A fascinating piece by Connor Wood (HT: Joel Watts), arguing that the reason why liberal churches don't grow is because they are not strict. The thesis is that groups with strict standards--whatever they are--attract followers with a greater commitment and ultimately last longer.
It actually doesn't even matter whether those standards make sense or not to outsiders. The standard could be, "We are the people who don't use telephones" (Amish). It could be, "We are the people who don't drink alcohol" or "Our women don't wear anything but dresses" or "We are the people who live on a compound and have multiple wives."
Wood's fascinating suggestion is that liberal churches need to be strict about their open-minded, tolerant theology. Then they would attract followers who were more committed and stayed around longer.
I've actually thought about something along these lines before. I don't think I would necessarily have called it "strictness." It's more fervor for a cause. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that most men thirst to be fighting something. It can be fighting for a cause or fighting against an enemy, but you're going to get more men involved if you're smacking something.
Liberal seminaries are dying in part for the same reason, I think. They don't smack anything. They're boring. See what I did there. I'm making Wesley Seminary attractive by smacking other seminaries. :-)
So I can see Wood's point. If there were a liberal church that could convince people that they are the church that smacks fundamentalists, it might grow...
... or not. :-)