I've been thinking about the general fellowship of Unitarian Universalists -- I often do, and I mean more than the membership of churches though the UUA -- both because of the current crises at Starr King School for the Ministry, and the pan-mainline concern about ministerial salaries, maintaining buildings and (generally) the survival of theological seminaries.
But another, familiar question came up over coffee at church yesterday. That, in essence, it is very hard to describe what a Unitarian Universalist is, what keeps us together, or even what brought us to this place. That is, without rolling the bus over someone.
Perhaps the problem isn't that we're too small, but too large.
I'm half-joking, half-serious. We are institutionally too complex, with structures that are just large enough that they have to invest a high level of resources to keep going, but without the benefit of an economy of scale. I bet that's true of a number of congregations, too. And yet we have systems that try to span the variety of religiosities we've inherited. Can't speak for others, but these systems do not serve Christians well. What would we do if each of the new regions had to go it alone? Or if the theistic and Christian churches stood off? We would certainly have change and a lot of work, but sometimes a good divorce is better than a bad marriage.
Of course, "staying large" (if what we have is largeness) is not in our hands. Social, economic and demographic challenges will probably cause us to shrink, refactor and contract. Indeed, we've been going through this for several years already, and when we get further along we'll know when the decline started. But shrinking what we have won't be enough of a solution. We'll need solutions (possibly institutions) that address needs quickly -- not "at the speed of church" -- and creatively, with few resources.
If not, we'll end up very small, still muddled and surely embittered.