised that WC is closing.

I am also surprised that UCCAN did not change the emerging spirit campaign somehow. The idea is good. Somehow the Church needs to engage the 30-45 year old crowd. They just didn't figure out how. So now what? They give up?

Serena

Check out the  "United Future" threads here and on R and F .

Its the new baby  I believe.

The UC says it costs too much to update the computer program re the  WC. People have said the format could consist of less frills, it could  be more plain and simple, cost less.

http://www.unitedfuture.ca/

Venture, I understand your quandary, it seems to be typical of my, and other peoples experiences in small towns.  I didn't have any success in encouraging my local congregation to try discussion groups, in fact one person smiled widely when I suggested Bible study.  "Oh' she said with a laugh "This is the United Church - we don't do Bible study".  

The WC has been an interesting thing for me to read and share with.  It has been the best online discussion site on these types of topics that I have met.  As the goal from 'on high' was to attract the younger folk it seemed to be doomed to failure.  My local congregation weren't aware of this goal.  They say they want new and younger members but aren't prepared to make a comfortable space for them in the life of the congregation.  None of them seem to have joined WC either.  I am not a 'new and younger person' but there wasn't anything going on at the church that was interesting and growth promoting for me to get involved with.  There were endless meetings - but I wasn't able to find out how to get on the committees.  There was endless fundraising to pay the overhead expenses - but I was told my help wasn't needed because they had been doing 'this' together for years.  

The lack of feedback from 'on high' about the future of WC seems to be typical UC too.  "We" are in charge 'we' make the decisions and 'we' aren't in the least concerned about communicating in a timely or helpful manner.  "We" know what is best and will tell you (eventually) what way to jump.  It actually feels a lot like my local congregation and I long ago jumped out of that situation.  Given my preference I would like WC to continue and I have no intention of jumping out.

I draw attention to the following

www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2013/features/introd...

Examine pages 32 and 33 0f 36.  Explain the change between 2011 and 2012. Certainly the Foundation can afford the upgrades necessary to keep WC operational.

Note the footnote on page 32: Surplus was transferred to endownment funds.

Accounting is smoke and mirrors.  Overall, UCCan is not suffering financially.

Respectfully, Rev Steven Davis, UCCan Annual statement does not reflect that UCCan is in the red.

I don't care what Washington Monthly says about the financial health of the United Church of Canada. When I want to know if a Canadian church is financially healthy, I look to The Harvard Political Review.

Seriously, Redhead, how can a denomination which is closing churches faster than Blockbuster is closing stores, spare tens of thousands of dollars because a handful of people don't like Facebook?