*** THIRD DRAFT ***
		PROPOSED MERGER OF THROOP & NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES
      		Opposing Arguments by David S. Lawyer (Throop member)

The proposed "merger" would likely result in selling Throop Memorial
Church.  With the millions of dollars realized from the sale, a new
church would likely be built where the Neighborhood church is now
located at 301 N. Orange Grove Blvd.  Although it is euphemistically
called a "merger", the effect is actually tantamount to a takeover of a
small but wealthy (in physical assets) church (Throop) by a much larger
one.  But it is a takeover which would likely result in selling the
Throop church property.  Throop Church is on fairly sound financial
footing and obtains substantial income from renting the apartment
complex it owns next door to the church as well as renting out the
school it owns behind the parking lot.  Thus there is no pressing need 
to sell the property.

One argument put forth for merger is that there would then be enough
members for a wider variety of activities.  But there is no reason why
there cannot be just as wide a variety of activities with two churches
if members from one church attend the activities of their choice at the
other church.  Toward this end both churches should coordinate their
activities so as not to sponsor the same activity unless there is
sufficient demand for such activity at both churches.

Furthermore, I suggest that Throop church seek volunteers to initiate a
wide variety of activities such as weekend retreats in the local
mountains and widely publicize such activities in order to attract new
members.  For example, the Episcopal Church in Pasadena has 36 different
groups in which members may participate.  With increased membership
and a greater choice of activities the arguments for merger would become
moot.

Pasadena is now  blessed with two UU churches (Throop and Neighborhood). 
The "merger" proposal would result in just one UU church in Pasadena. 
Are two churches better than one?  Most other denominations seem to
think so.  A glance at the Pasadena yellow pages of the phone directory
shows that most denominations have more than one church in this area.

Is it better to have a number of small churches or one large one in a
given region?  Environmental considerations favor the small solution.
With many small local churches people need to travel less to get to the
nearest church, thereby reducing the use of fossil fuels.  The world is
running out of petroleum and the burning of fossil fuels is insidiously
contributing to global warming due to the resulting increase in carbon
dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.  It is thus very important to reduce
the amount of travel.  Neighborhood churches can help do this,
especially if a church is within walking or bicycling distance of one's
home.

This is not to say that the small churches should operate in isolation
from each other.  They should share experiences, cooperate on joint
projects etc.  Modern communication such as computer bulletin boards can
help facilitate this but even the telephone has a role to play.

Another advantage of many small churches over one large one is
competition.  If one church is better managed, its membership may
increase.  Other churches which may have decreasing membership will
realize that something is wrong and hopefully take corrective action to
reverse this trend, possibly by looking at what the church with
increasing membership may be doing right.

Even if all of the churches are well run, there will be differences in
their emphasis, style etc.  With many churches, one will often have a
choice of which one to attend, especially if one lives about
equidistant from two churches.  With only one church it is a take it or
leave it proposition with no choice.  Some will opt for the "leave"
alternative and may not attend any church at all or may attend some
other denomination.

Still another advantage is that it is possible for one to get to know
most all of the members in a small congregation and not have to look
at a very large number of strange faces as often happens in large 
churches.

The above arguments favoring the "many small" solution (recall the
phrase "small is beautiful") would favor keeping both Throop and the
Neighborhood churches and even implies that we may need more churches in
this region.  With two Unitarian churches in Pasadena, people have a
choice of which one to attend.  Having only one church (and thus no
choice among Unitarian churches) would likely result in fewer people
attending any Unitarian church in Pasadena.  In addition, some may not
attend the new church because it is too far away (especially if they
walk or bicycle to church).  A few might even leave the church due to
dismay over the merger.  Thus, rather than an increase in UU membership
as the proponents of the merger claim, there may unfortunately be a
decrease.

The destiny of Throop Church will soon be decided.  Should a church be
abandoned without compelling reasons to do so?  Once sold, the deed of
destroying the second Unitarian church in Pasadena is done forever. With
the lack of suitable sites for another church, along with very high
prices for property, there is little hope of ever obtaining another
church in this area. Thus the process of going from two
Unitarian-Universalist churches in Pasadena to one is practically
irreversible.  It is easy to go from 2 to 1 but nearly impossible to
undo such a move if it proves to be a mistake.  This is a strong
argument for rejecting the merger unless there were compelling reasons 
to merge (which there are not).

Public opinion surveys reveal that there is a long term trend in the US
towards liberal religious beliefs similar to that of the of the UU
church.  Thus there is more need than ever for UU churches.  Should we
not direct our efforts toward increasing both the number of activities
at Throop and increasing its membership rather than spending an
inordinate amount of time and effort on the merger question?  The merger
proposal should be soundly rejected so that Throop may get on with its
real mission in the world.