Note: this thread came to my mind as though I think some barriers are quite a bit less and we ave a higher percentage than most churches of certain "statistical groups" that there are also some that are not participating.  If the statistical group is a visible minority than what is the barrier?

my initial thought is around capacity with written arguments - some folks are whizzbang brilliant at firing off good arguments and statements that astound, while others retreat.  To expand this as a barrier, the sense of accomplishment when one produces a great post (really, who can argue this one??!!) pushes off the posters who might not be so confident, or black & white on the issue. Or know they will be trounced on.   It takes trust & interest & a confident sense of value to respond to such posts.

It is fun to engage in a heart-pumping discussion, but inevitably, there are others who are pushed out of participating.  It is more satisfying for longer time and for more people to have a group to discuss and 'wonder' with, but the short-term rush of cocky posting is part of the experience too.  

Hi Pinga,

No.  At present it doesn't. 

It does make it possible to remove those barriers.  My avatar, for example, very clearly presents me as white and male.  That definitely raises the barriers of race and gender.  Those presenting issues may lead others to infer other barriers that may or may not exist.

In order for this community to remove barriers it is going to have to put out our eyes.  And even then only those with access to text to voice or voice to text technologies could take advantage which may lead others to believe their are economic barriers to participation.

I agree with you, it doesn't.  I also don't think that is the responsibility of WonderCafe.ca.  Our personal barriers are our personal responsibilities.

Part of the problem with personal barriers are boundary issues.  When we believe that others are actually responsible for overcoming our personal responsibilities.  Often (in the United Church at any rate) justice language will be inapropriately applied to a boundary issue and the whole community is held responsible for the personal barrier.

Well, yes and no.  I believe this is more boundary issue type barrier.

WonderCafe.ca is text based communication and the only real limit is the participant's ability to communicate in a text based medium.  My experience of WonderCafe.ca is that typos and grammatical problems (save my low personal tolerance for the use of the conjunction but) are rarely an impediment to open and respectful communication.

Not being able to put a coherent sentance together, that gets in the way big time.  Point of fact, if I don't have clue one about what it is you have just said or intended to say I ask for clarification.  If a clear thought comes from an attempt to clarify I can work with that.  Even if I misunderstand the point that was wanting to be made that can be corrected.  If myself and others cannot understand there is no communication and a barrier has arisen.

Is that barrier one which the community throws up or is it a personal barrier that the individual needs to work on?  Granted the whole community could possibly assist and yet if communication isn't happening it will be difficult for the community to understand how they are best able to help.

I think communication might be the greatest barrier here.  In a text based medium I don't know that there are male words and female words, black words or white words, low income words or high income words, neurologically typical words or neurologically atypical words.

I don't deny that all of those realities influence and impact upon our lives.  I just don't know that they present barriers in a text based medium.

Part and parcel of communication problems is tone.  It would probably surprise many of us to learn that the tone we read posts in is far harsher than the tone the writer used while posting them.  Which means a lot of the anger we feel about posts directed our way probably is the result of us deciding to adopt a particular tone for certain posters and continuing to insult ourselves on their behalf.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Your avatar and screen name were choices that you made. You could have chosen to use a gender-neutral name and an avatar that was not a picture of you. The barrier was removed, but you chose to reveal this information about yourself anyway (and I'm glad that you felt/feel safe to do so).

In wondercafe, unless you advise I have no idea what your skin colour, age, weight, size or....in fact, the photo you present could be anyone.  I happen to know it is you.

We sometimes face our own biases "wow, i thought that person was a woman due to ___________" or, I thought they were young, or old, or ....whatever.

We have had youth, middlers and older folks.

I am not sure how the demographics match up to other similair sites, or to real life communities

We seem to have a good mix of people with differing understandings of gender & sexuality.

We seem to have various levels of wealth represented

What is interesting is that when I think of the faces that I have seen in pictures and gatherings we are a predominately caucasion group.  Anyone have any ideas on that?

That could happen because in a good part of the country the UC is mainly Caucasian.  My local UCCan is basically elderly white women, with a smattering of elderly guys and a  few folks under 60.  I don't think there are any people connected to the church who are of an alternate skin colour.

yet, kay, when we consider that there are a reasonable number of non-united church folks on the site...and it is open to all, it makes me curious.

Barriers I know of:

Lack of money to have a computer or to pay for internet,

Lack of computer skills, especially for those who did not grow up with them

Lack of time, because of family commitments or work.

(Those are meant as barriers for the ones that are not on Wondercafe)

Great points, Mrs. Anteater.

I wodnered if the majority of folks are argumentative if that drives away people who do not approach a discussion in the same way --- which could be a cultural challenge.

I wonder if we gave up on our advertising too soon. I know many churches here that don't know what WonderCafe  is and seldom see  any advertising in churches. Why can't some of the old ads be rerun or is there no money?

Hi Crazyheart,

The advertizing budget for WonderCafe.ca was part of the Emerging Spirit Program budget.  At GC-40 in Kelowna it was known that the budget monies for ESP (which came from the Morrison Bequest) had been spent and another source of funding (allocation from General Funds) would have to be found or ESP would be discontinued.

ESP never had a chance.  So it was discontinued.  WonderCafe.ca was severed from the Emerging Spirit and folded into the budget line which deals with all of UCCAN's online expenses.  Advertizing was not continued past that point.

At present you and I are the most active pieces of advertizing for WonderCafe.ca in our respective circles.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pinga,

I'm not convinced that the majority of folks at WonderCafe.ca are argumentative.  That said, there are hot button topics which provoke more emotive language here than they do rational discussion.

There isn't really anything wrong with that either.  Open-minded discussion means there should be quite a bit of button pushing going on.  Some do not handle button pushing really well.  Which is also fair.  If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen right?  To be honest I see more disagreement than actual conflict in the majority of threads where squabbling is going on and even then it appears to be the same dance partners busting out the same moves.

I don't get the impression that any posters lie in wait for others even though there are some who do post and I am thinking in my head, "how long before that dance partner shows up."

I expect that WonderCafe.ca is just not everybody's cup of tea.

Nothing wrong with that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

hmmmm

there is a back/forth that arguess.  One person's argument is another person's conversation.

So, I'm curious, it appears the demographics of the wondercafe site mirror in some ways the united church, but in other ways are quite different. 

It appears that the average age is similair, maybe younger. 

It appears that there is a good gender mix.

It seems that there are more participants who self-identify as a community either: transgender, sexuality or special needs than we might find in the average church.

yet, we seem to be pretty caucasian.

am i off-base?

I would say that most United Churches seem to be pretty caucasian as well, Pinga.

I noticed a big barrier to using the site.  For whatever reason, I couldn't seem to get my password to work on another computer.  I tried resetting my password, and the password reset just kept failing.

Crazy, I agree...and yet in some demographics we do not represent united churches, and have participants from multiple areas...yet in this one, the demographic holds true.

i am curious as to why that is.

Bite my tongue. Could it be that anything associated with the United Church, be it church or anything associated with the Uccan, is thought to be caucasion by the rest of the country?

For example, how many people of colour or First Nations go to your church?

my church:

First Nation zip

People of Colour Zip

Why is that?

I'm just asking crazy, as we have people on the site who are not of the united church....in fact many of them especially in religion & faith threads.

We also have people who represent other populations which are not represented in the vast majority of United Church of canada .

so....wondercafe appeals to people who wish to disucss faith...some of which are not united church.  it breaks down some barriers to participation.

yet....why is this barrier seeming to stand.

(or and I am just missing or presuming based on my own bias)

Pinga, would one of the reasons be that WonderCafe provides  a place for these posters to talk more openly than in their own churches or communities This might appeal to their issues of safety. I really don't know.

Do 'people of colour' maybe just feel less comfortable sharing a photo?  There are many posters that I have no idea what they look like.

again, my presumptions may be wrong; however, we often get references just through story of where someone has come from.  In addition, we have met people, seem them on facebook, saw their profiles.

I'm not sure if my bias is presuming something incorrectly....or..if there is something about how we converse or the topics we cover which limits based on culture.

I am reflecting back on Agniesky for example, which I know was different but in part named a cultural issue.  I also remember having discussions on first nations when individuals were clear they did not feel welcomed or respected based on their input (that is going back a few years).

so...i'm continuing to ponder and wonder ...listening to what you all have to say

Hi Pinga,

And more often than not the difference between the two is the tone either takes.  Up above I make the claim that the tone that is most immediately accessible is the tone I read a post in and not the tone the poster posted in.

Now sometimes we post non-tone clues.  Phrases like, "People like you . . ." or :of course you would say that." which can easily lead the reader to the conclusion that they are being disparaged.  How would the same reader respond to "I disagree."  And sometimes we find people responding to something that we may not have actually said and throwing inferences in for good measure.

Sure it does.  For example.  Before I meet most of the congregation when I start at a new church I get a membership list.  All I get on that list is names and addresses.  Very rarely do I get anything that tells me specifically sexual orientation, economic situation, or general health and well being.  If WonderCafe.ca stuck with the default avatars we wouldn't know a whole lot about anyone.

My avatar is my picture.  So everybody can see what I look like and as they do so their biases come into play.  They will either give me the space to prove or disprove the merit of those biases or they won't.  The same thing happens when I notice somebody else uses their picture for their avatar.

And yet, not everybody is comfortable using their picture as their avatar and that is perfectly fine.  In fact, their appearance never gives me the opportunity to bring biases to bear in conversation with them.

I suspect, that much like everyone else I am partial to clues in speech.  I may be a little more deliberate about it than others just because I like to try and understand who I am talking with.  In theological conversation I am sifting through comments to try and find the formative theologies of the other.  Doing so, I believe, helps me to understand where they are coming from and how I might best get through to them.

Of course as I am doing that sifting I run into ideologies and I have biases for and against those just as much as the next poster does.

If I exercise self-discipline then I am not letting my biases lead me about by the nose.

As far as appearances go sure.

As far as appearances go I have no idea what constitutes a "good" gender mix.  Are we talking about equitable numbers of all genders or that the genders get along?

More than don't?

Admittedly, everyone I have met face to face from WonderCafe.ca passes for Caucasian.  I have no real idea of the race of those I have not met face to face.  I know that we have had non-caucasian members in the past.  I suspect that we have some who are non-caucasian in the present.

No so far off base that you would get easily picked off for another out.  Still, we are just discussing appearances and even then it is probably the appearance that the most active posters present and not a true reflection of all members of the WonderCafe.ca.

Grace and peace to you.

John

still pondering, thanks for your reflections, rev john.

Hi crazyheart,

We have three sisters who are all proudly First Nations who attend regularly.  The youngest is probably one of the most active members of the congregation and is highly respected by the whole congregation.  The older sister asked if she could lead the First Nations Sunday Service and we said certainly, so she did.

We have one young black woman who has recently moved into the community and has begun attending our services.

We have another woman whose ancestry goes back to South America who attends with her husband.

We have several members who are differently abled and attend either with their family or are dropped off by transportation to attend on their own.

Most continue to attend because they have been made to feel welcome.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Crazyheart,

I think there is a difference between city and rural congregations with regards to the possibilities of being welcoming to people of different origin/ colour.

The few coulored people I experienced in my old congregation didn't stay long. I think to get into a group as a stranger and feel confortable, most people would want to have at least one other person of their origin to relate to or you have to be very brave. 

That would apply for all of life circumstances. As a divorced person- would I be comfortable in a congregation made up of all happily married  couples that show up with their flock of children every Sunday, stressing family values in their preaching?

We have to consider the wounds of the people who do not darken our doors or leave after a few tries. I haven't yet seen a rural congregation caring enough (and I don't mean the minister here) to miss and go after the ones that are deviating from the norm.