To continue with the article on the "sins" of liberal Christianity, one of its guiding assumptions is that liberals have no commitments but rather is guided by "whatever".
I raised this with my post on Cal Thomas. Given the costs involved, churches and denominations have taken stands, ones which put them at odds with the wider church and society. Those things don't happen without a great deal of commitment.
I'm a Christian Too has a good post on the issue of commitments, especially in comparing liberal churches with megachurches. And isn't it odd to talk about commitment and then jump right into the numbers as if that soley determined the worth of an idea?
Not that there shouldn't be concern about growth. Some liberal churches have grown because they've created a distinct identity for themselves. It's something the UCC outreach campaigns have been based on. Not that there isn't room for improvement.
I've seen mainline churches reduce their commitments to campus ministries at the moment that evangelical groups are defining religion on campus. I've seen defeatism when it comes to young people and the church. But my criticism will be for another post.
But when it's only numbers you get into the absurd position of the IRD arguing that churches should not oppose US torture because this will cause membership decline. To defend the inexcusable because this is what sells is gospel killing.
There's lots of strategies which can make a difference for the church, but there has to be trust in doing the right thing, to not be seduced by the arguments of the IRD, to recognize that being a disciple may or may not always bring the results we want.