This has been true in churches for decades. Really, since the beginning of the 20th Cent. I don't see the theological difference changing that much. In politics, yes, I think it's getting worse. But modern theology and Biblical criticism lead to a very different kind of Christianity than inerrancy and a commitment to tradition in theology and ethics. It's been that way for 200 years.
Obviously not as apt to comment on the PCUSA history not being a member, but there is much truth in what you say from what I've seen and read from the various factions. I would think this is at least traceable through the Civil War and even earlier in American history. In some ways the theological structure and its battles parallels our political structure.
I grew up with a dose of Baptist to go along with Methodism in most of my formative years. The local UMC I attended would be mainline in almost every respect, but perhaps with limited conservative tinges. I recall taking classes at my university which was loosely Methodist affiliated and being shocked at how theologically liberal my professor was. He also happened to be (or had been) the District Superintendent. I wasn't the most sheltered child in the world, and I had some theological awareness, but I remember being absolutely astounded at some of his beliefs. When he began talking about Yahweh's consort and other details, it wasn't quite consistent with the messages I heard from my UMC pastors.
I had other professors, including the local Episcopalian priest and had the good pleasure of seeing Richard B. Hays speak (as well as chat with him) and so it's not fair to characterize me as a theological hillbilly in the city. I both learned from and got along well with other professors, which is probably an accurate representation of my moderate streak.
Inerrancy is a term that I find problematic because it doesn't really mean what it's supposed to mean. At the same time, I am not sold on some of the critical scholarship assertions that will so widely dissect passages.
It does seem what is new is multiculturalism's influence on the mainline churches. That is new. Technocratic elites in society believe in multiculturalism as almost a religious dogma or principle, and much of the rest of society has much more pragmatic approaches to those issues. And now they are openly skeptical of those same elites.
Key point here. I would say it's akin to the right's problems with patriotism and nationalism. It's okay to believe you live in a great country, but that's actually a different belief from "my country is the best to the detriment of all others." The former leads to a healthy unification of the populace, the latter becomes an unhealthy view of how things work.
I recall the popular "Coexist" bumper stickers that really seemed to be in vogue back in the mid 00s. It's not a bad message, but historically the idea has been that other faiths can exist with one another. In many circles multiculturalism became syncretism. This yields thoughts like trying to convert (I know that's a loaded term, but I mean in the reasonable sense here)another is unnecessary or even wrong. In more extreme examples, differences amongst denominations or churches are smoothed over and then it extends even to other faiths.
I don't so much care whether one is liberal or conservative at days end, but when you seek to change the doctrine, praxis, and even language to the point that it's unrecognizable, that's a problem on either side of the aisle.
I recall a recent exchange with a scholar and author of a much talked about book. The scholar is one of those guys whom I follow and seek to learn from. He has much knowledge about the black church and some of his articles have opened up my own blindspots. Just a smart man who even sorting through his Twitter feed will make you learn something let alone reading his writing.
However, he rejected the book out of hand (albeit somewhat sloppily) in a social media post because it did not address the historic black church. In one sense this was a valid criticism, but in another the logical construct he was making that any book must essentially be certified by the black Christian view/church to be fully Christian. The criticism wasn't that the book neglected the obvious example, which is more reasonable.
This is an absurd construct to me. I would never assert that something done at the local black church would need to be validated by my (mostly) white church or the fully white church down the street. Insularity is a huge issue in Christianity, but this is a criterion which doesn't hold water in a church universal that spans continents and cultures. It's the sort of faux universalism masquerading as the real thing that drives me up the wall. Of course Jesus Christ transcends cultures, but that doesn't invalidate the local flavors of expressions. If you really do desire to assert one valid culture, then we are best to look back to the original that Jesus came from. The logic on display by that scholar is simply inconsistent and a symptom of wider trends.
