Hi chansen,

Comparisons between the Tea Party and the CoC are a tad excessive though not entirely unwarranted.

Comparisons between the Tea Party and Cruxifusion are more than a little excessive and not only are they unwarranted they are unfounded.

While Cruxifusion is, in many ways the inheritor of The United Church Renewal Fellowship it is not the inheritor of the issues which divided the Church through the 80's.  In its current incarnation Cruxifusion is Christ-centred and comprised of individuals who  cover a wide range of social positions.

While there is disagreement from issue to issue that disagreement is not occasion for the rancor and general disrespect which marred the debates of the 80's.

If it isn't immediately obvious I should declare that I belong to Cruxifusion though I am not part of its leadership. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes, BUT as I watch these movements I see floundering and quite frankly not the biggest force to reckon with. More of a media curiousity. Will they peter out, much like the message of a whole generation of the 60's only to become part of the "establishment" they are speaking out against? They're spiritual movements that require spiritual leadership, IMO.

Bette: nicely put!

Chansen: exactly.

(As 'staff' I officially have no valuable opinion, by the way. I do enjoy this conversation, however.)

Forget the large discrepancy between belief and action - there is an entire ocean between belief and reality.

If I only had a nickel for every time I heard a kid say, "It's like, soooo hard to earn social benediction."

Hey, it's possible. Anything's possible. Your side just has nothing to show for 2000 years of looking.

And I hold no grudge against you for trying to hold on to what's left of your church. I wish you communicated with simpler words, but from what I do get out of your posts, I don't see a plan forward. I see a course backward.

That seems like an INCREDIBLY short time line and I'm wondering a) how feasible that is and b) what the rush is! It feels a bit like one of those 11th hour public consultation processes held by governments to give the illusion of democratic process and engagement. It's taken decades to get the UCC in its current predicament so I would suggest that we should devote some considerable time to the process of re-engaging faith communities and discussing how we move forward as a church. I hope there will be alternate strategies developed where people can provide feedback and there can be ongoing discussion. I really value all of the diverse perspectives offered on this subject through this discussion already...

Oh c'mon. Cruxifusion asked each nominee for moderator a series of questions to see how conservative they were. The very first question was:

That's an obvious Tea-Party-esque question. Considering you've had a moderator in the past who did not believe in the resurrection and sent UCCan conservatives into a tizzy, this is a clear weeding-out question. A you-must-be-this-conservative-to-ride question.

No, you're not as rabid as the Tea Party is or as sex-obsessed like the Community of Concern was, but you fill that conservative watchdog role in the most liberal Christian denomination in Canada.

Thank you for speaking about how I use language. In this place I tend to push my sentences to the limit. I have my reasons for this.

There are those who are struggling to hold on to what's left of the United Church. I am not one of them.

Nor am I nostalgic for the good old days, when religion had its way with the popular imagination. This permitting the raising of many elegant structures, each of which added substantial benefit to the gross domestic product of the local and national economies. This was blessed by priests and clergymen of assorted stripe.

The folk who occupied Christian pews during the growth period following WW2 were proud of their buildings. They were even prouder of their personal and corporate rise to affluence in the emerging social economy. Few took time to count the cost. All under the "oversight" of Church governance bodies of one stripe or another. All blessed by a well educated clergy.

Those structures now burden the resources of an aging population, both physically and monetarily. That population has reached a critical limit through attrition. The capital invested will keep us floating a wee while. Already we are selling off assets to maintain a modicum of presence in the public realm.

So what is the way forward? Just as you indicate. We make our infrastructure available to the neighbourhoods in which they are situated. Though not on the United Church payroll, I work with a group of women serving soup in a United Church sanctuary, out of a United Church kitchen. Over the past year we have built up a community of about 125 persons. We serve what may well be the best soup in town, with fresh baking and seasonal greens.

As a Chaplain on a University campus, I have access to the faculties of Nursing and Social Work. We are imaging the introductioin of advanced student placements in our fledgling community. This takes time, but it promises to establish a front line neighbourhood health unit. There is a United Church building in just about every Canadian town and city. We could be at the forefront of a revolution in health care, drawing on the deep roots of a tradition that calls for just such endeavour.

Because I have only little status with the United Church, because of a disagreement on a point of principle, I am restricted in the extent of my engagement. In other congregations, I have worked with local Universities to host forums on various topics related to an aging population proximate to the congregation's building. Wherever possible, I have entered into working relationships with organizations that are dedicated to community health and wellness.

I am intinerent and have lived in various Canadian cities and towns. In each, I have been closely associated, as an active participant and informant, with persons and groups active in the resistance of power used for the advantage of the few at the expense of the many.

In Fredericton I tried to persuade the United Church to enter into the struggle. The notion was frustrated because members of the Presbytery Executive had family members employed by the Irving Corporation. These felt it was inappropriate for the Church to be seen in the company of young protestors calling the industrial and capital projects of the Irving brand into question.

I could go on with many examples. All of them right in line with the recommendations you make in various ways above. It may surprise you but I have never had any trouble being understood by persons of all kind. This is because I have a highly developed intuitive faculty by which I am able to find common ground very quickly. Most people I meet along the way consider me to be kind, insightful, encouraging and intriguing.

The way forward is wide open. The persons who make up the United Church community have a remarkable opportunity. Some have already seen this and stepped out into the possible. Most cannot imagine leaving behind the trappings of religion and will cling to them till the end. I am not talking about congregations. I am talking about those who are on the payroll.

For me, the word "Jesus" is a signifier. Saying the word I present an image, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the insight that the image may make possible in this way and no other. This is what metaphor does for us. It lets us see behind appearance to apprehend reality.

What I would like is for the United Church to get behind the images it has at its disposal, to engage the substance to which those images are pointing. That is the dllema for me. The United Church talks about Jesus, about justice and about an alternative to the way of the corporate state (Imperialism as the talk has it). When push comes to shove, the United Church accomodates and thereby capitulates.

Now this last bit is a bit different than what you suggest, but not in terms of its practicalities. I agree with your analysis and I agree with the strategems you propose. They are workable. The difference is that I am speaking to the United Church in a language that it should understand. Each member has commited to searching out and expressing the "transcendent referent" to which the gospels point. But this commitment is rarely honoured.

Getting long winded. All to say I am encouraged by your encouragement of the Church as it seeks relevance in its neighbourhoods and in the world at large. Be assured, for me all that is considered normal and necessary in the practice of religion is dispensible. You could throw it all in the fire and I would have no qualms.

For me, there will be a remainder, something indestructable and irrespressible; placed there by the source of all being and all experiencing. A source which remains beyond my capacity for definition or manipulation.

At the very heart of my being I find creative freedom. I was pointed to this creative freedom by an insight gained while reading an ancient story.

What do you find at the very heart of your being and how did you find it there?

Question - and revjohn hinted about it - if we are a Christ centered church - why do we have church? 

Hi chansen,

And?  

Apart from the standard questions posed in the Nomination papers themselves there were a number of questions asked of the Moderators which would have allowed for any interest group within the United Church to weed out candidates.

What is your favourite Bible Passage?

What is your favourite hymn?

There are always questions designed to evaluate how well the candidate fits into the "ethos" of the United Church.

It would be somewhat odd if any interest group didn't ask questions which played to the constituency of that interest group.  Should Affirm not ask questions about how inclusive the candidate is?  Do you think that they would support any candidate who wasn't?

Those on the Conservative side of the street have every right to know how the Moderator of their church is kindly or unkindly disposed toward them.  Why would they support a leader who would not be supportive of them?

It is an obvious Christian question.  I'm not sure how that is out of bounds for a Christian Church.

Then Moderator Bill Phipps did not deny the resurrection.  Then Moderator Bill Phipps denied bodily resurrection and stated that he did not believe resurrection was a scientific fact.  Which pissed off Christians inside and outside of the United Church.  One such pissed off Christian threw me out of his hospital room (I was a chaplain at a local hospital at the time) because of a guilt by association.  

I did not agree with the Moderator at the time (I still don't on those points) save for the scientific fact of Resurrection.  Oddly, I don't think religious faith needs scientific backing to exist as religious faith.

Every question asked of any candidate for Moderator is a question which will weed out individuals.  There is one question which is asked as part of the nomination process which has never, in my experience, ever been answered satisfactorily.  If it was the one question I used to weed out candidates for the position all would be disqualified from running.

That isn't the way the process works however so when I was a Commissioner casting a vote I was forced to cast votes for individuals whom I felt blew the most important question before us for discernment.

No, I won't identify the question and no the "right" answer I am looking for is not one of how liberal or how conservative a candidate is.  It is a matter of discerning the call for the position.

Now we aren't as rabid as the Tea Party we are just rabidesque?  Isn't that like saying we aren't fat we are just Rubenesque?  

Very little sexual discussion in any of the conversations I have been party to.  For some it is still an issue.  As far as Cruxifusion is concerned it is not an issue.

If that is all it takes to be Tea-Partyesque you are missing a nuance or three.  As much as we might want the role of conservative watchdog we can't rightly claim ownership to it since The United Church recognizes no external watchdogs.  We are members of The United Church of Canada we are not an organization that is blessed or accepted by The United Church of Canada.

For the current Moderator's take on Cruxifusion I invite you to read the following:

http://www.garypaterson.ca/2012/11/23/cruxifusion/

While it is true that the United Church of Canada is a liberal denomination the term conservative doesn't mean (in our context) that we would be welcome in a more conservative denomination.

What is at stake is whether we are actually welcome in our own and when the liberal/conservative line is drawn in house do terms like justice and inclusion suffer a similar shift or do they remain what they are supposed to be?

This theme was discussed here at WonderCafe.ca in:

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/where-presbytery-meets

And essentially the whole thread shows that a congregation deemed "too conservative" was treated unjustly by Presbytery Executive and that ultimately the Executive ended up wearing egg on their face (and rightly so).

This only gives rise to the notion that justice is a word that is tossed around casually and vengeance is the word which more accurately describes decisions made against conservative congregations.  Without going into detail, I have, in the last three years taken members of my own Presbytery executive to task for allowing another member of Presbytery to use Presbytery as a weapon against a congregation they deemed "too conservative" and a candidate for ordination also deemed "too conservative."

As a student I was also subjected to disgraceful behaviour because I was deemed by (at least one) to be "too conservative."  If stories like this did not exist there would be no need for conservatives to feel the need to join together.

And to be clear, we do not hate the Church nor disagree with the whole of it.  It is our Church and we hope to nurture and nourish it in the same way it has nurtured and nourished us.

Since holding to a conservative/orthodox/traditional Christian faith is not out-lawed by The United Church of Canada we shouldn't be punished for holding it.  And since this kind of faith is important to us it is helpful to know how this kind of faith is going to be supported/allowed/resisted by our Moderator.

You have deliberately use pejorative language to describe me.  Is it out of bounds for me to take issue with that?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Jobam,

The Church is the body of Christ.  Christ is the head of the Church.

A Christ centered Church is one, I believe, that is attached to the head in some meaningful way.  And there, I suppose is the rub.

Which ways are meaningful and who are they meaningful for?

In a Church as wide as The United Church of Canada is I suspect universals are going to be difficult to find.  They exist but not, I think, as primary policies or doctrines.  Much more likely as metaphysics than anything immediately visible.

Grace and peace to you.

John

OK, I have to wonder what question that is........

What's the Caramilk secret?

Hi GordW,

Well you don't have to wonder but you may.

Grace and peace to you.

John

where on this doll did the atheistagnostictheist touch you?

The secret is that there is no secret.

But this secret must not be divulged! Otherwise, secrecy would be pointless, secret societies would lose their reason for existence, conspiracy theories would fall flat, and the wise would have nothing to be wise about.

I find the discussion of Cruxifusion interesting. This is from the Cruxifusion website:

Cruxifusion states on it's website that "Cruxifusion is a movement in the United Church of Canada, started within the younger generation of clergy who are committed to upholding the name of Jesus Christ within the church."

Really? Other than Gretta, who is trying to remove Jesus from the church?

Cruxifusion wants to reinforce a particular Christian ideology in the UCCan. The Tea Party wants to reinforce a particular Christian ideology in the Republican party. The ideologies of both groups, while not the same, are bible-based. They are both entities that exist outside the groups they are mostly associated with. Both try to exert influence within their associated organizations.

I never said Cruxifusion and the Tea Party were the same, but as an outsider to both organizations, I see similarities. Enough to make the observation that Cruxifusion is the Tea Party of the UCCan. I can appreciate if those who are in Cruxifusion or even just the UCCan don't see themselves that way.

Except that if you had any way of actually knowing the people in Cruxifusion you'd know that the statement (as it's being lived out) is exactly as I described it above: the setting aside of doctrinal and social ideas, and uniting under the name of Jesus Christ, rather than using differences in doctrinal and social ideas as an excuse for declaring those who disagree to be wrong and unChristian or heretical.

You're making assumptions that "upholding the name of Jesus Christ within the church" puts one at a particular point on the theological spectrum. It doesn't. For example, I know that there are people involved with Cruxifusion (at least from the Facebook page) who both support and oppose gay marriage. There are people who self-identify as fundamentalist and others who self-identify as at least liberal, if not progressive. The commonality is that they acknowledge one another as belonging to Christ rather than attack each other for disagreeing. I have found the diversity of the Cruxifusion group from what I've seen to be one of the more hopeful signs in the United Church that we can overcome the pigeon-holing and demonizing of others that so many want to engage in.

I thought that was what the United Church was for. You need to start an outside group to unify? I get the impression that Cruxifusion is trying to steer the ship to the right, and that's the basis for my comparison.

As a Christian denomination, why do we need a designated group to bring about unity under Jesus Christ? Why do we need to make a point of upholding the name of Jesus Christ within the church? 

Exactly. It's a group that has decided that it needed to be outside the reach of the UCCan to do its work. There is an inherent distrust there.

Come now, chansen. You're being disingenuous.

All you have to do is spend a little time on Wonder Cafe and you'll know that the "United" Church - name aside - is hardly in complete unity. Really - you've surely seen that on here. In fact you've commented on it in this very thread. You think "we" should be more like Greta and yet lots of "us" want to crucify her. My sense of Cruxifusion is not that it's an attempt to steer the church "to the right." If that's the goal then I can tell you that there are some very baffling people on their Facebook page. In fact, if that's the goal then I'm baffled about why I'd be on it. My goal is not to steer the United Church to the right. Cruxifusion intrigues me simply because it is attempting to be a group that is trying to set those divisions aside and focus on what unites rather than what divides. If it ever - ever - ever - starts to act like a successor to CoC then, frankly, I'm outta there.

I once had involvement with CoC before I really knew much about them. In fact, I got put on their Board for a time. I naively thought their goal was essentially what I see now in Cruxifusion - to focus the debate and discussion around Jesus. Instead, I found a collection of very angry people, many of whom weren't even United Church anymore. I used to refer to them as the "angry old men." (Because they were very angry, and they were mostly men, and with only a couple of exceptions they were definitely older.) Constantly railing against the United Church, or whoever the Moderator happened to be at any given time, or whatever. I got away from them and never looked back. In fact, I was very hesitant about Cruxifusion at first simply because I, too, was concerned that it was yet another opportunity for anger to be vented. Thankfully, I've found that to be not the case.

Again...focusing on unity by creating a separate group.... Really?!?

I don't see it as a "separate group" per se, in that I don't see it being opposed to or in competition with anyone in particular. Every organization has within itself various "subgroups" if you will. The existence of those subgroups doesn't necessarily lead to disunity. Is Cruxifusion a group of people within the United Church who have a particular common outlook? Yes. That would be in comparison with a group like the CoC which definitely set itself up as the "opposition" and which I found I could not belong to, because in spite of the fact that the formal name was "The Community of Concern Within The United Church of Canada" I could not personally reconcile being CoC with being United Church - like many of the directors, who also had stopped being United Church even while they were directors of CoC. The difference is they left the United Church while I left the CoC. But what I see as hopeful from Cruxifusion is the presence within it of people from virtually all parts of the theological spectrum who are able to work together, to talk together and not judge or dismiss one another. If that's "disunity" in your eyes, then I'll happily stand on the side of disunity.

We probably don't "need" a designated group. Individuals can do it on their own. However, people with common views often find each other. Either as individuals or as a group, there's a need to acknowledge that often those at either extreme point of the spectrum are convinced that only their way is valid. So one can only follow Christ if one is in favour of this or opposed to that. The extreme example would be Westboro Baptist Church. Within the UCC, the extreme example would probably be the Community of Concern, although I've found those to the left of the spectrum to be as dismissive of those who disagree with them, but probably less strident because they tend to see themselves reflected more by the denomination. But Christ is not about doctrine or social policy or a point on the theological spectrum. Doctrine and social policy and the theological spectrum are human constructs. If they are the centre of anyone's view of what it is to be Christian, then Christ is not at the centre. Then the church has fallen victim to principalities and powers which draw us away from the service of God and to the service of our own agenda, be that a conservative agenda or a liberal agenda. Be that a Catholic agenda or a Protestant agenda. Be that a United Church agenda or a Pentecostal agenda. 

That has nothing to do with what "separate" means. It's still a separate organization. Certainly, there are committees and sub-groups within the UCCan. For some reason, this route wasn't chosen here.

Then why choose to do it outside the UCCan umbrella?

Plus, if Cruxifusion is trying to "uphold the name of Jesus Christ", then what the hell is the UCCan doing? Tearing him down? 

Hi Chansen,

That is a limited understanding of what it means to "uphold."  Wanting to lift up doesn't automatically imply that there are forces seeking to tear down.  At minimum it indicates that we want to lift up.

I never said that woman was fat, but I did say she was rubenesque.  I have no idea why she was so insulted.  Just because there are similarities it doesn't follow that things are the same.  I mean fat is considered derogatory and rubenesque is an arts term for overweight individuals.  See, not the same thing at all.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi paradox3

For the same reason that Affirm is necessary for some Cruxifusion is necessary for others.

That doesn't make Affirm and Cruxifusion enemies.  I does mean that each are supporting different constituencies.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think we're talking past each other. I don't see Cruxifusion - setting aside the fact that I don't consider myself as "belonging" to Cruxifusion - as "outside the UCCan unbrella." It's not a formal committee, subcommittee, etc. of the United Church. Does that make it "outside the UCCan umbrella?" It makes it outside the UCC bureaucracy. I would hope that the UCC is more than the bureaucracy and all its committees. There are several groups that I have contact with. A couple on Facebook, a couple that I interact with in my own area. They're all made up of United Church people, none of the groups are within your definition of the "UCC umbrella." I guess I'm quite a rebel.

Personally I don't see a group of United Church people who are tired of listening as conservatives tell liberals they're wrong and liberals tell conservatives that they're wrong and instead wanting to celebrate Jesus as outside the UCC umbrella.

RevJohn, 

I am trying to get my head around this analogy. Can you explain it a little further, please? It seems to me that if we were truly affirming as a denomination, there would be no need for Affirm.  

Hi paradox3,

I think you understand the analogy perfectly.

The United Church of Canada strives to be inclusive but only up to a point and that point differs depending upon whom you talk to.  There are some who never seek to see power used over any other and then there are some who never hesitate to use power over some others.

Affirm was created because there was resistance to any sexuality that wasn't considered the norm and the norm at the time was heterosexuality.  Affirm wasn't anti-heterosexual it simply wanted to uphold the notion that there was a place in the Church for folk who were not heterosexual.  Affirm continues because even in 2013 there are still some people for whom any sexuality but heterosexuality is icky.  And some of those people have no problem using their power to push icky out.

Cruxifusion has come into existence because there is resistance in The United Church of Canada to theology that is not considered the norm and the norm at this time is described as liberal.  So anything which fails to fall under that umbrella is considered icky. 

As Rev. Steven Davis points out the qualifiers of liberal and conservative are not very helpful theologically and there are a number of reasons why that is so.  That does nothing really to change the fact that our denominational members use those distinctions to establish we/they relationships.  And, people being what they are there are some who will use whatever power they hold as "we" to make life miserable for any they deem "they."  Again, to see that in action one only needs to go to the "Where Presbytery Meets" thread I link above and read the minutes of how the Executive acted in such a way as to spit on both justice and inclusivity.

Grace and peace to you.

John

So . .  . if we were as inclusive theologically as we claim to be, there would be no need for Cruxifusion either? 

That would be true, except that complete inclusivity is, in my view, impossible. As I've said before, if you stand for anything you'll exclude (or at least make feel excluded) some of those who stand for anything else. If you standing for nothing you'll exclude (or at least make feel excluded) those who stand for something. There will always be room for people of like mind to gather together and encourage one another. My difference with chansen, however, is that the existence of such pockets does not mean disunity. It can, in fact, promote unity if done in such a way that the various pockets don't judge others or try to drive others out.

Unfortunately, I've heard too often over the years from those at one extreme that "if you don't think homosexuality is a sin you're going to hell" or, from the other extreme, "if you're not on side with Greta and the progressive Christianity movement you're totally out of it and irrelevant."

Hi paradox3.

That is correct.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Can't say I have ever heard a United Church person express the view that homosexuality is a sin that will send you to hell, although I have heard a few church people express discomfort with the idea of same sex marriage. 

As for the uber progressive point of view you describe, I have heard variations of it in real life. 

Don't see either extreme as particularly "inclusive". Or "radically inclusive" as some involved with the progressive movement like to claim. 

Hi p3:

I share your sentiments.

Although I realise that "Cruxifusion" is designed to unite opposing factions within the United Church, and is not meant to be suggestive of any doctrine, it is, in my opinion, an ill-chosen term, suggestive of Pauline doctrine. It is not a neutral term suggesting inclusiveness. If we were as theologically inclusive as we claim to be, then "inclusiveness" says it all.

When I joined the UCC seven years ago, our minister was well aware of where I stood theologically. I had told her clearly that I believed in God as the self-creative universe, that I took the Bible metaphorically, that my faith was experiential rather than doctrinal, and she said this was no hindrance in me joining the United Church. "We are inclusive," she said.

"Cruxifusion" may be designed to unite the United Church from within, but I think it will further alienate it from the outside. Church already is irrelevant, and will become more so using terms that are perceived as absurd by the secular majority.

Channelling Chansen: Too late we already do look absurd from the outside.

To be fair, one side is saying that you'll suffer and wither and become a shell of your former self, and the other side is saying you'll go to hell.

Look, what I'm really saying is that the God stuff is playing to a declining market. You guys are literally in the middle, getting squeezed on both sides by those leaving for more insane supernatural beliefs, and those leaving the faith entirely. I don't see a large middle ground of sort-of-believers. I'm sure there are people who will disagree with me right away and point to the growing spritual-but-not-religious, but they're not coming to church, so these people lose.

When I take stock of the UCCan, I see a national network of people and facilities, but it's a network in rapid decline. But within that network is an opportunity.

The "do nothing" approach is no longer an option, and you're not going to get the evangelical types away from their evangelical churches. You don't have the right brand to attract that market. I think the growth opportunities for you involves dropping the God stuff and focusing on people instead of odd beliefs. Of course you're not going to do that - you're a church and you believe, dammit. You'll go down with the ship before that happens. But my vision wasn't of a road the UCCan would realistically agree to walk down - I was only trying to come up with ideas that might work.

Interesting article about "the seeker churches", what do you think?

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-evangelical-untouchables-2-seeke...

First, that was really, really well done, waterfall. I laughed.

And Arminius, yes, I agree with you there. Cruxifusion isn't proposing anything terribly new or outside what you would expect from a Christian denomination. I'm being told time and again that it's about uniting the UCCan, but if it is, it's about uniting it around their ideals. Something tells me, for example, that Gretta is not a member, as its stated purpose pretty much excludes her.

Reading blogs and articles, there seems to be a lot of people who think the UCCan "isn't Christian enough". Cruxifusion seems to be addressing that observation. In a world with declining numbers of believers, especially among young people, I would think that being less Christian would be a good thing, a non-threatening thing.

Well, waterfall, I don't think it is too late.

We could, for instance, let the world know that faith is experiential, and that its outward expressions are metaphorical, including the traditional Christian expressions. This would make religious expression into an art.

If the creative power of the universe really created us in its image, as creators, then our religious expressions should be art, shouldn't they?

What has hurt Christian religion over the past 2,000 years, and rendered it irrelevant in our present age, is its absolutism, not its creativeness.

Chansen, 

The Unitarian Universalists pretty much have the market share you are suggesting the United Church pursue. The UU's have experienced only modest growth in recent years. And they have the same problem holding on to their young people that we have in mainline Christian denominations. 

I don't think they've tried all my ideas, but maybe it's moot. Maybe the United Church and all churches are ultimately doomed. I don't think that's a bad thing, but you probably do.

If that's the case, there are going to be a lot of reasons. Us atheists and our arguments would only be a small part of it. I just don't think you can compete with all there is to do these days on a Sunday morning, or any other time of the week, for that matter. If no one buys the beliefs any more (because they're not believable), and we all have better things to do, what did people expect to happen?

The crazy thing is, I hope it's the hateful churches who go first, not you guys. But they've been better at using fear to keep themselves afloat. Maybe you're the victims of your own niceness. Maybe you should have been preaching to fear God more, but I think that would delay the inevitable.

I see potential growth avenues away from belief, focusing on "United" instead of "Church". Maybe I'm wrong and there are no opportunities.

The church is essentially (and slowly) reverting to counter-culture, after 1500 years or so of being part of the dominant culture. I would argue that the 1500 years have been the anomaly as opposed to the norm. The church will always exist as a counter-cultural community of faith, who seek to proclaim and live that faith out. But it will be a smaller (much smaller) group of people, probably mostly without buildings and other material wealth. I would say that probably is inevitable. I don't think it will happen overnight, or even in 50 years necessarily. It will be a very slow (and therefore very painful and frightening) evolution (or devolution, depending on how you see things) for those who have trouble imagining the church as anything other than the moral watchdog of society and the arbiter of public ethics for everyone - on or out of the church.

Are there ways to slow the process? Probably. From a faith perspective should we struggle for survival, and grasp at straws in the hope of a few more years - when the one we supposedly follow didn't? Of course, if we decide to let go of God and Jesus then it wouldn't really matter if what we did was faithful to his example, would it.

So maybe some of the things chansen mentions would do it. Although, frankly, I'm not sure why I'd want to go to a church to listen to a TED-style talk when I can turn on Netflix and just watch TED Talks while sitting comfortably in my living room.

I think it's the assumed moral watchdog role that has caused the largest backlash. It's that sort of hypocrisy that creates anti-theists out of atheists and spurs people to action.

There is just so much about Christianity that is worth fighting against, from gay-shaming, to stupid birth control initiatives, to interference in science, to teaching kids to accept bad explanations. The worst thing about the decline of the UCCan, is that you guys have worked hard to not be like "those" Christians, and yet you're leading the decline.

It was one idea. I think it has merit, but maybe it wouldn't work. You need extraordinary people with at least decent speaking abilities at events like that, and they aren't in abundant supply.

The reason to attend would be to ask questions and take part.

I would agree with you on that. And, both historially and thelogically, it's a role the church never should have taken on. Unfortunately the church became hopelessly enmeshed with the Roman Empire to the point where church and state were virtually inseparable. The church then became that "moral watchdog" over the whole culture - although it didn't do a very good job of it, because the church, once it gained its own power, often acted immorally. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The church has no exemption from that. It began to act as the agent of the state rather than as a counter cultural community of faith. Thus, Karl Marx - who was bang on when he argued that religion had become "the opiate of the masses." The role of the church had become keeping people happy in their misery in order to maintain the status quo, rather than challenging the status quo to try to lift people out of their misery.

The gradual separation of church and state (in real and practical ways; I'm not talking about technical "constitutional" things) will be in the short term painful for the church; in the long term probably healthy - not in numbers (which will decline as there will no longer be any social benefit gained from being part of the church) but perhaps in faithfulness and desire to live according to "the way," since those who will be left will be those who are truly committed to making this thing called "faith" work. But it will be a long process.

As far as I know, you haven't suggested anything that would be new for the Unitarians. 

I wonder how many people remember the whole Karl Marx quote?

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people........

Religion is only the illusory sun, which revolves around man, as long as he does not revolve around himself"   Karl Marx

That is the full context (well, the surrounding context) of the Marx quote as opposed to the usual paraphrase. Marx is not lauding the virtues of religion, however. It is still a quote condemning religion as that which keeps the oppressed happy in their physical oppression, while doing little to set them free from that oppression.

True but it does come across less severe when quoted in it's entirety, or surrounding context.

Nice example of atheists "cherry picking", LOL.