Presbyterians vote to endorse SSM

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Liberal Christianity has to attempt to broaden it's support base to survive (and will do that by making political decisions, like this one) but that base of support it's trying to reach out to are precisely that group of people which is becoming far less religious and far more secular. In doing so, it alienates those which are arguably most committed to the doctrine of the faith it proclaims, sending them into the arms of the conservative elements of that faith. These kinds of actions might buy it time in the short run, but will ultimately only further the disintegration of the liberal churches, and in fact may end up accelerating it.

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/

[TNF]

Liberal Christianity has to attempt to broaden it's support base to survive (and will do that by making political decisions, like this one) but that base of support it's trying to reach out to are precisely that group of people which is becoming far less religious and far more secular. In doing so, it alienates those which are arguably most committed to the doctrine of the faith it proclaims, sending them into the arms of the conservative elements of that faith. These kinds of actions might buy it time in the short run, but will ultimately only further the disintegration of the liberal churches, and in fact may end up accelerating it.

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/

They'll grow out of it eventually. What's the point in being religious if you aren't going to accept the moral dictates of the religion you claim to adhere to?

[courts]

Liberal Christianity has to attempt to broaden it's support base to survive (and will do that by making political decisions, like this one) but that base of support it's trying to reach out to are precisely that group of people which is becoming far less religious and far more secular. In doing so, it alienates those which are arguably most committed to the doctrine of the faith it proclaims, sending them into the arms of the conservative elements of that faith. These kinds of actions might buy it time in the short run, but will ultimately only further the disintegration of the liberal churches, and in fact may end up accelerating it.

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/

They'll grow out of it eventually. What's the point in being religious if you aren't going to accept the moral dictates of the religion you claim to adhere to?

hopefully paganism will make a comeback so we won't have to deal with atheistkult secular humanists replacing fundies

[Oakvale]

Liberal Christianity has to attempt to broaden it's support base to survive (and will do that by making political decisions, like this one) but that base of support it's trying to reach out to are precisely that group of people which is becoming far less religious and far more secular. In doing so, it alienates those which are arguably most committed to the doctrine of the faith it proclaims, sending them into the arms of the conservative elements of that faith. These kinds of actions might buy it time in the short run, but will ultimately only further the disintegration of the liberal churches, and in fact may end up accelerating it.

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/

They'll grow out of it eventually. What's the point in being religious if you aren't going to accept the moral dictates of the religion you claim to adhere to?

This is exactly my take on "liberal" [insert religion here]. "Believe what you want! isn't a very compelling basis for what purports to be a religion.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Liberal Christianity has to attempt to broaden it's support base to survive (and will do that by making political decisions, like this one) but that base of support it's trying to reach out to are precisely that group of people which is becoming far less religious and far more secular. In doing so, it alienates those which are arguably most committed to the doctrine of the faith it proclaims, sending them into the arms of the conservative elements of that faith. These kinds of actions might buy it time in the short run, but will ultimately only further the disintegration of the liberal churches, and in fact may end up accelerating it.

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/

They'll grow out of it eventually. What's the point in being religious if you aren't going to accept the moral dictates of the religion you claim to adhere to?

There's no basis to assume that they will "grow out of it."  But, the numbers do show that religious progressives are more racially diverse and appeal more to younger generations.  There's also a mere nine-point gap between progressives and conservatives even though the media gives virtually zero airtime to Christians who aren't conservative.  With that, and the growing dislike of fundamentalism, I think it's reasonable to assume that progressives will be in the majority not too long from now.  The fact that more and more churches are beginning to listen to the pro-LGBT groups only reaffirms that.  Conservative and fundamentalist churches will continue to exist of course, but eventually they're going to lose influence once progressives are able to frame the debate and rebrand.

As for the rest of your comment, I think you are grossly misunderstanding what "progressive" means in this context.  Progressive Christians don't reject moral dictates.  It's not like 'cafeteria Catholicism' or any wishy-washy form of 'belief.'  If I had to describe what Progressive Christians believe in a sentence, I'd say it's willingness to question tradition, worship more expressively, and embrace intrareligious diversity.  However, there's plenty of variation even among progressives both on theological and political issues, so it's more of a theological approach than anything else.  In fact, I would say that the only thing most Progressive Christians agree on is the acceptance of LGBT people - at least, that's how it's been from my observation.

[TNF]

Would not accepting LGBT persons necessarily mean voiding any pretense of being Christians, though? Christianity is pretty explicitly anti-LGBT in its doctrine. (Though of course one can debate the extent to which an 'LGBT' identity existed in the ancient world; sexual orientation as a construct is a relatively new phenomenon)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Would not accepting LGBT persons necessarily mean voiding any pretense of being Christians, though? Christianity is pretty explicitly anti-LGBT in its doctrine. (Though of course one can debate the extent to which an 'LGBT' identity existed in the ancient world; sexual orientation as a construct is a relatively new phenomenon)

Obviously people have their own standards for what makes a Christian and what does not.  I like to assume that most Christians base those standards on statements of faith rather than wedge issues, but that's obviously not the case for many people.  That said, Christianity was not established on wedge issues and even the earliest church fathers disagreed on virtually everything.  So, yes, while the majority of the world's Christian churches look down upon gay relationships, that does not make opposition to same-sex unions a "doctrine."  If the OP is of any indication, it's that this issue is far from settled.

[ilikeverin]

Good news.  It will be interesting to see if the PCUSA's decision intensifies the pressure that the United Methodist Church faces from within to do the same.

Perhaps, but they won't succeed.   Although it's probable that opinion in the UMC continues to march to the left within the US, most of the growth of the denomination is outside the country, in more theologically conservative regions, which are therefore getting a larger and larger share of UMC General Convention delegates to vote against any liberalization of UMC policies on LGBT issues.  If anything, this sort of decision by yet another mainline Protestant denomination may make UMC members even more agitated and prone to a schism, although I don't think the denomination is there yet.  (It would be very interesting to see a "schism from the left".)

[DC Al Fine]

Good news.  It will be interesting to see if the PCUSA's decision intensifies the pressure that the United Methodist Church faces from within to do the same.

Perhaps, but they won't succeed.   Although it's probable that opinion in the UMC continues to march to the left within the US, most of the growth of the denomination is outside the country, in more theologically conservative regions, which are therefore getting a larger and larger share of UMC General Convention delegates to vote against any liberalization of UMC policies on LGBT issues.  If anything, this sort of decision by yet another mainline Protestant denomination may make UMC members even more agitated and prone to a schism, although I don't think the denomination is there yet.  (It would be very interesting to see a "schism from the left".)

UMC seems destined for schism of one sort or another. The progressive and conservative wings are just too evenly matched.

As for the PCUSA, I was talking to my PCA pastor today. He said that a few dozen congregations saw the writing on the wall and jumped to the PCA a few months before the vote, but there's no word of quitters now.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Technically, I'm still a Presbyterian and this is perfectly in line with its current doctrine.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

UMC seems destined for schism of one sort or another. The progressive and conservative wings are just too evenly matched.

The UMC structure makes any major schism highly unlikely.  It is not a congregational church but an episcopal church and its Book of Discipline states that individual churches cannot leave unless given permission to do so.  At the very least, there would be a messy fight over property and the like if there were to be any schism.  The situation is very much like that of The Episcopal Church, except that unlike the TEC, it likely will be the progressive wing that seeks to leave.

[ilikeverin]

UMC seems destined for schism of one sort or another. The progressive and conservative wings are just too evenly matched.

The UMC structure makes any major schism highly unlikely.  It is not a congregational church but an episcopal church and its Book of Discipline states that individual churches cannot leave unless given permission to do so.  At the very least, there would be a messy fight over property and the like if there were to be any schism.  The situation is very much like that of The Episcopal Church, except that unlike the TEC, it likely will be the progressive wing that seeks to leave.

That's some of it - some of it is just the institutional culture.  The UMC's own self-narrative is that they feel like the one denomination that hasn't just been endlessly splitting throughout the years, but has in fact been merging together more and more Wesley-inspired denominations.  So there's a lot of handwringing about going the way of the Baptists/Presbys/everyone else.

However, on an intriguing note: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/methodist-panel-reinstates-defrocked-pastor.html?_r=0