There is undisputably a weakness in the liturgical churches that makes them more vulnerable. My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical, while churches with few or no rituals (often accused of "rationalism") have no need to redefine "allegories" they don't believe are allegories to begin with.
>>Then why have Fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations escaped this nonsense? <<
Who says they have? Ever been to a black Pentecostalist church?
Some churches are more conservative because they are comprised of conservatives fleeing mainline denominations, but they are becoming perverted by leftists (Rick Warren as a great example) at alarming speed. They are created out of conservatives; There’s nothing in the structure of such churches which make them remain so.
They were founded to escape that nonsense. Historically, the nonsense came first; fundamentalism started as a reaction to it.
My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical
I think that's a nonsensical theory.
I don’t think a liturgical basis necessarily makes a denomination more liberal than others.
Catholics and Orthodox both have as much (or more) ritual than Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, but I am not aware of Catholics and Orthodox struggling with issues of gay clergy.
But since I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, I could be mistaken.
Because people in these denominations have never accepted the new propaganda of the education system.
There is undisputably a weakness in the liturgical churches that makes them more vulnerable
Methodists and United Church of Christ are not what I would define as liturgical, and yet they have succumbed to the leftist nonsense. Look at the National Council of Churches. It is mostly a left-wing cabal, and most of those churches are not highly liturgical. I don't think liturgy has much to do with it. It has every thing to do with being intellectually pretentious.