THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

by Gordon Laird

The United Church Users' Group [UCHUG] was founded on November 1, 1984. Prior to that date our Church had been investigating computers and information processing with the Task Force on Information Flow.
 
 

THE EXPERIMENTAL STAGE - NOVEMBER 1984 TO FEBRUARY, 1985

UCHUG was a group of 15 computer users, some of us using a computer for the first time, and most of us using a modem for the first time. This 4 month experiment was funded completely through our Division of Communication. Along the way we had little idea what it was costing. The final total bill for the four months was $4,000.

 When you begin to communicate together where do you start? One of our members suggested: "Let's talk about our computers!" and soon there were messages going back and forth. Our system was the Envoy 100 Canadian Electronic mail system which allows the one receiving a letter to type ANSWER, type the reply and send it. The name of the writer and addressee are entered automatically, as is the topic title. We found that by typing ANSWER ALL we could rebound our answer to everyone who was addressed in the incoming note. When the reply was three or four pages in length and was sent to 20 people, we began to realized we had created a volume problem.

 We found that we could set up a Special Interest Group, which required a one word address for all who were joined to that group to receive every note. We called our first Special Interest Group "Lection.list" and used it to discuss the weekly lectionary readings. Later on in this workshop you will hear from Jack Sharp, who founded "Sermonshop" on another network. You will see how the history of our "Lectionary" and Jack's "Sermonshop" came together.

 The four month experiment came to an end February 28, 1985, at which time the Church evaluated its implications for the future.
 
 

THE FORMATION OF A STANDING COMMITTEE - SCC - FEB 1985

The Annual meeting of our National Division of Communication decided to form a standing committee, the Small Computers in the Church Committee (SCC). Some of those who were involved in the 4 month experiment were elected to this new committee. It was decided that it would be a "western- based" Committee, following an increasingly-used pattern within our Church to base some of our standing committees elsewhere other than in Head Office (Toronto).

 David Lochhead became Chair and I became Secretary- Treasurer. We have a nine members plus five Corresponding Members. One of our major purposes was to make it possible for other Church people to "get online". UCHUG (the United Church Users' Group) has continued to grow until today there are almost 90 names on our user list.
 
 

ISSUES IN SELECTING THE "HOST SYSTEM"

A "Host System" is the large centralized computer which holds all the messages we send and receive. We have sampled dozens of "host systems" but have been officially located on three systems: Envoy 100, UNISON and NWI.
 
 

ENVOY 100

The first, Envoy 100, is a Canadian system, which is a joint venture of all the Canadian Telephone systems. The style of Envoy 100 is based upon a hierarchical business model. Envoy provides basically "electronic mail", that is the ability to send messages to one or more people and to receive messages in return.

 By the use of Special Interest Groups we could do some mutual consulting and discussion but it became obvious, when we compared Envoy with the Source, for example, that there was very little flexibility to the addition of new topics and the ease with which a member could join or leave a conference. All these decisions had to be routed through our Sysop [System Operator].

 We looked for a Host which offered Participate (c) software - a remarkable software allowing a degree of flexibility far beyond that found on Envoy. Participate (c) is available on a number of systems including THE SOURCE (owned by the Reader's Digest). However we sought a small system with a flexible and friendly management.

UNISON

We chose UNISON, a system whose computer was located in Denver, Colorado.

 It should be noted that the question of geography played almost no part in this decision. UNISON was as accessible to us in Vancouver or Toronto as Envoy 100. A local phone call would allow us to attach our computers to either. The problem which we have been trying to solve since the outset is access from Canadian locations outside the major metropolitan areas.

 Our decision to move to UNISON was taken without any assurance that other Churches would locate there. It was a great bonus to us when in September, 1985, after their experimental period was over, some "refugees" of the Presbynet experiment (members of the Presbyterian Church [USA]) joined us on UNISON. In fact so many joined us that we were worried about our discussions being swamped. Some from the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church also joined us on UNISON.

"OFFICIAL" CHURCH COMMUNICATING - CONFERENCE OFFICES & NATIONAL

We transferred the "conferencing" side of our discussions to UNISON. We continued our accounts on Envoy 100 for the purposes of some of our electronic mail, particularly with the increasing number of conference offices and with our Toronto Head Office.

 In fact, by offering Conference Offices a number of months of free experimental time on Envoy 100 from our SCC budget all 12 of our conference offices are now "online" and now may send notes and reports to each other and to Toronto.

 When this became an increasingly complex aspect of our SCC work, we suggested the Conference Offices needed their own Systems Operator, and Bill Dearborn of our Committee took on that position.

 The ecumenical communication on UNISON continued to grow until it became one of the best places to have conversations with other Churches.

 In the summer of 1986 we became aware that there were some conflicts within the UNISON management. The causes of this friction had nothing to do with the Churches, but many of us felt a deep friendship for each of the members of UNISON management and hoped that we might use our pastoral skills to reduce friction and get back to normal.

It was also becoming obvious that our fledgling ecumenical community was over-exposed to problems of our Host system. If UNISON underwent a severe financial crisis or was sold to owners who were not as agreeable to the Church networks, we had no control over these eventualities. We had linked our future too closely with that of one Host system.

 We searched for another system which offered what we had found on UNISON.

NWI

We found NWI, Networking and World Information, a subsidiary of the North American Investment Corp. Members of the management team of NWI were somewhat familiar to us, and we were impressed with the scope their planning. NWI had the now-essential Participate (c) software.

 The combined decisions of the Churches online to move to NWI on November 1 1986 was one of first ecumenical decisions. One direct outcome of this decision was the formation of Ecunet, Inc., which Jack Sharp will describe in detail.

BUDGET ISSUES

How much did this cost? I already mentioned that the first 4 month experiment cost $4,000. The year 1985 was budgeted at $10,000, but I am embarrassed to say that we spent over double that amount. Part of the problem was that we did not have accounting control over our budget. Some of our expenditures were charged to us in Toronto, others were paid from Vancouver.

 In 1986 we compiled our budget application based on the experience of 1985. We applied for $21,000 for 1986 and came within a few dollars of that figure by the end of the year. We have applied for and received approval for a budget of $23,000 for 1987.

 Our budget breakdown:

 - Our Committee online time: $10,800
- Introductory accounts ($100 free time to anyone in our Church who wants to try communicating online - lasts about 3 or 4 months): $4,000
- Our Annual Meeting [our only face-to-face meeting per year]: $2,500
- Long distance and postage: $600
- Other networks: $1,500
(we are always looking for where the network industry is going. David Lochhead is on NewsNet and on some of the other systems.)
- Camnet Membership: $400
- This Camcon Conference we budget, to send one person: $1,200
- Publicity: $1,000
- Ecumenical Conferencing: $1,000
We put that in with the hope that we might find ways of helping Ecunet or some new ecumenical ventures.

SOME 'PIONEERING' ASPECTS OF UCHUG

Most of the decisions of the Small Computers in the Church Committee are made by means of electronic communication. We meet face-to-face only once annually.

All bills to our members are sent electronically. Cheques are returned to us in the traditional paper form!

SCC members send notes to NWI by using "blink" files. That means we have set it up so that our computers interact automatically with the NWI computers.

We are a national standing committee, but we are also "computer enthusiasts". I will discuss the implications of this statement later on.

We consider it very important to "archive" our conferences and to promote the writing of our history. It was evident in the process of getting this conference together that it would be helpful if all churches took the history of their electronic communication seriously. This conference should be helpful to this end.

Sysoping - the term "Sysop" [Systems operator] has been used to describe the duties which a number of us are called upon to perform on the NWI network. Included in these duties are:

- arranging the order of the Conferences,

- introducing new members to the intricacies of NWI and Participate (c),

- negotiating with the Host Systems,

- receiving NWI bills and billing our members.

"Sysop" may not be the best term for these duties. There are many of these duties which are similar to aspects of our ordinary Pastoral Ministry.

ENA - "Online Ethics". Each participant in this workshop was given a copy of a document entitled: "ONLINE ETHICS" which was a policy statement of the Electronic Networking Association, dated March 16, 1987. We are in a new field and have had to find solutions to a number of problems in online relationships. This is a first attempt to provide an overview of these solutions.

CONTINUING ISSUES FOR OUR COMMITTEE AND FOR OUR CHURCH

The extent to which we are responsible to consult with congregations regarding their decision to purchase computers and particular software. As a small western-based committee we have limited resources to respond to these requests.

Whether our committee should be 'tilted' towards computer communication or hardware/-software issues. We see our role as primarily computer communications.

Whether we can support our budget against increasing demands from other communications media, at a time when budgets generally are shrinking.

Publicity. The ways in which our Church in general may be made aware of the role of Computers within the Church and the role of our Committee.

Tensions between working denominationally and working ecumenically.

Justifying the role of the Small Computers in the Church Committee in light of the Gospel and the Mission of the Church.

SOME DIRECTED QUESTIONS:

Neil Topliffe (Communications, Disciples of Christ, Indianapolis): You say that your committee is mostly computer enthusiasts who spend a few hours a day on the computer. David Lochhead said basically the same thing. Does your Committee reimburse or pay for Systems Operators or that sort of thing or is this all volunteer?

 Laird: No, we have no paid staff. David Lochhead and I have a rather healthy part of the $10,800 per year for our online time. It takes a lot of time to be an online pastoral minister. During the 5 to 7 am hours I might be talking to Doug Goodwin in Vanderhoof who says, "I just can't get on, I don't have the right kind of software". So I arranged to get the software from Houston Hodges. Houston brought it to this meeting. And we have to get it to Vanderhoof. There are a lot of those kind of questions which we answer. Why I call that pastoral ministry in that it is not that much different from the questions I am asked from 9 am on in the Church. It is just that they are electronically related, that's all.

 Topliffe: What is the membership of your Church?

 Laird: Doug Flanders, our Statistical Officer is here at this Workshop.

 Doug Flanders (Division of Communication, United Church of Canada): 886,000 members.

 Topliffe: How many logon regularly?

 Laird: 50 or 60. Not many. A small proportion.

 Gene Schneider (Communications, United Church of Christ, New York): Your budget of $23,000. Does that come from the National Church or the western conferences?

 Laird: Through the National Church, through our Division of Communication in Toronto. That comes from our Mission and Service Fund over and above givings of congregations.

 Paul Milner (Telecommunications, Lutheran Church in America, New York): The Task Force on Information Flow, did that grow out of the user groups or out of data processing?

 Laird: I would say more out of data processing with a few users, because that was very early in the user game. [In checking this point after the conferenece I found out that it did not grow directly out of data processing but out of the anticipation of the needs of administrative offices - dgl]. There weren't many users at that time. David Lochhead was one of them, Iaian McDonald - just a few users at that time. Actually our users were created to quite an extent by the network. Rather than gathering together users we were creating users. And still are.

 Topliffe: Of the users that you have how many are your conference or middle judicatory officers as over against those from local congregations?

 Laird: That is a little hard to say because we are on two systems and because a lot of the communication between conference offices and the national office are on Envoy so we don't even see it. But I think that is increasing.

 Houston Hodges: Conference offices logon one and one-half times a working day. Add that to your statistics.

 Laird: All the conferences have a method, as does the National office, of downloading and uploading messages in the morning.

 Laird: Alice [Foster] can you tell us what happens in the National Office?

 Alice Foster (Division of Communication, United Church of Canada, Toronto): We download twice a day. We send as necessary.

 Laird: You have more than one location for that. You have: NATIONAL.OFFICE, ADMIN/UNITED.DIV.COMM, the Division of Ministry Personnel and Education

 Foster: And General Council office

 Laird: That has a life of its own which we don't see much of. We have been just given a whole directory of those users which includes some of us as well.

 Schneider: That Envoy system is in another budget?

 Laird: Yes, that is not part of our SCC budget. That is in an administrative budget, or a Divisional budget.

 Unknown: Did I hear you imply some unhappiness with the NWI?

Laird: Not with NWI. Our unhappiness was having to leave a very comfortable place, UNISON. But I will say that all these networks are entrepreneurial. We hold our fingers crossed for all of them. I don't know anyone who is making money operating a network. Not even the SOURCE. I heard that even the Reader's Digest wanted to sell it. Jack [Sharp] is frowning because he knows of someone who is making money?

 Sharp: No, no, I was listening.

 Laird: Could that be enough questions from me for now because we are going to hear from 4 other people.

 Question: Is this cost effective?

 Laird: Let's put that one down, Susan [the facilitator], that is something we can't give a quick and easy answer to. We can tell you that Priority Post costs $8 and promises overnight delivery. Many of our conference offices use it and Envoy would cost them $1 or $2 and would get there for sure the next morning. In that instance this is very cost-effective. But there is a bigger question you are implying and I am not quite ready to deal with that bigger question.