Hmm, off the top o me 'ead:

o Virtual Pastoral Care for those who have chosen to drop their Meat bodies and Go Totally Virtual;

o Interstellar Outreach;

o More Hierarchy, for when Humanity goes Extraplanetary, someone care to come up for terms for 'Responsible for Earth', 'Responsible for Solar System', 'Responsible for Interstellar'?

o psychedelia, both drug-induced and mechanically-induced (geomagnetism, etc) will become an integral part of Pastoral Care;

o the Church will head a campaign dedicated to the rights of those who want to stay one shape and form through their entire existence;

o Atheists will be an open and active part of the Church;

o there will be no need of an actual Church space, as people will be able to have a sort of communal 'mind-meld', thanks to cybernetics and/or meditation techniques;

o Jesus itself will incarnate and go on tour with the band Rocks of Ages.  The lead singer will be the hermaphroditic atheist, Bono;

o it will also be part of Pastoral training to be able to actively delve into the Spiritual Realm.  Think a combination of Travel Agent, Explorer, and Psychiatrist;

o the UCC will have its first off-Earth outfit on the Chinese moon base.

I think that will be enough for now.

Just a Self-writing poem,

Inannawhimsey

I have to say I loved a few of these.... and did not like a few either.

I will think on it....

I am with Stevie. Plus I have questions.

• If you join Presbytery and Conference, what happens in larger geographical areas?
• join with which denominations??
• "co-sourced" accounting systems??? with which denominations? how would that work? explain the term "co-sourced" (sounds like bafflegab)

I am sure I will have more thoughts later.

My thoughts in Italics ...

1. General Council meets in October in a fixed location for 1.5 days to discuss 20 resolutions

No especial thoughts on this one as I'm not familiar enough with the structure of GC to know when they meet, for how long or how often, ie how this would differ from the current structure.

2. We have either conferences or presbyteries but not both

I'm familiar with conference and presbytery but I'm not familiar with just how much overlap vs. different responsibilities there are between the two; if this would be a way of cutting back on red tape and streamlining absolutely; but if they serve two different purposes, there is an effective division of labour, I have no problem with both running. Again, I'll leave this to those with more familiarity with the specifics.

3. Our accounting and systems are co-sourced with four other denominations

I don't see why not if everyone agrees and the finances aren't all mixed up in some inequitable fashion.

4. Our General Council offices are 1/3 their present size

I don't get the sense this would be such a bad thing ...

5. We pay student ministers to go to theological school – they pick where they want to go and fund the schools (we don’t)

As someone who has rediscovered her faith enough that I wouldn't be surprised at finding myself someday on a path to ministry I certainly won't complain about this, provided it is financially feasible and doesn't take away monies that could be spent elsewhere - social and community outreach etc.

6. We merge with two other denominations to redo 1925

If we can find other like-minded denominations, why not? But I wouldn't force this; 1925 was kind of capturing lightning in a bottle and I wouldn't want this to happen just for the sake of it happening.

7. We have ½ the UC congregations of 2009 and we sell 2/3 of our real estate

I actually think this could be a good idea as there are so many churches sitting half empty or more - unless #6 were to happen, re. merging further with other denominations, I definitely think the monies earned through the sale of church buildings, and saved by not upkeeping near-empty churches could be put to better use; church after all is not just 4 square walls of bricks and mortar, it's a worship community. The one thing I would caution is that many other community groups often use church spaces - subsidized daycares, charities, etc.; I would want to make sure whoever church buildings were sold to either were these groups, or agreed to allow the continued use of space.

8. 1/3 of our urban churches are in shopping centres

I suppose this idea wouldn't be so bad from the point of view of the space being more affordable than a whole big ole building and could be more accessible to urban worshippers (on transit routes etc.) - I do have to admit to a bit of guttoral unease though; brings a whole new meaning to moneylenders in the temple huh? Although perhaps in the reverse ...

9. We have only 10 national committees

10. We have just concluded a successful $50 million bequest campaign

Both of the above again I have to admit to really just having begun being aware of the church, its structure, and its language in this regard, so I'm not sure how many national committees we have at present; again i'm all for streamlining provided our structure can still be well-run by that smaller number of committees. If I understand #10 correctly, is this basically a very successful awareness campaign as to legacy/bequest donations? If so - I think having that information more readily available and understood is never a bad thing; however I'm afraid it might be used to keep open unviable churches, in conflict with one of the other predictions above, and I wouldn't want to see this be a pressure thing when many have other places for their bequests to go as well, both charitably and within their family ... if a balance here could be found between an awareness campaign and a fundraising campaign I would be comfortable with that.

Not sure how congregations will like beyond forced into closure, even though this sounds like a good idea.  There seem to be lots of small churches in small communities with very few other services (stores, medical, school etc).  The members seem to be emotionally attached to there buildings though.  Maybe it is time to look at how many hours of volunteer activity a congregation do - and what % goes to the upkeep of the building.  Did Jesus ever say anything about "I came to encourage the upkeep of buildings?"

I'm not sure that these are either bold or new.  Much of this will happen by necessity as the church gets smaller...cms

Everything old is new again. The early meetings of General Council were in the fall, not the summer.  

Again, already happening. Toronto Conference has downloaded everything to the presbyteries except for two committees, Settlement and Interview Board. Conference exists for some very narrow purposes. Presbytery is where things happen. And there are fewer, larger presbyteries.

Just keep the tithes separate.
 

Probably not, as the human resource functions become more centralized.

Unlikely, as there are few potential partners out there.
 

Maybe. Aut it will be the rural congregations who will disappear.

Already there are successful models out there. New Hope United Church in Vaughn is one. ..

1. General Council meets in October in a fixed location for 1.5 days to discuss 20 resolutions

Only if a grassroots voting process gets to choose which 20 resolutions, not the Executive.

2. We have either conferences or presbyteries but not both.

This was rejected already, because no-one would trust General Council to design the new structure after the vote was taken. Solution- GC needs to build up trust levels first.

3. Our accounting and systems are co-sourced with four other denominations.

We've already outsourced pensions, benifits, health coverage. We've gutted mission outreach.  What's left to outsource?

4. Our General Council offices are 1/3 their present size.

My church has an unused Sunday School wing here in Ottawa we'd gladly rent you which would have oodles of room, at half the rates you're paying now.

5. We pay student ministers to go to theological school – they pick where they want to go and fund the schools (we don’t).

So we'll be sending our students to the USA & the UK? Harvard Divinity charges $25k/year. Duke is $17k.  Has anyone done the math?

6. We merge with two other denominations to redo 1925.

Will what's left of the liberal wing of the Anglicans and the Unitarians really make good bedfellows?

7. We have ½ the UC congregations of 2009 and we sell 2/3 of our real estate.

Wow, what balls. Throw the Trust of Model Deed out the window, seize congregational assets. The trust issue mentioned in #2 above comes into play. See you in court!

8. 1/3 of our urban churches are in shopping centres.

Retails costs 2-3x more than what most churches pay now. And how is having our Archives located on the shopping level of the 3250 Bloor St. headquarters working for us? 

9. We have only 10 national committees
News flash: nobody cares what GC committees say. Start a Facebook group and we'll all do the work together for free.

10. We have just concluded a successful $50 million bequest campaign.

Please refer to the trust issue mentioned in #2 , again.

If those are the best ideas people inside the Executive can come up with, there will be nothing left of the UCC in ten years, because we will have sold all our assets, increased our spending, and lost control of all our programs. All that will be left standing is a dysfunctional Executive.

We were talking about payroll after our board meeting last night. Our treasurer had some comments about the current system that came into effect within the last couple of years. We are a small church in a small city. We get by "paycheque to paycheque". Our treasurer, who is a volunteer, said that it used to be easy to pay the minister and the part time secretary. All she had to do was write the cheque and the task was out of the way. Now she spends a lot of time on the phone with someone in Toronto (we are in BC) trying to sort out payroll issues. I mentioned this suggestion to her and she shuddered. Decentralizing things is not all that it is cracked up to be.

Which two denominations are you thinking of? The Anglicans did not want to join with us back in the 60's/70's and we could not sort out the organizational challenges between the two denominations. Our church in this community shares the building with a very conservative Anglican congregation. Well, the congregation isn't so conservative, it is the leadership. This has made things interesting, to say the least, over the years. Are they going to give up bishops or are we going to accept bishops?

I do think we need to shift the way we think and the way we do things. We cannot just do what used to work. Facebook might just be one option. This forum is another. How do we meet face to face? How do we "do Sundays"? We need to be creative and not just do what our grandfathers and grandmothers did in 1900. Though I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps if we had the spirit of our grandmothers and grandfathers, we could come up with something wonderful.

THen something is not being communicated.  Our treasurer spends less than 5 minutes on the phone each month.  And maybe 10-15 entering the info into the financial software and checking that it balances (this latter part was much longer until we started to understand how ADP communicated, now it likely takes as long as it used to when she wrote the cheques).

THe suggestion in the thread however likely has little to do with local congregations.  After all they aren't ppart of the GC accounting now anyway.  I think the suggestion was about what happens with the GC accounting, not any other court of the church.

This doesn't seem to be enough time and an unrealisitc limit on the amount of work.  THe time of year doesn;t matter to me.

or we go back to conferences doing less (like just what the Manual requires) thereby freeing up resources for RPesbyteries to do the work they need to do.  Oh and we actually act like we believe that the task of the "higher" courts is to support the work of the central court of the church -- the Pastoral Charge.

Possibly workable, if we find someone willing to work with 4 or 5 different systems.  That seems unlikely.

and who will be doing the work GC currently does?

so we don't think it important to ensure there is a UCCan presence in theological education?  in the formation of UCCan clergy?
 

and who exactly would be our partners?  would this be a partnership of minstry or of "we have to get together or we will both go broke"?

possibly going to happen anyway.  totally unenforceable to "make" happen.  but not likely a bad idea

possibly has merit.  if the congregation has a vision and mission that matches the space.

are we talking permanent committees or ad hoc (term limited) working groups?  fewer committees would be a great idea, especially if comittees are there for no apparent reason.  But not if cutting out the committee merely means shifting the work on to the staff who currently supportt he committee work

Good luck with that!  Is that whole 50million for GC or a cumulative figure of all UCCan organs?

After sleeping on these ideas, I was greatly troubled. The Permanent Committee on Finance is basically planning ways to manage the further decline of the UCC. 

Is there a Permanent Committee on Anything which is planning how to re-energize our primary mission unit, which is the congregation?

Main thought at this point:  only 1.5 days for Gen Council at 1/3 the people?  And only one tier between them and a congregation?  I'm afraid of the increased congregationalism that takes away from the UCC umbrella that I rather like.  We have enough denominations and churches that do things that way - the UCC doesn't need to follow.

 How about allowing all people in cities to join and help run their local UCC,  without discrimination based on ability, sexual  identity or orientation, theology, race, language, or sex. Leaving the decision with people who agree with the UCC statements of faith to decide if they want to join.

How about as a first step changing they way we run existing UCC city churches and having members in cities  vote to select the board and membership policies in their neighbourhood church instead of the UCC they choose to (or are forced to) go to.

Um... that's how it is.

My thoughts too DKS

To be a church means there is some discrimination based on theology.  ANd that is not likely to change (yes there is a gret deal of room to debate the nature and limits of that discrimination).  ANd if people want to help "run the church" there is considerable merit to ensuring they have chosen to make a committment to that church.  Joining/membership is one way to do that.

Many businesses and non or not for organizations are studying their business models closely to see how they can remain viable.  Our church can fit into all these categories and therefore we need to look at ways to be good stewards of the money given to us. 

The use of on-line social media needs to be explored.  Our yoounger members, and potential members, are comfortablewith this means of communications and community. Avoiding costly duplication of services needs to be ensured.  I think it would be beneficial to have talks among the leaders of the church, with absolutely no "sacred cows" in the room.  Get way outside the box and look at ways of delivering services to those that need them, in the way they are needed, while maximizing all resourses.

It is very important not to get caught up in religious rhetoric and navel gazing.  There is very important work going on in the world and our members, and potential members, will do this work whether  the church participates or not.

 I'd hate to be ever the pessimist...  But I feel that all of this is just trying to revive a goldfish that's floating sideways in the tank.  The United Church is going through the initial crest of the flood that is eventually going to destroy or drastically change Christian Church.  I think InnanaWhimsey touched on the more important issue.  How many people in the UCC can actually agree with the doctrine of Scripture espoused in the statement of union?  How many of us say the Apostle's creed with a disclaimer in our heads?  The models we have worked fine when we had butts in the seats.  So the cause is not the model, nor the 'governance structure' or 'co-modeled financial something something that only makes sense to an accountant' 

The problem is Christianity.  There.  I said it.  We've become so schizophrenic in the last few years, trying to proclaim an ultimately exclusivistic heritage in a way that actually echoes our modern spiritual piety.  What most of us in the pews believe is NOT the faith that has been handed down to us...  Most of us would disagree with all of the creeds, or at least have to view them in a subjective, post-modern, or existential way.  It's time that we accepted that most Canadians feel the same way.  If we are going to continue to be 'church' we need to be church for the people.  And the people are no longer pre-modern, unenlightened individuals that need a metaphor turned fairytale to live out their spiritual journey.  Christianity is dead in the public.  It's only dying slower in the churches.  There will be holdovers of course...  But they will become increasingly irrelevant to the rest of Canadian society.  What we need is to somehow find a language and a mode of worship that meets the needs of Canada.  Canadians don't want a fairytale that they need to believe.  The need an experience of God.  And I argue that Christianity has (in it's current language and form) completely alienated itself from meeting the needs of people who can't split their reason from their soul.  Most of us are merely Theists...  Not Christians.  It's time we stopped pretending.

"Most of us are merely Theists....Not Christians. It's time we stopped pretending"   Warriorcleric is right. The UC very much seems to have become a non-christian church in the past 20 years.  5 years ago our little congregation was served by a  minister who was in total agreement with the Basis of Union.  The next minster seemed to be in agreement at first, but this changed throug the 3 years she served our site as Pantheistic concepts were introduced.  Now we are served by a minister whose teaching I do not recognize as Christian though it is vague veiled in similar language to that used in the past.

The sad thing is the teachings of UC ministers have brought me to a place where I no longer see the need to be part of the church.  I no longer know what I beleive.  Attending church leaves me feeiling anxious and angry that my grounding faith has been robbed by some other agenda.

I have many acquaintances in the Aboriginal community and many are desparately trying to rediscover their cultural heritage which was intimately tied to their spirituality, their religion. They see rediscovery of their religion as the means to regain their identity, and vitality as a people; regaining their responsiblity to be stewards of the Land.

I can't help but wonder if in 50 or 100 or 500 years,  our progeny will be so lost and broken as to start seeking that which we seem to have so cavelierly abandonned.