LECTIONARY DISCUSSIONS

We began our lectionary discussions with Amos 5 18-24:

"...Why would you have the day of the Lord, it is darkness, and not light...I hate, I despise your feasts...but let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream." [excerpted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible]

We wrestled with this passage for weeks. What was being debated was our entire approach to exegesis which most of us had taken for granted, because it had not been challenged before. Where do we start with the text, with the original languages, with the context (the Sitz im Leben)? Or with some aspect of our experience of the text?

Suddenly things taken for granted for years were being questioned. It must be remembered than none of us had any previous experience in this approach. In fact few of us had ever been in a group which shared lectionary approaches. What we were involved in was like Bible study, yet unlike the kind that most of us pastors conduct where we are the ultimate authority.

It was something like a seminar session at Theological College, yet with a sense of freedom and participation most of us would not associate with that earlier experience. And it involved some very able lay people who wouldn't let the pastors among us get too carried away with our own words.

We lost one participant early, probably for technical but very important reasons.

We were sad to read Norm Perry's goodbye to Lectionary:

"...In view of the response, in view of the more than tolerable demands on my time, in view of the fact that at the moment I am not able to get into the Lectionary until next year, would you remove my name from the list. I really can't tolerate the time it takes my wee toy to gather all this, reflect about it, and then respond."

Norm's comments raise two issues: one obvious and one not so obvious. The fact that Norm was the busy pastor of a congregation in Kincardine, Ontario (on the shores of Georgian Bay) explained the time problem. But the "wee toy" comment refers to the type of equipment which he was using: It was (in his description):

"...an Obsolete TI -99/4a with a peripheral expansion system about 48K memory (RAM) with single disk drive and a cheapie TI modem..."

Norm was having to work really hard technically to keep up with the number of messages he was receiving from us on Envoy.

In Petitcodiac, New Brunswick, Neil Parker was using a Radio Shack Model 100 portable computer which usually comes with a capacity of 24K. In some ingenious way Neil was typing all his sermons and the stencils for his Church bulletins on this tiny tool.

What this meant was that either Norm or Neil could read the Envoy message very well, but they had a very limited capacity to save any files. And making up a file in advance and send it with such limited capacity was truly a fine juggling act. Contrast that with others on our network operating with as much as 256K and you can see that some were really struggling technically in areas where others were having no problems.

There was a tremendous difference in type of Modem and Communications Software as well. For some sending and receiving files were a breeze. For others this could be accomplished only after long nights pouring over almost indecipherable manuals.

It is an axiom that every problem in Computer Hardware and Software can be solved with a little more money. Many of our participants had allocated all they could within their budgets to their present equipment without dreaming of adding one more hardware attachment, gadget or new software package.

 Another general reflection on our growing lectionary discussions is that we were becoming more free, more personal and more collaborative. A lot of habits and notions were being challenged. We pastors were only too aware of the conventional wisdom that preparing sermons was a lonely vigil which should be well underway by Wednesday of the week, finished by Friday, practised Saturday, delivered Sunday. Few of us followed those extremely worthwhile suggestions but we had all learned them.

Now sermons were being constructed interactively. Points which we were not clear about could be aired and shared. At the end of the process it would be appropriate to ask, "Whose sermon was being preached?"

In one sermon I quoted Clare Holmes. I used Clare Holmes' words. No, I didn't type out Clare Holmes' words. He had written them! I had them electronically on file and copied them. They were still Clare's words, or were they? Do we really "own" words?

When we are using electronic communication our words are sent out and escape our custody.

 A number of questions about "ownership of words" were plaguing me: Can we still claim any ownership of words or have they become Public Domain the moment we air them? Is the age of Copyright over? Has electronic communicating killed Copyright?

---

 

Chapter 3 - February, 1985 - DivCom Annual Meeting - "Welcome to SCC!"

The two requirements which we had agreed to at the beginning of the UCHUG experiment were:

We would keep a daily record of the messages which we received and sent, providing a monthly statement of these, and

We would provide an evaluation of our experience.

The evaluations were needed by mid January so that a combined evaluation would be available for the Annual Meeting of the Division of Communication, scheduled to begin February 4th in Toronto. This is the list of recommendations to the Division of Communication from UCHUG: We recommend:

That the Division of Communication continue to make use of ENVOY 100, where appropriate, for the conduct of its business.

That the Division, through the Secretary, encourage other Divisions of the Church, where possible, to make use of ENVOY's services.

(a) That other groups and individuals who are related to the life and work of the United Church of Canada be granted access to ENVOY 100 at their own request.

(b) that these groups or individuals be responsible for the expenses incurred through their use of the service.

That the Division allocate adequate staff time to insure the reliable delivery of messages to and from the national offices.

That the Task Force on Information Flow or its successors establish guidelines for the management of any special interest groups (SIGs) that may be established on ENVOY.

That the Division, through the Secretary in consultation with the Task Force or its successor, where appropriate, seek subsidies from other Divisions toward the expense of special interest groups.

That the Task Force or its successor actively investigate alternatives to Envoy for electronic mail, teleconferencing and information retrievals. These alternatives would include:

(a) Commercial information utilities (i.e. COMPUSERVE, THE SOURCE, DELPHI)
(b) The network currently being established by CCUN and CAMNET on the University of Washington computer.
(c) Canadian university computers, accessible through Datapac, who have electronic mail and teleconferencing facilities.
(d) A national bulletin board to be established on an appropriate computer which is owned and operated by the United Church of Canada.

That a teleconferencing facility independent of ENVOY be established as soon as possible.

We recommended the continuance of the use of Envoy 100 for the business of the Division of Communication and the encouragement of other Church Divisions into its use. Further, we recommended more attention be paid by the Division of Communication to handling the increasing amount of electronic mail they were receiving from us. We wanted there to be a priority to this mail at least as high as that given to written mail. And we wanted to see the Church extend the use of Envoy 100 to other Divisions and other levels of the Church.

But we were also recognizing the shortcomings of Envoy 100 for the SIG discussions groups. We had adapted what was primarily a business messaging system to our discussion uses but it was not primarily designed for that purpose.

We really would like to see a "national bulletin board" on the Church's own computer. But short of that we needed to search for another network which was more compatible to "teleconferencing" than Envoy 100.

David Lochhead, who represented us at the Annual Meeting of the Division of Communications, sent us this memo setting out the decisions of the Annual Meeting as they affected UCHUG:

Posted: Tue Feb 5, 1985 8:40 PM PST

From: DM.LOCHHEAD TO: tfif,uchug

Subj: DIVISION ACTION

The Division of Communication has acted to approve our recommendations concerning ENVOY and to dismiss the Task Force on Information Flow which is replaced by a western based committee on small computers in the church. The new committee will continue to be chaired by me. Its membership will consist of Gordon Laird, Barbara Anderson, Paul Mullen, Murray Bentham and Bill Dearborn. Corresponding members will be added to the committee from outside the western region. I will be in touch personally with the members of the TFIF who were not part of the discussion here. Some of you will be asked to continue in a corresponding relationship with the new committee through Envoy.

 UCHUG will, as we anticipated, be open to anyone who is willing to find his/her own funding for the use of the system. In addition, we will continue for the immediate future to offer two free months on the system as an "introductory offer" to new church users. While there is some sorrow in leaving old relationships to enter into new ones, I came away from tonight's session feeling that we have a clear mandate from the Division to continue to build on what we have started here. I am grateful to all of you for your part in this project.

We who had been appointed to the new committee suddenly realized that we had new and quite unique responsibilities. No longer were we simply participants in a four-month experiment for the Church. We were now involved in the creation of a new and exciting endeavour which had some chance for life and growth and sustenance. We now could see a year ahead at least. And we were involved in what must be one of the most new and creative areas in the life of the United Church. I don't believe it is overstating the case to say we had become a brainstorming and visioning committee for the United Church in the most innovative and quickly changing arena in society - the dramatically increasing use of small computers.

 The new Committee was named by the Division "Small Computers in the Church". This name we soon shortened to SCC.

Let's pause and remember some important facts:

The UCHUG experiment was now only 3 months old.

Many of us, including one person of those appointed to the Small Computers in the Church had never been involved in telecommunicating before November 1, 1984.

We were a committee which had never met face-to-face. Each of us had met some of the other members. No one except David Lochhead had met every other member of the Committee face-to-face.

Why were we selected? It seemed right that the Small Computers in the Church committee would be primarily western-based - now it included 3 from B. C., one from Alberta and two from Saskatchewan. In terms of roles within the Church, two (Barbara and Bill) were Conference Communications officers, two (Paul and Gordon) were pastors, one (David Lochhead) was a theological professor. Murray Bentham was a Computer professional from Saskatoon.

Some of the Committee had been related to the previous work of the TFIF (Task Force on Information Flow), Phases I and II - these included Bill Dearborn, Murray Bentham and David Lochhead. Others of us had no prior experience of the committees or discussions which preceded UCHUG.

 We were now entering into one of many transitional phases. We were coming to the end of the UCHUG experiment and beginning the construction of longer term committee relationships.

The decisions at the Annual Meeting of the Division of Communications had the effect of creating new categories of membership. Where once we had been one group in UCHUG we now found ourselves defined in a way which in some ways could be seen as hierarchical - The six SCC members together with Randy Naylor formed a small decision-making body which was augmented by the advice and experience of the SCC-Corresponding members. Those who had been involved in UCHUG who were not either SCC or SCC-corresponding became part of a new group which was also called UCHUG.

 One of the most dramatic differences between these groups was financial: SCC and SCC-corresponding members would continue to have their network usage paid by the national Church - UCHUG members would begin paying for their own usage from March 1, 1985. While a case could be made that the SCC and SCC-corresponding members were doing their work on behalf of the new Small Computers in the Church committee and on behalf of the Church at large, it was hard to escape a feeling of injustice about this financial arrangement.

It remained to be seen how many of the UCHUG members would continue with any significant contribution to Envoy now that they were having to pay the cost themselves.

 The UCHUG experimental period came to a close at the end of February, 1985 ending what was for many of us one of the most exciting periods in our experience of the United Church.

But what was our approach? What were our first tasks? David Lochhead's next memo dealt with the question of our mandate and agenda:

Wed Feb 6, 1985 1:57 PM PST From: DM.LOCHHEAD

TO: WJ.DEARBORN,JP.MULLEN,BK.ANDERSON,DG.LAIRD,M.BENTHAM CC: RL.NAYLOR Subj: AGENDA BUILDING

Committee on Small Computers in the Church (hereinafter referred to as SCC) The following is the initial agenda to be addressed by the SCC)
1. Terms of Reference: These are assumed to be similar to those of the TFIF. However, SCC needs to propose formal terms of reference to the Division Executive as soon as possible.
2. The use of the Committee SOURCE account. Presently members of TFIF and some Conference staff (i.e. Tindal, Dearborn, Anderson) have access to that account.
3. NEWSNET. Account is approved but not yet established. We need to consider question of access and use.
4. Do we need access to other services (i.e. CCUN/CAMNET, DELPHI, COMPUSERVE)? How many networks do we need to access? How do we attempt to network networks?
5. Bulletin Boards - coordination of Vancouver and Regina suggestions.
6. The care and feeding of UCHUG - including development of SIG guidelines.
7. Meeting. While we hope to do most of our business electronically, an early face to face meeting is probably necessary to get things started. I suggest a meeting in Vancouver in April. What dates are not possible for you?
Some who had been involved in the TFIF or who were Conference Communications officers were added to the new Small Computers in the Church committee as corresponding members. This included Iain Macdonald, Paul Stott, an expert in software applications who updates a database of Computer users in the United Church, and Doug Tindal, who is editor of the bimonthly magazine, "Computers and the Church".

Continue reading: Chapters 4 and 5
Return to: Gordon Laird's Home Page