Can liberal Christianity be saved?

English: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori examining a historic crozier from the first bishop of the Diocese of Minnesota, being held by James Jelinek (in red mitre and vestments, facing her) as he prepares to pass it to his successor, the ninth bishop of Minnesota in the Episcopal Church (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I recently saw this question posed while referencing this recent article in the New York Times.While the article discusses more than one denomination found in the United States, the emphasis is on the Episcopal Church, which recently approved transgender recognition in their non-discrimination policies and adopted a rite to bless same-sex relationships. 

Episcopalians, then, are taken in the Times piece as representative of liberal Christianity in general, which has seen its population aging with fewer and fewer young people drawn to replace them.

To return to the general question of whether or not liberal Christianity can be saved (with questions of whether or not it should or will continue aside), if liberal Christians do want to see their parishes, orders, denominations and ministries continue they need to more clearly and forcefully articulate their bottom line. 

What bottom line? 

I'll give it a go based on my discussions and readings involving liberal Christians. For example, keeping in line with some generalized expressions of liberal Christian views they would do well to clearly articulate:

• that there is an unseen but felt presence that is both immanent and transcendent and which gives rise to everything which can be known or experienced, a presence called God; 
• that this presence has been described (sometimes wonderfully and sometimes poorly) in the common language and style of the authors of the texts collectively known as the Bible, frequently borrowing "pagan" imagery and fables and reworking them to express this ineffable presence in terms familiar to their audiences;
• that this same process of revelation and interpretation went on in the early Church and needs to go on today;
• that reading such texts operates at different levels, the emotional "Oh!" of the literal interpretation, the intellectual "Aha!" of the symbolic interpretation, the metaphysical "Whoa!" of holding both views simultaneously, and the mystical silence of transcending all interpretations;

What do you think the term "religious liberal" means?

A short online article recently made me curious. How many people are accepting/promulgating the notion put out by some irreligious folks that “moderate” or “liberal” religion somehow means “religion lite”? That is, not taking it (or certain parts of it) as seriously? Watering it down by getting rid of certain elements (the miraculous, etc)? For those who wish to discuss and defend liberal religion, it would help to more clearly define or describe what they think that is.

For example, if someone believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, participates in Communion/the Eucharist, etc, and has what would be considered “progressive” views on gay marriage, women as priests, etc, does that make such a person a religious liberal or moderate? A religious conservative with liberal political views? Something else? If you just want to go feel good about community and social justice on Sundays without all that “God nonsense” but you are against publicly funded health care and are pro-life, are you a religious liberal with conservative political views? Something else?