Erick pointed out on his radio show a few weeks ago that the problem in churches these days is that younger clergy don't preach church to the culture, but culture to the church. These folks flock to the most liberal to be reassured that what they already feel (not think, mind you) is really okay.

I think Erick has a point. I will say that I find myself feeling a certain suspicion regarding "megachurches" and the like. I recall my father telling me about how one of his seminary professors would say "if you're in a church and the people are going after the preacher's sermons like pigs after slop, he's not preaching the Gospel." Even the Bible notes the bit about the wide and narrow ways. So, if, in this deeply sinful world and culture, some churches are thriving and some are dying, are we really sure that it's the thriving churches that are bringing the Word of God?

Liberal journalists don't have a clue when reporting on religious topics. (Conservatives are not that much more sophisticated in their coverage, but for different reasons.) This writer, for example, didn't think twice about writing: "Then the Rev. Kym Lucas explained Communion and the collection — taking care to demystify the rituals for those who are new to church services..." Combining one of the church's holiest sacraments with the mundane collection of offerings for the church's work, is almost vile. And labeling both "rituals," well, that's just stupid. As for the subject of liberal religious organizations having new "activist" visitors... that's no surprise. They are spiritually empty. Sadly, they won't find much of eternal value in the places where they are searching.