Do churches generate a lot of revenue from the LGBT community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

This simply isn’t true. As this thread shows, there are plenty of churches that specifically market themselves as being LGBTQ “welcoming” and have ordained female ministers — those are the same churches that have generally undergone the dramatic membership declines. It is not that people can’t find such a church.

On the contrary, the churches that have stuck to more orthodox Christian principles — mainly non-denominational churches but also some smaller Presbyterian and Anglican sects — these have experienced the most growth. My non-denom church is packed on Sunday morning — easily 3,000-4,000 people across two services. I drive 40 minutes to get there. Along the way, I pass by tons of churches like the OP noted. I always observe mostly empty parking lots. Just out of pure curiosity, I have gone onto the websites for some of these churches and tried watching their services after they were done, just to compare them to my church. I can see why the parking lots are mostly empty — the sermons are boring, long on progressive politics and short on Jesus and the cross, the music is bad, the average age in the congregation looks to be 100. Who really wants to go to that church? My church is young (I am in my 40s and definitely not young by its standards), vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and completely focused on Jesus along with some application to your real life.

The reason why people have stopped going to church is multi-faceted and can’t be boiled down to a single reason. The best book on this subject if anyone really wants to dive into it is “The Great Dechurching.”

But it isn’t that Christianity has become unwelcoming to LGBTQ. There are plenty of churches that have gone out of their way in the opposite direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

This simply isn’t true. As this thread shows, there are plenty of churches that specifically market themselves as being LGBTQ “welcoming” and have ordained female ministers — those are the same churches that have generally undergone the dramatic membership declines. It is not that people can’t find such a church.

On the contrary, the churches that have stuck to more orthodox Christian principles — mainly non-denominational churches but also some smaller Presbyterian and Anglican sects — these have experienced the most growth. My non-denom church is packed on Sunday morning — easily 3,000-4,000 people across two services. I drive 40 minutes to get there. Along the way, I pass by tons of churches like the OP noted. I always observe mostly empty parking lots. Just out of pure curiosity, I have gone onto the websites for some of these churches and tried watching their services after they were done, just to compare them to my church. I can see why the parking lots are mostly empty — the sermons are boring, long on progressive politics and short on Jesus and the cross, the music is bad, the average age in the congregation looks to be 100. Who really wants to go to that church? My church is young (I am in my 40s and definitely not young by its standards), vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and completely focused on Jesus along with some application to your real life.

The reason why people have stopped going to church is multi-faceted and can’t be boiled down to a single reason. The best book on this subject if anyone really wants to dive into it is “The Great Dechurching.”

But it isn’t that Christianity has become unwelcoming to LGBTQ. There are plenty of churches that have gone out of their way in the opposite direction.

Please. It is true. I worked for the Catholic Church. It may not be the sole reason but it is one of many, and a significant one at that. I attend a left-leaning RCC church which is "young, vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and focused on Jesus along with application to your real life" and openly accepts gay people. It does make a difference to be involved in a parish that does not weaponize its faith against its adherents. While I am aware of the growth of nondenominational Christian churches, your n should not equal 1 and I'm sure I would find the music at your Church bad. Christian rock/pop is generally pretty boring, because ime it lacks a good melody and dynamics.

[Anonymous]

The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand the mega church. To that PP, how do you all get your know each other?
Do you do community outreach events?

My smaller Episcopal church ( approx 80-90 congregants at the service I attend does a lot in our community and helping others. That’s a big part of why we attend in addition to thrm being lgbt welcoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

This simply isn’t true. As this thread shows, there are plenty of churches that specifically market themselves as being LGBTQ “welcoming” and have ordained female ministers — those are the same churches that have generally undergone the dramatic membership declines. It is not that people can’t find such a church.

On the contrary, the churches that have stuck to more orthodox Christian principles — mainly non-denominational churches but also some smaller Presbyterian and Anglican sects — these have experienced the most growth. My non-denom church is packed on Sunday morning — easily 3,000-4,000 people across two services. I drive 40 minutes to get there. Along the way, I pass by tons of churches like the OP noted. I always observe mostly empty parking lots. Just out of pure curiosity, I have gone onto the websites for some of these churches and tried watching their services after they were done, just to compare them to my church. I can see why the parking lots are mostly empty — the sermons are boring, long on progressive politics and short on Jesus and the cross, the music is bad, the average age in the congregation looks to be 100. Who really wants to go to that church? My church is young (I am in my 40s and definitely not young by its standards), vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and completely focused on Jesus along with some application to your real life.

The reason why people have stopped going to church is multi-faceted and can’t be boiled down to a single reason. The best book on this subject if anyone really wants to dive into it is “The Great Dechurching.”

But it isn’t that Christianity has become unwelcoming to LGBTQ. There are plenty of churches that have gone out of their way in the opposite direction.

Please. It is true. I worked for the Catholic Church. It may not be the sole reason but it is one of many, and a significant one at that. I attend a left-leaning RCC church which is "young, vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and focused on Jesus along with application to your real life" and openly accepts gay people. It does make a difference to be involved in a parish that does not weaponize its faith against its adherents. While I am aware of the growth of nondenominational Christian churches, your n should not equal 1 and I'm sure I would find the music at your Church bad. Christian rock/pop is generally pretty boring, because ime it lacks a good melody and dynamics.

Good for you. But the fact that you attend church a Christian church and would presumably identify as a Christian— and found something that works for you and is apparently “gay accepting” — disproves the entire premise that the person before was making.

My point is that there are plenty of churches that exist along the entire spectrum on sexuality issues. If you want to find a Christian church that aligns with your view on sexuality, you can. The reasons for people not going to church are much more complicated. I tried to reference a very in depth and objective book which looks at this issue and pulls no punches.

My post was mainly in the Protestant context where there is a clear divide amongst churches growing and those that aren’t. And there is the unmistakable trend that the ones growing are the ones that are more orthodox.

The RCC is a bit of a different animal — and I know something about it because I grew up in the RCC before becoming an atheist for a long time. Whether particular parishes are more conservative or more liberal is usually not as apparent and the RCC is less concerned with how scripture is interpreted than it is with the Eucharist and church tradition. The homily at any RCC is the least important part of the Mass. So I agree, my points are not as relevant in that context. Though — the official RCC teachings on sexuality issues — that sex should be between a man and a woman in the context of marriage, period — have never wavered and likely never will. And the RCC is even more opposed to any use of contraception than evangelicals are.

Btw, I don’t mind some RCC music — older stuff. But the contemporary RCC music that is in your typical church on a Sunday — On Eagles Wings, Be Not Afriad, Gift of Finest Wheat — there’s no doubt this music is worse and even cornier than contemporary Christian music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the mega church. To that PP, how do you all get your know each other?
Do you do community outreach events?

My smaller Episcopal church ( approx 80-90 congregants at the service I attend does a lot in our community and helping others. That’s a big part of why we attend in addition to thrm being lgbt welcoming.

Good question. This is a major issue. I will say — when I first started going to a megachurch, I hadn’t attended church in a VERY long time and I wasn’t even sure what I believed. A personal crisis had brought me to the auditorium seats (it’s not really a pew after all). I would have described myself as an atheist or agnostic. In that initial context, the lack of intimacy in a megachurch was OK, I could just kind of blend in with the wallpaper. Nobody was running up to me afterwards and trying to figure out who this newcomer was. That’s the way I wanted it.

But after attending for a few months, I started to feel like I was sitting in the middle of the ocean and not being able to drink any water. There were people everywhere and I knew nobody. That started to feel very strange, especially since I felt like I was getting more and more into the theology and Jesus.

My church has small groups that meet during the week — it is one half Bible study where we go over the sermon from the prior week but also one-half support group where we simply talk about the good, bad, and ugly things going on in our lives. We are also in frequent touch during the week and we do service projects together. I ended up joining one a few months in and it made a huge difference. I could have that “small church” feeling with my group during the week but still the mega-church feeling on Sunday. It has been the best of both worlds.

I can’t even describe how close I am with my small group — they really have become a second family.

I have also taken multiple foreign missionary trips. The people I met on those trips have also become very good friends and people that I see on Sundays. But my contact with them can be more sporadic at times. The more regular contact is with my small group that meets every week.

I should also add — my church is very welcoming to newcomers. There is a newcomers reception after every service, every service begins with a big welcome from the pastor to anyone new, people walking around with lanyards saying “talk to me if you are new” all that jazz. I just didn’t avail myself of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

Quite a few at Episcopal and UU congregations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

Quite a few at Episcopal and UU congregations

Those aren't churches, more like clubs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

This simply isn’t true. As this thread shows, there are plenty of churches that specifically market themselves as being LGBTQ “welcoming” and have ordained female ministers — those are the same churches that have generally undergone the dramatic membership declines. It is not that people can’t find such a church.

On the contrary, the churches that have stuck to more orthodox Christian principles — mainly non-denominational churches but also some smaller Presbyterian and Anglican sects — these have experienced the most growth. My non-denom church is packed on Sunday morning — easily 3,000-4,000 people across two services. I drive 40 minutes to get there. Along the way, I pass by tons of churches like the OP noted. I always observe mostly empty parking lots. Just out of pure curiosity, I have gone onto the websites for some of these churches and tried watching their services after they were done, just to compare them to my church. I can see why the parking lots are mostly empty — the sermons are boring, long on progressive politics and short on Jesus and the cross, the music is bad, the average age in the congregation looks to be 100. Who really wants to go to that church? My church is young (I am in my 40s and definitely not young by its standards), vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and completely focused on Jesus along with some application to your real life.

The reason why people have stopped going to church is multi-faceted and can’t be boiled down to a single reason. The best book on this subject if anyone really wants to dive into it is “The Great Dechurching.”

But it isn’t that Christianity has become unwelcoming to LGBTQ. There are plenty of churches that have gone out of their way in the opposite direction.

Please. It is true. I worked for the Catholic Church. It may not be the sole reason but it is one of many, and a significant one at that. I attend a left-leaning RCC church which is "young, vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and focused on Jesus along with application to your real life" and openly accepts gay people. It does make a difference to be involved in a parish that does not weaponize its faith against its adherents. While I am aware of the growth of nondenominational Christian churches, your n should not equal 1 and I'm sure I would find the music at your Church bad. Christian rock/pop is generally pretty boring, because ime it lacks a good melody and dynamics.

Good for you. But the fact that you attend church a Christian church and would presumably identify as a Christian— and found something that works for you and is apparently “gay accepting” — disproves the entire premise that the person before was making.

My point is that there are plenty of churches that exist along the entire spectrum on sexuality issues. If you want to find a Christian church that aligns with your view on sexuality, you can. The reasons for people not going to church are much more complicated. I tried to reference a very in depth and objective book which looks at this issue and pulls no punches.

My post was mainly in the Protestant context where there is a clear divide amongst churches growing and those that aren’t. And there is the unmistakable trend that the ones growing are the ones that are more orthodox.

The RCC is a bit of a different animal — and I know something about it because I grew up in the RCC before becoming an atheist for a long time. Whether particular parishes are more conservative or more liberal is usually not as apparent and the RCC is less concerned with how scripture is interpreted than it is with the Eucharist and church tradition. The homily at any RCC is the least important part of the Mass. So I agree, my points are not as relevant in that context. Though — the official RCC teachings on sexuality issues — that sex should be between a man and a woman in the context of marriage, period — have never wavered and likely never will. And the RCC is even more opposed to any use of contraception than evangelicals are.

Btw, I don’t mind some RCC music — older stuff. But the contemporary RCC music that is in your typical church on a Sunday — On Eagles Wings, Be Not Afriad, Gift of Finest Wheat — there’s no doubt this music is worse and even cornier than contemporary Christian music.

We will have to continue to agree to disagree:

1. I have done a lot of reading on contemporary religious issues and listen to a lot of podcasts on said topic. I'm very well aware that the reasons people are not attending church are complicated but stand by my IRL experience that acceptance of homosexuality is an issue, even among straight people. I wish the religion thread on dcurbanmom wasn't so often a thread for multi-paragraph mansplaining.
2. I see your point on comparing Protestant Churches.
3. The homily may be less important but it does happen and people listen. Just because the Church has official teachings doesn't make them right. Church doctrine while sometimes claiming to be an eternal truth can be temporal as opposed to spiritual and not necessarily in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is the problem with "tradition."
4. While I think On Eagles Wings is insufferable, I love the St. Louis Jesuits et al. Be not afraid, I go before you always. Come follow me and I will give you rest. Come give to us oh, saving lord the bread of life to eat. Contemporary Christian music is 1000x worse and cornier. The Catholic folk songs you think are corny actually have catchy melodies and dynamics!

The future is not pro-life or Orthodox. If it is, then Christianity as it is practiced in the US is really in trouble. The way forward is not backwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

I attend one such church. It is all senior citizens except for one gay couple who literally can no longer partake in the catholic rituals.

Agree with the earlier post that these mainline Protestant churches with pride flags a flying are dying.

The Catholic and Evangelical progressive exiles who want to stay in the Christian church are rare - most are inclined to some sort of universal Unitarianism or humanism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

This simply isn’t true. As this thread shows, there are plenty of churches that specifically market themselves as being LGBTQ “welcoming” and have ordained female ministers — those are the same churches that have generally undergone the dramatic membership declines. It is not that people can’t find such a church.

On the contrary, the churches that have stuck to more orthodox Christian principles — mainly non-denominational churches but also some smaller Presbyterian and Anglican sects — these have experienced the most growth. My non-denom church is packed on Sunday morning — easily 3,000-4,000 people across two services. I drive 40 minutes to get there. Along the way, I pass by tons of churches like the OP noted. I always observe mostly empty parking lots. Just out of pure curiosity, I have gone onto the websites for some of these churches and tried watching their services after they were done, just to compare them to my church. I can see why the parking lots are mostly empty — the sermons are boring, long on progressive politics and short on Jesus and the cross, the music is bad, the average age in the congregation looks to be 100. Who really wants to go to that church? My church is young (I am in my 40s and definitely not young by its standards), vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and completely focused on Jesus along with some application to your real life.

The reason why people have stopped going to church is multi-faceted and can’t be boiled down to a single reason. The best book on this subject if anyone really wants to dive into it is “The Great Dechurching.”

But it isn’t that Christianity has become unwelcoming to LGBTQ. There are plenty of churches that have gone out of their way in the opposite direction.

Please. It is true. I worked for the Catholic Church. It may not be the sole reason but it is one of many, and a significant one at that. I attend a left-leaning RCC church which is "young, vibrant, fresh, engaging, intellectual, and focused on Jesus along with application to your real life" and openly accepts gay people. It does make a difference to be involved in a parish that does not weaponize its faith against its adherents. While I am aware of the growth of nondenominational Christian churches, your n should not equal 1 and I'm sure I would find the music at your Church bad. Christian rock/pop is generally pretty boring, because ime it lacks a good melody and dynamics.

Good for you. But the fact that you attend church a Christian church and would presumably identify as a Christian— and found something that works for you and is apparently “gay accepting” — disproves the entire premise that the person before was making.

My point is that there are plenty of churches that exist along the entire spectrum on sexuality issues. If you want to find a Christian church that aligns with your view on sexuality, you can. The reasons for people not going to church are much more complicated. I tried to reference a very in depth and objective book which looks at this issue and pulls no punches.

My post was mainly in the Protestant context where there is a clear divide amongst churches growing and those that aren’t. And there is the unmistakable trend that the ones growing are the ones that are more orthodox.

The RCC is a bit of a different animal — and I know something about it because I grew up in the RCC before becoming an atheist for a long time. Whether particular parishes are more conservative or more liberal is usually not as apparent and the RCC is less concerned with how scripture is interpreted than it is with the Eucharist and church tradition. The homily at any RCC is the least important part of the Mass. So I agree, my points are not as relevant in that context. Though — the official RCC teachings on sexuality issues — that sex should be between a man and a woman in the context of marriage, period — have never wavered and likely never will. And the RCC is even more opposed to any use of contraception than evangelicals are.

Btw, I don’t mind some RCC music — older stuff. But the contemporary RCC music that is in your typical church on a Sunday — On Eagles Wings, Be Not Afriad, Gift of Finest Wheat — there’s no doubt this music is worse and even cornier than contemporary Christian music.

We will have to continue to agree to disagree:

1. I have done a lot of reading on contemporary religious issues and listen to a lot of podcasts on said topic. I'm very well aware that the reasons people are not attending church are complicated but stand by my IRL experience that acceptance of homosexuality is an issue, even among straight people. I wish the religion thread on dcurbanmom wasn't so often a thread for multi-paragraph mansplaining.
2. I see your point on comparing Protestant Churches.
3. The homily may be less important but it does happen and people listen. Just because the Church has official teachings doesn't make them right. Church doctrine while sometimes claiming to be an eternal truth can be temporal as opposed to spiritual and not necessarily in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is the problem with "tradition."
4. While I think On Eagles Wings is insufferable, I love the St. Louis Jesuits et al. Be not afraid, I go before you always. Come follow me and I will give you rest. Come give to us oh, saving lord the bread of life to eat. Contemporary Christian music is 1000x worse and cornier. The Catholic folk songs you think are corny actually have catchy melodies and dynamics!

The future is not pro-life or Orthodox. If it is, then Christianity as it is practiced in the US is really in trouble. The way forward is not backwards.

Republican leaders are calling for rolling backwards. Not like they haven’t written it down and spew it daily . Members of Congress no longer want separation of church and state. We are going backwards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

Quite a few at Episcopal and UU congregations

Those aren't churches, more like clubs

LOL. "I will define 'church' as narrowly as I must to support my assertion that gay friendly churches are dying. If it's gay friendly and not dying, it's not a church."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ex Catholics I know (and they are legion) are either atheists now or super conservative and go to "Birdsong Bible Church" where they get a ready made social Group of brand-new family friends who suck them in. Literally no one is switching to "First Methodist" with the pride flag flying. I don't know who the target market is there.

Quite a few at Episcopal and UU congregations

Those aren't churches, more like clubs

LOL. "I will define 'church' as narrowly as I must to support my assertion that gay friendly churches are dying. If it's gay friendly and not dying, it's not a church."

Here’s the thing — they are a “church” in some sense of the word, sure.

But any membership organization must have boundaries as to what the members believe or else the organization means nothing. You can’t be a member of Greenpeace and hate the environment. Or be a member of planned parenthood and be pro-life.

The Christian faith is based on a central premise that cannot be changed — that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins, he rose from the grave, and that we are saved through our faith in him. You must believe those four things at a bare minimum or you are not really a Christian.

Unitarians do not believe any of that. So they can call themselves a church but it’s not a Christian church.

Episcolplians allegedly believe all of that. In fact, they were involved in wars and everything else back in the day because they felt the RCC had strayed too far from believing that and added all this other unnecessary stuff to the christian faith.

But in more recent years, the episcolplians have certainly been at the forefront of progressive politics and moving further away from core Christian principles. It’s very much a mixed bag now and varies from church to church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

To this poster — why do you only pick on Christian churches? What about Muslims? Muslim mosques in the United States do not perform gay marriages. Many other religions generally don’t perform gay marriages or have female ordained ministers either — Hindus, Buddhists, Skihs, all Orthodox Jews, even some conservative Jews. Are you saying that all of these minority religions are horrible bigots too and should change their religions just to meet your US, western cultural preferences? How is that not you simply trying to impose your western culture on other people from a different culture — which is also a big no-no in modern day liberalism?

In my experience, many ultra left progressives bend over backwards to defend people practicing non-Christian religions — they would never give a male Sikh at work wearing a head turban a hard time, or a woman wearing a hijab. But they are actively hostile towards Christians who practice religion that has the same views on social isssues as these non-Christian religions. So it really comes down to — we just don’t like Christians who practice their religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.

To this poster — why do you only pick on Christian churches? What about Muslims? Muslim mosques in the United States do not perform gay marriages. Many other religions generally don’t perform gay marriages or have female ordained ministers either — Hindus, Buddhists, Skihs, all Orthodox Jews, even some conservative Jews. Are you saying that all of these minority religions are horrible bigots too and should change their religions just to meet your US, western cultural preferences? How is that not you simply trying to impose your western culture on other people from a different culture — which is also a big no-no in modern day liberalism?

In my experience, many ultra left progressives bend over backwards to defend people practicing non-Christian religions — they would never give a male Sikh at work wearing a head turban a hard time, or a woman wearing a hijab. But they are actively hostile towards Christians who practice religion that has the same views on social isssues as these non-Christian religions. So it really comes down to — we just don’t like Christians who practice their religion.

You're missing a word in there because these people also love the "vibrancy" of black Baptists and Latino Catholics. The people they loathe are the people they could possibly be mistaken for.