I’m a little curious here: why are you basically on the “Oh, any generally moderate Protestantism will do” angle anyway? Hate the Catholics, do we?
Are you addressing this to the OP? I’m not he, but I can probably answer anyway. The so-called mainline Protestant churches are in many ways interchangeable and, more importantly, regard themselves so. In fact, I’d include a lot of the evangelical churches here, too, maybe even more so. Most people probably tend to stick to whatever denomination has policies and rituals (and songs! especially songs!) they’re used to, but only as a first pass. If a Methodist family moves to a new town, they’ll likely check out the local Methodist congregations first, but if one isn’t to their liking they’ll look at other churches. If they’re visiting family or friends, they’ll go to whatever church the people they’re visiting go to.
And if they happen to mention to the new pastor or the old pastor pastor back home or someone in the congregation that they used to be Methodists but now they attend the Lutheran church, no one will blink. It’s not even unusual (though not common either) for pastors to change denominations when they retire, especially in a small town where their presence in their old church might be disruptive to the new pastor. Most of the mainline denominations have formal or informal agreements stating that clergy of one denomination can participate in services of the other and sometimes denominations will “hire out” clergy to an unserved congregation of another denomination. There are even some congregations that belong jointly two or more denominations.
Things are different with the Catholic Church. Non-Catholics (except for Orthodox and, I think, Episcopalians/Anglicans in some circumstances) are not welcome to receive Communion at a Catholic church. Catholics are forbidden by the RCC from attending a Protestant church service in lieu of a Catholic service or from receiving Communion in a Protestant church. If a Protestant family wants to attend Catholic services they may, but may not join the church without “converting” and being confirmed by the bishop. And once you do, the RCC will consider you Catholic forever.
I have no problem with Catholicism and I like Catholic services but while, as an atheist and former Methodist, I would think nothing of attending a Protestant church even on a regular basis, I wouldn’t feel like I belonged at a Catholic service unless I wanted to become Catholic. (Though of course I know I could visit freely.)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been described as “Catholicism Lite.” No Pope, no mysticism, no Latin. Just happy, positive, supportive Jesus, and I enjoy being there, surrounded by happy, positive, supportive people. How they pulled that out of the writings of Paul is, like so many things, beyond me, theologically, though I dutifully showed up for [del]Mass[/del] the service this evening. And few or none of them know why going to services at 5PM on a Saturday still counts because they are unfamiliar with the Liturgical Day.
I know that the co-communicant negotiations fell through, but as the battle between transubstantiationism (Wife), consubstantiationism (Luther), Lollardy (Wycliffe), and mere symbolism (me) points it out as not proper dinner conversation, and I suspect my pastor would concur.
As an usher I try to encourage people who are there for the baptism of a friend’s child to take Communion. I sometimes succeed, though I assume the holdouts are Catholics who believe it’s a sin to take Communion that was consecrated by a Protestant. I think I would be more successful were I to tell them that, whatever they’ve been told, it’s cool and the Eucharist will not turn to ashes on their tongues, but I’ve done well nodding toward the altar and whispering, “Communion is good for you.” Which I believe even at my least religious times. Like being blessed by a Hindu for flying a kite, I take my mitzvahs where they happen to show up.
We poach a lotta Catholics. Me, f’ristance. Next Sunday we have some 60 (!) potential parishioners coming to get to know us at a pot-luck. I turned to my wife and said, “Evangelical cooking? You’re all over that!”
“I know and I’m planning!”
Down deep, Lutherans know pot-lucks.
I find this an extremely sad statement on the status of American religion. Apparently, there is much work to be done.
Why do I have to “hate” anyone just because I don’t want to participate in their religion? That was a little extreme. I don’t hate Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or Hindus, yet they were never on my list.
I certainly consider Catholics “Christian”, if that was the beef. I know that has been a sore spot in the great debate on who can lead us to Heaven, and all. But, there are a few fundamental differences between Protestant and Catholicism, on whole, with which I do not agree.
Besides, I have enough trouble with organized religion in general. Catholism is the most organized of them all! 
As a child, I attended a Presbyterian church in Canada; and as an adult, sang in the choir of one for a number of years. Algher’s was my experience too–the emphasis seemed to be more on the individual doing and being good, than it was on interpreting the Bible literally, proseletyzing, and preaching hellfire and damnation.
Typically, services centered around a New Testament lesson arising from a Bible verse, then a sermon would expand upon the lesson. While understanding the context of the time the Bible was written was important, it should be noted that equally important was applying the lesson to contemporary times and people. Of course, hymns and prayers were dotted throughout the service also. Everyone was welcome and there were no restrictions on what visitors could and could not do–whoever walked through the door was able to participate in the service as much as the regular congregants could.
In fact, there were vary few rules and restrictions, period. There was no requirement for confessions; no observance of Lent; no prohibition on substances like alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine; and no requirement for missionary work, among other things. People could, of course, rule and restrict themselves if they wished, and there were opportunities for those who wished to embark upon missionary work (although mainly this took the form of Peace Corps-style work at home and abroad, rather than converting unbelievers), but as I recall, the church didn’t force anything upon its membership.
I don’t send my kid to Sunday school or believe in the Bible.
ETA: I got schooled. I missed the Simpson reference. 
Or you could just respect people’s religious beliefs.
I made a very conscious decision to stop taking Communion when I went through the crisis of faith that led me to identify as an atheist. I would be quite offended by an usher telling me Communion was good for me after I politely smiled and stayed in my seat.
My father is an atheist Jew. When I first joined a church, I was in college and had my friedn John, a professor who was ordained, baptise me. My family was there, and when John distributed the Eucharist, he approached each person in the small congregation, including my father, looked at them deeply and intoned “The Body of Christ, broken for you.” John didn’t know (or forgot) my fatrher’s beliefs and my father didn’t know John and suspected that he had been giving him special attention. He was made rather uncomfortable by it, until I explained what had been meant. I can only imagine how he would have felt if he had bowed to the perceived pressure and received the Eucharist out of politeness, only to learn later that he had participated in a sarament believed by the others present to be a means of uniting the recipient with the mystical Body of Christ and making him one with the body of all believers!
When I studied Eucharistic theology in grad school, I had more than one debate with fellow students who went a bit too far IMO in the direction of open Communion. I firmly felt that while anyone who aproaches the Table should be welcomed and not denied the Sacrament, there were solid reasons why the invitation is traditionally given only to baptised believers. I was personally rather fond of the wording John and many other pastors often used: “Anyone who knows Christ or wishes to know Christ is welcome to the table.” That didn’t leave anyone out, but at least it let you know what you were in for and didn’t pressure anyone.
As a Lutheran I would say they are pretty cool and not literal.
The Simpson’s dialog, from episode 9F01, “Homer the Heretic,” Courtesy of the Simpson’s archive:
Rev. Lovejoy: Homer, I’d like you to remember Matthew 7:26.
A foolish man who who built his house on sand.'' Homer: And <you> remember... Matthew ... 21:17! Rev. Lovejoy: And he left them and went out of the city into
Bethany and he lodged there’’?
Homer: Yeah… [regains his nerve] Think about it!
I’m mixed on that. On one hand, there are many substantial, tho secondary, differences among Lutheran (ELCA), Calvinist (PCUSA), Wesleyan (UMC), Anglican (TEC), Restorationist (DOC), Liberal Congregationalist (UCC) and Baptist doctrines & practices, and they are not just interchangeable. However, there is a refreshing realization that these issues are secondary to the essentials of Christianity. Now, the difficulty arises in liberal/moderate churches when even the historic essentials of Christianity start being regarded as unnecessarily divisive, “secondary” issues.
Of course, conservatives have the opposite problem.
Please explain.
I should say, sir that the alternative to Organized Religion is Disorganized Thought, which is to say sloppy and shabby thought. I have no specific beef with the Unitarian-Universalists, one might say, except that they have nothing to argue with. Or against. There’s nothing there except fine feelings and being nice.
And the thing about fine feelings and being nice is that they are gifts from God, not our duty and pleasure towards Him.
I mean to say that I should prefer that people know and believe in the theology they nominally support if they are going to bother to attend church at all. Exhortations to be good mean very little to an adult: we hear them day in and out. Adults, with an adult mind, need something solid to believe in. What I see most often in lapsed Catholics, bored Methodists, and former generic Protestants is not that they’ve really lost their faith, but that their churches gave them no real grounds to develop anything on it. I had to actual take a college class on Christianity’s history, read Augustine, and then in a more modern context the works of religious laymen before I really had something to believe in: it was not that the Faith was stupid, but that I had not used my intellect with it as so many of the great saints had.
You might say I’d prefer the theologians to do a little less theorizing and a little more sermonizing. I’d say I wanted everyday preachers to use their degrees. I understand not everyone needs exactly the same thing, but I definitely argue (often) that adults need adult Christianity. They are being fed pablum fit for a child and, unsurprisingly, finding it rather unsatisfactory.
We can see that even on this very board. So many of the atheists hold up the child’s version of Christianity and say that it is therefore all false - because they were not given anything else or were exposed to bad Christians. The first objection is not really their fault; education (not only book learning, either) must follow interest in religion as in history or autom mechanics or sports. The second often is.
Because only those officially sanctioned by a church are capable of “Organized Thought”.
Not neccessarily sanctioned by a church per se, but neccessarily accepted an objective truth and being willing to accept the ideas of others and finding a rational basis of agreement.
No matter how much we may wish to hide in our “spiritualism”, it goes nowhere. It is nothing more than fine feelings. It is, if anything, vastly more primitive than even the rudest ideas of spirits and demons such as are still present in some tribal cultures. If there is anything true out there, you will not find anything more than a tiny corner of it your own mind, or even if the minds of great writers.
I’d heard that the basic difference betwen Protestant denominations was the income of the parishioners. My sister told me a joke to the effect of:
A Lutheran is an Episcopalian with a yacht
An Episcopalian is a Methodist with a portfolio
A Methodist is a Presbyterian with tailored shirts
A Presbyterian is a Baptist with a laptop
A Baptist is an Assemblies of God-er with a Sears card
Can you tell we were raised Catholic?
I always heard it this way:
An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian with a trust fund.
A Presbyterian is a Methodist with a degree.
A Methodist is a Baptist with shoes.
That’s how I heard it. Although we just said A Presbyterian was a Methodist who went to school. Standards were looser where I grew up in Arkansas!
:smack: Read this icon as my hand slapping you.