"If only UUism was more theistic/atheistic/Christian/activist and agreed with me, then surely we would have more members?"
I know it's the human urge to think "If only I explained my position well enough, surely everybody would think like me."
But is "rational, good, people can disagree, and often do" really such a difficult concept? Lack of understanding of that seems to be the heart of this issue.
This is one interesting thing about living near an urban area with lots of flourishing UU churches. We have more and less theistic churches, more and less Christian churches, more and less activist churches, and some are more popular than others, but no one category particularly wants for members.
My particular conception of God doesn't work well with theistic services, and I like my activism to be focussed toward charity rather than politics, and it took awhile to find a church to match, but I did. My church is proof that humanist, less political churches can succeed. But all I have to do is drive in to the city to see a Christian UU church and a quite political UU church that are flourishing, too.
Even on the blogosphere, we have UUs who've left because we aren't theistic enough AND UUs who have left because we are too theistic.
The discussions about race and class issues as reasons the church is smaller have a fair amount of truth to them, but I never know what to do about those. I have a strong yen to say "If we're mostly white and educated, can't we just be who we are?" I don't want to exclude people, but I don't want to pander either, and many of the ideas for making ourselves seem welcoming to people with different cultures seem pandering to me.
At the same time, looking at UU churches and a map, it seems clear to me that UU churches of all theological stripes do well where there are lots of wealthy and educated people. So perhaps trying to make our faith appeal to the less wealthy and less well educated would help us grow.
Still thinking about these things.