Is Christianity's stance on gay marriage costing churches followers?

[useful idiot]

Not making a theological statement, but when examining the growth and decline of various denominations and forms of churches over the last 60 years, it's clear that abandoning some kind of Scriptural fidelity (real or perceived) almost never results in a higher number of attenders. I say real or perceived because the fastest growing churches tend to be those that claim to hold a high view of Scripture, but (in my opinion) in practice do not.

It isn't exactly a mystery as to why that's the case, either. If the people sitting in the pew think that their church is being unfaithful to the Biblical witness on sexual ethics in some regard, then its teaching in other areas becomes suspect. As much as some decry the bundling up of these issues and slippery slope arguments, that's just how the world works, like it or not; the evidence is there for everyone to see. Doctrinal shifts aren't good for church attendance, but often times practical shifts are. Divorce is a perfect example: most evangelical churches and denominations haven't shifted their doctrinal stance on the issue, but it's rarely discussed and most people won't think twice at having a thrice-divorced woman or man serving in the church (although probably not as head pastor/minister/priest).

As for the article, the person who wrote that piece is an imbecile making ridiculous generalizations. The perception of evangelicalism's response to the gay issue has been horribly overblown, and denominations and individual churches have taken vastly different approaches to it. John Q. Churchgoer cloaking his bigotry in an affiliation with Christianity doesn't reflect how evangelical scholars and church leaders have handled homosexuality, and 50 leaders don't reflect on how another 50 might be handling it. This is especially so in an era where large non-denominational megachurches have essentially become denominations unto themselves, connecting with other churches through networks rather than bureaucracies. Visit ten different churches and more often than not you're going to get ten different cultures with 5 or 6 different approaches.

As for BARNA, it's a joke organization, don't take what it says seriously. George Barna manipulates data to make it agree with whatever latest hobby horse issue he's pushing. He misses the forest for the trees in trying to pick out one particular practice or another to account for declines in church attendance. One day it might be age integration, another day it might be contemporary worship, another it could be age segregated Sunday School and traditional worship. The truth is, people don't come to church because they don't believe the truth-claims of Christianity. In a society where church doesn't function as the primary outlet for social interaction in a community, non-believers don't feel they need it. I personally don't think that's a bad thing. If people want to listen to Barna and try to bend over backwards to make sure unbelievers feel as comfortable as possible in the pews, that's their prerogative. I think it's a waste of time...