In a highly individualistic and pluralistic America, there's some truth to the notion that the average religious Protestant tends to be a bit of a church shopper. Recent polling data have shown that American Christians tend to hop around a bit over their lifetime between different denominations. So in some respect, the spiritual smorgasbord that is the American religious scene could be viewed, crassly, as a marketplace of competing brands and tastes.
That being said, it's not the only or primary lens through which religious reporters should see their beat. Enter US News & World Report "God & Country" blogger Dan Gilgoff, who wrote last week on the Episcopal Church USA's move to allow the ordination of openly gay clergy.
In a follow-up blog post entitled "Tapping the Market for Gay-Friendly Churches," Gilgoff painted the ECUSA and other liberal mainline churches as having been unable thus far to successfully market themselves to apolitical evangelicals. Yet in doing so, Gilgoff reveals not only that he views religious denominations as competing brands, but that he confuses fundamentally theological and ethical concerns with political ones (emphasis mine):
..."[R]eligious nones" have nearly doubled in size since 1990, to more than 34 million Americans.
A good number of these religious exiles were turned off by their churches' conservative views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion. Roughly a third of former Roman Catholics or Protestants who are now unaffiliated say they just haven't found the right faith tradition yet.
Those stats suggest that there's a growing market for churches that have the personal and spiritual appeal of the evangelical tradition without the conservative politics. So far, though, neither the Episcopal Church nor the other mainline traditions have figured out how to fill that niche.
Gilgoff here seems to consider politics as the chief motive behind an exodus from church, not concerns over doctrine and theology. After all, there's a big difference between a parishioner leaving a church because the pulpit is too political -- he/she may leave even though he/she agrees with the politics of the preacher -- and between leaving a church because the doctrine from the pulpit doesn't conform to one's politics or personal morality --e.g. a parishioner leaves the church because he/she believes in gay marriage and the pastor preaches homosexuality is a sin. Gilgoff seems to ignore the former motivation altogether.
What's more, Gilgoff's suggestion the Episcopal Church and other mainline churches have actively tried, and failed, to appeal to those who want an "evangelical tradition without the conservative politics" overlooks the fact that these mainline denominations have taken an increasingly activist posture on pet liberal political issues in the past few years.
For example, in order to protest Israel, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has sought to boycott companies that do business with the U.S.'s only democratic ally in the Middle East. Another mainline denomination, The United Church of Christ -- President Barack Obama's former denomination -- is supportive of the Democrat-endorsed Employee Free Choice Act, which would, if passed, institute card check in place of a secret election to unionize a shop.
Of course, many times these issues bleed over from membership meetings into the Sunday services themselves, where the sermon is an occasion to make a political argument from the pulpit.
If conservative politics is a turn-off, couldn't liberal pontificating on Israel and labor unions also be a reason the mainline denominations are not bringing in the sheaves of unaffiliated church-hoppers looking for that old time religion?
