If the United Church of Canada wants to attract outsiders, then it is appropriate to ask the outsiders what they want from Church, and offer it, even at the risk of alienating those on the inside.

This can backfire, though, if those on the outside, despite having their demands fulfilled, still won't join Church, and some of those on the inside have quit in protest.

A few years ago, the Anglican Church in our small town of 3,000, with maybe another 3,000 in the surrounding area, was about to close for  lack of members. The new Anglican minister, who had just graduated with a PhD in Theology, put in a mighty effort to save his church. He walked house to house, asking people "What do you want from Church?" and distributed leaflets advertising his course "Christianity 101," which he also advertised in the local paper and which took place in the community hall.

The result devastated him! Apart from a few very old members of his own congregation, only my wife and I (both of us United Church) and one New Ager attended his highly interesting course. Needless to say, the Anglican Church in our town closed its doors for good a few weeks later.

From my own time on the outside, I must say that Christian jargon is a turnoff to most outsiders. And, even if the words were changed (as chansen pointed out on a related thread) the concepts behind the words remain. And, in order to ditch the concepts, the UC would have to change radically, and become more like the UU. And, if it comes to that, why not join forces with the UU and spread the UU message, which seems to have more outside appeal?

The UU, I believe, has not declined but inreased modestly. But they are handicapped by their relative smallness and powerlessness (relative to the UC). If the UC were to unite with the UU, and use the combined power of the two churches for a modern advertising campaign spreading the UU message, then this new UU/UC might well attract outsiders.

Re: Hiliary: But mainline churches have been saying NO to change for 50 years now. Not to insignificant change (like can we change the order of service). But NO to finding ways of welcoming and worshipping that are meaningful to more than just the "frozen chosen". In fact, putting the "NO" in inNOvation may actually succeed at first, by not ruffling feathers and retaining those who want things to stay as they are. But as history shows, that closes the doors on everyone else - basically, those who would otherwise be tomorrow's church. What do I read in the original post? Flexibility, experimentation, openness to questions (and that includes questions about the method). Those are not characteristics of a congregation that wants to keep things the same and keep those troublesome "outsiders" out.  Christ said "go into all the world and preach the gospel". The more you turn away because of being unable to bend a bit on the "method", the more Christ's message is ignored.

Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow may never come. Worship in Today.

But what was the gospel according to Jesus? Was it humanism, albeit within a Judaic context? Or was it Roman Christian doctrine and theology?

I think Jesus' teachings were not heavy on theology, and whatever there was was Jewish, not Christian. Jesus was a Jewish humanist, and the message of humanism was his main message.

I think the UU would suit him rather well, and he'd approve of a UC/UU merger.

Some thoughts on what Arm is saying about UCCan/CUC merger. Neither complete nor comprehensive and largely IMHO based on my perception of things from the UU side of things.

Here's what the UCCan would likely have to give up for the mainstream of UU'ism to accept such an idea (based on my perception of that mainstream):

• A strong focus on God and Christ. Christianity is one of many sources to us and I can't see many of the very humanist oriented Canadian UUs wanting to make it more prominent. You would be free to continue to hold those beliefs, but don't expect to see UU congregations reflecting them in services any more than they do now.
• Your governance structure. No UU that I know is going to give up on congregationalism or accept having another layer of governance above the congregational level. If you want to merge with us, Presbytery would be toast, Conference would merge with our ring structure to provide regional coordination (but not governance). Your General Council would merge with the CUC to provide a national forum but, again, would have little to no authority over congregations.
• Your sacraments. Baptism would no longer be recognized as the basis for membership since we don't baptize the way you do. Communion would just be one more ritual, no more significant than our Ingathering or Flower Communion.
• Membership in the World Council of Churches. IIRC, this requires using a Trinitarian formulation for baptism which is gone if you merge with us (seriously, we are UNITARIAN Univeralists).
• A lot of your members. Can you really see even someone fairly liberal/progressive but strongly Christian like seeler or waterfall watering down their Christianity to fit in with a UU merged UCCan, let alone someone fairly conservative like John?

What would you gain in return for that?

• The UU principles, which I think are a good basis for any organization, not just us. Even if I return to the UCCan someday, I'll likely keep them close to my heart.
• The UU sources. A recognition that spiritual wisdom can come from many places, with the first being personal experience of awe and wonder (the Bible is down around third or fourth IIRC).
• A more open, liberal outlook that doesn't tie you down to one set of creeds, scriptures, or beliefs.
• Strong cross-border ties. We are still affilated with the UUA in the US for credentialing and education of clergy and many serving UU clergy in Canada are transplanted Americans. Assuming the UUA accepted the credentials of existing UCCan clergy, your ministers could potentially have a new job market to explore and we might actually be able to fill all our Canadian pulpits with Canadians for once.

Is a merger really realistic from a UU or UCCan standpoint? When you look at the above, I don't really think so. Both sides would have to give up too much that is fundamental to them. Either you have to give up most of what identifies you as Christian or we have to accept much more focus on Christianity and traditional religious elements and ideas (there are UUs who will not pray and will not accept the use of prayer in church) than most of us would be comfortable with.

Given how congregational and democratic we are, it would likely require favourable votes from ALL (not just a majority of) Canadian UU congregations for it to go forward, not just from a majority of UUs, not just from CUC. In the case of mine, our articles of incorporation would make it a 2/3 majority vote. On that level alone, I can't see it succeeding.

Perhaps closer cooperation is possible between CUC and GC like sharing space (though CUC is in Ottawa and GC Executive is in TO so I can't really see it happening), conference venues, and the like. Congregational level cooperation already happens in some areas (it did in East London for a while). Hardly a merger and more likely to pass muster on both sides.

Mendalla

Hi Mendalla:

Thank you for your detailed comments on a possible UCCan/CUC merger. Your contribution to the topic is especially valuable, coming from someone with UCCan roots who is now a member of the UU.

I have a friend in my previous congregation who was UU, but switched to the UCCan because there was no UU congregation in his locality. We often discussed the possibilty and the wisdom of a merger between the two.

Your points on what the UCCan would likely have to give up if it were to merge with the UU are acceptable to me, personally, but I realize that they may not be acceptable to some of the more conservative members of the UCCan.

But I think this would not amount to a watering down of Christianity. A watering down of Pauline/Roman Christian doctrine, yes, but not a watering down of the principles espoused by Jesus.

And there we come right down to the schism between the mystical and doctrinal: between those to whom faith is largely experiential, who act from the depth of their experience of spirtuality, and those whose faith is largely dogmatic and doctrinal, and whose thinking and acting is determined largely by unquestioning belief in doctrine.

Those UCCers who are more mystical might agree with a UCCan/UU merger, while those who are more doctrinal would not. And those who are neither, but are liberal humanists, and possibly atheists or agnostics, probably would agree to a merger as well. But not the UCCan membership as a whole.

Well, if unquestioning belief in doctrine is to be the end of the UCCan as a prominent Canadian denomination, so be it. Those of us UCCers who are partial to UUism can always join the UU.

And, of course, congregational cooperation is always possible.

I guess the short version of my post, Arm, is that you and I and others like us would be okay with the product of a merged UU-UCCan. However the more traditional (not even conservative, just your middle-of-the-road and even some liberal) Christians on the UCCan side and the hardcore of secular humanists/atheists on the UU side would likely end up remaining as separate churches over issues like the primacy of Jesus and The Bible even if those of us in the middle created some kind of church that was a blend of the two.

One positive side that I see as someone coming from the more spiritual side of UU'ism is that we might get a more "spiritual" liturgy (though likely there are UU churches where such a beast exists now). Our UU liturgy as practiced in humanist-oriented fellowships like mine can be a bit dry and over-secularized at times. It can lack the passion that you find in a good Christian service. What I would want would be a form of UU where I can use prayers (or not), use The Bible and other religious scriptures (or not), use words like "God" and "Sacred" (or not) without having to qualify every use of them.

Mendalla

Yes, Mendalla, I too would like to use words like "God," "sacred" or "divine" more often, but I am tired to add "as I perceive it," and then having to explain how I perceive it.

In my mind, "as I perceive it" is, or should be, a given. Then we could use traditional Christian terms liberally without qualifying them.

I seems that Christian absolutists and dogmatists have absolutised the meaning of these words so much and for so long that one can't use them without qualifying them.

Maybe that's why these sages said:

"I pray to God to rid me of God"

-Meister Eckhart

"Atheism in the name of God"

-Allan Watts

"With or without God"

-Gretta Vosper