Yet More On Christian Politics (Or Christians in Politics)
Returning to a debate from the comment section.
In writing about the various abuses of the Christian religion by the sitting President, the Veep, and the Secretary of Defense, I started thinking more about an interchange within my post about the attack on the Pope and the Trump-as-Jesus meme. The question was asked as to when mainline Christians would be more actively opposed to Trump, given the amount of Evangelical and conservative Catholic support he has been getting. A back-and-forth ensued.
Ultimately, I think that the critique was unfair because there are plenty of self-identified Christians who are in opposition to this administration and its abuses. I will say, however, that I understand the feeling that there isn’t enough opposition as a general matter, as we discussed about the general efficacy of No Kings. But the reality is that dramatic and obvious opposition is hard to sustain, and it is easy to say that enough isn’t being done. I am of the view that truly visible opposition, to include civil disobedience, requires a specific target of protest, such as the ICE actions in Minneapolis (more on that below).
It is also true that there is simply so much going on right now that focus is difficult in a country of our size. Should the focus be on the war? On ICE? On the economy? On the midterms?
Should activists take to the streets? Should they focus on lawsuits? On GOTV activity? On fundraising?
All of the above, I suspect, but a lot is going on, to be sure (and it is hard for us to even keep track of it all).
Back to the debate that inspired this post, commenter Michael Reynolds asked,
If mainstream Christians wanted to be heard nationally, they would be heard nationally. Do they not have Twitter? Do they not have their own publications?
Setting aside the question of whether or not Twitter accounts and other publications should be the main venue for mainstream Christians as some bloc of society (the clergy? parisioners? who?), the reality is, yes, yes they do.
This question was in the back of my mind when I wrote my post about Hegseth because I cited the Substack, A Public Witness, and it was a reminder that here we have self-identified Christians out there trying to counter the Trump administration and their allies via their own publications. Note the inclusion of the following endorsement on their “About” page:
“A bad actor.” —Jenna Ellis, a Trump attorney who sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
This struck me, given a recent comment-thread interaction on the subject, which focused on the question of where all the non-MAGA Christians are out there in cyberspace.
Well, for what it is worth, Public Witness is run by a Baptist minister and one of the other contributors also identifies as a clergymember, and all four as Christians.
It seems worth noting that in the post that started the debate, I cited the Baptist News, which was criticizing Trump.
I can think of other folks who are using their platforms from an overly Christian point of view. John Pavlovitz comes to mind.
Another recommendation would be the podcast Straight White American Jesus. Its hosts are religious studies scholars, albeit ex-Christians, but they frequently feature clergy who are in the business of combating the rise of Christian Nationalism.
It seems kind of noteworthy to observe that our previous president was overtly Christian, as opposed to the current one in office. The funny thing that seems to happen in these kinds of discourses is that Christian individuals who oppose the current administration (or who aren’t conservative evangelicals) are often treated as not really Christians, the same way people like JD Vance dismissed the Pope.
I would recommend not playing that game, as it is falling into the hands of Christian Nationalists who very much want to draw the lines of who the “real” Christians are versus the “fake” ones.
I am further reminded that Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) is a Baptist Minister and head pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. Senate hopeful James Talarico of Texas has been overt in his Christianity in his campaign and attended seminary.
As I noted in the comment thread in question, there was a substantial presence of clergy in Minneapolis during the ICE crackdown: 99 cited in clergy-led anti-ICE protest at MSP Airport that ended with mass arrests.
And there is this image of the Reverend David Black that will be in the history books.
Via the Presbyterian News Service: The Rev. David Black of First Presbyterian Church of Chicago recounts his pepper ball shooting at an ICE detention center.
Please note that I am making empirical observations; I do not see a need to defend Christians for some self-serving reason. While I have frequently noted Biblical passages on the site as a means of critiquing the actions of this administration, I do so as someone who should be described as an exvangelical. On the one hand, I was steeped in conservative evangelical theology, and I speak fluent Evangelical, but I moved on from those waters some years ago. I do avoid going much deeper than that on the subject, if anything, because I find my views to be vague and ill-defined, and because that is not the topic of this blog.
I will say this: I understand the frustration aimed at evangelical voters who embraced, and continue to embrace, a man who does not, in any way, reflect the alleged values of those voters (not if one takes those values seriously). They deserve the opprobrium they receive. Still, as a political scientist, I do understand their obsession with abortion is important, and how the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a major triumph in their eyes (from a purely political/policy point of view, that actually makes sense). I understand, further, that their concerns over sexual mores are real, although I would argue that they are unhealthy and vested more in notions of social power (i.e., a preference for a male-dominated nuclear family) than anything else. And I understand the way that conservative Christianity has become fused with Republican politics in the identities of many, many voters.
But, of course, such power structures are at the heart of all of this, I think. The confluence of various social variables: race, gender, socio-economic status, and regional identity, to name but four, has converged to create a powerful identification between white evangelicals, in particular, with the Republican Party.
I will admit that one of the biggest mistakes I have made in trying to analyze American politics on the fly on this blog was assuming that Trump could not win the GOP nomination in 2016 because the socially conservative evangelical voters in the Republican primary electorate would not support an adulterous, thrice-divorced, casino-owning, libertine New Yorker.
To use a term of art: oops!
It was in 2016 that it became clear that the supposed values that motivate a good chunk of evangelical voters were less about Christian virtue than they purported.
Let me note that I am especially talking here about primary voters. In the 2016 primary season (general elections change the calculation from intraparty to interparty), the Republican electorate had a lot of choices. Strategically, there may well have been too many, but have I ever noted that we have weak parties that don’t control things like who gets involved in primary contests?
As a reminder, the following candidates participated in the 2016 primary contest: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Christ Christie, Jim Gilmore, and Rick Santorum.
Additionally, the following tried to complete, but withdrew before the primaries: George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Rick Perry.
All of the above have one thing in common: any one of them would have been a better president than Donald J. Trump.
I would hasten to add that Trump did not win a majority of the GOP primary vote (Wikipedia puts it at 44.9%). I note this note to absolve Republicans, but to hammer a point that I keep making, and perhaps a phrase I need engraved on my tombstone (except that I plan to be cremated, so perhaps for my urn): “Institutions Matter.”
Trump translated plurality support in the 2016 primaries to then go on to lose the popular vote, and yet still became POTUS because, well, institutions matter.
I would underscore, to pick up a point I left dangling above: my ire for Republican voters is actually lessened for the 2016 general election than it was for the primaries because, given the clear logic of a rigid two-party system, it stands to reason that a lot of evangelicals and other conservative would vote for whomever it was that had the R after their name.
Yes, some Republicans chose to forgo the R that year, but mass politics are mass politics, and therefore a lot of people didn’t.
Have I ever mentioned he lost the popular vote by almost three million?
The primaries laundered Trump from being a celebrity outsider to being The Republican. And in our presidentialized system, he was able to take over the party.
All of this is to say that, yes, there are Christians who are part of the Trump coalition, but there are also plenty who aren’t.
So, two thoughts in conclusion.
First, there are plenty of Christian voices out there in opposition to Trump. They may not be as loud as one wants, but that may well be true for any number of other voices. We are all trying to work through this political moment.
Second, don’t fall into the trap of classifying non-conservative Christians as not really Christians. That is falling into the trap of the Christian Nationalists who want to control that narrative.
Empirically speaking, there are a lot of self-identified Christians who support both parties, and so simplistic claims about millions of people should, perhaps, be reconsidered in that light.
For funsies, here are some numbers for review:
- Via Religion in Public: The 2020 Vote for President by Religious Groups – Christians
- From Gallup: Religious Group Voting and the 2020 Election
- From Pew Research on 2024: White Protestants and Catholics support Trump, but voters in other U.S. religious groups prefer Harris.
- Some other charts of interest from Pew: Party identification among religious groups and religiously unaffiliated voters.
It ends up, and I guess this is my main point, that broad assertions about vast groups in a country of over 300 million are almost certainly inaccurate and perhaps unwise to make. It is why I try, personally, not to make broad claims about The Right or The Left or all Republicans or all Democrats (although I am sure that in my haste and in my need to post, I fail in that goal).
It was in 2016 that it became clear that the supposed values that motivate a good chunk of evangelical voters were less about Christian virtue than they purported.
Or Trump is the endgame of these Christians and their virtues. Because here’s the thing: we had a small number of protests in 2023-2024 which blew up the elite media These protests involved religion, they involved younger Jewish people and these people ere basically say the above but about Zionism and its endgame of ethnic cleansing, genocide and a theocratic state run by terrorists.
Protests don’t oppose. They pull off the mask. BLM wasn’t about being against police violence against black people. It was about being against the fact that without video evidence of a man being murdered by having his throat stepped on for nine moments the system would have let that cop go in four seconds.
So what mask has to be pulled off? With Israel, Jewish-Americans are pulling back the mask on the myth which came for good reason to their lives. But Evangelical Christians will have to pull back the mask on their actual values, on Mom and Dad, and what really was going on when everyone was being decent and Christian. I don’t see that happening. It never happened in the south after Jim Crow was over, and it’s not going to happen with Trump.
Two points – 1. Marketing – Trump and his ilk ‘brand’ everything, and force the media to recognize the branding – e.g., The Big Beautiful Bill. Along those lines, “real Christians,” and “real Americans” are labels used to demean anyone who voices opposition to whatever Trump and his ilk are perpetrating. Another aspect of this is the assertion that opposing *how* Trump and his ilk go about implementing policy is prima facie evidence of opposing the goal of the policy – e.g., the Pope opposing Trump’s illegal, immoral war against Iran means the Pope wants Iran to have a nuclear bomb. It’s a childish rhetorical device, which is of course why it is so irresistible to Trump and his sycophants (including every rightwing blowhard). Point #2 – Bannon’s “flood the zone with shit” is both in effect and effective. The media certainly cannot keep up with all the mis and malfeasance, the gaslighting, and most of all, the apparent mental illness/instability of the President of the United States. So rather than trying to sort it all out, the average American likely tends to shrug and go about their personal business, cursing all politicians.
Where the “not all Christians” narrative falls flat for me is that while it’s definitely not all, it’s almost certainly a majority of Christians (and definitely a majority of white Christians).
Added to that, Christianity should be antithetical to Trump, which isn’t necessarily the case with masculinity or whiteness (i.e., other categories with questionable voting preferences).
Even as a convinced atheist, it’s not hard to see that there is something very, very wrong with American Christianity – even (and this is crucial) as measured by its own purported standards.
Indeed. It devolved into Donald Trump and the Seven Dwarfs. It was the “populist” who said anything that played well with his rally crowds and lied a lot against an indistinguishable lump that collectively got more votes. But the outcome was taken as a MAGA revolt. The political press attributed to policy and vibe shift what was more happenstance. Just as they did when a Black woman was thrown into a prez campaign with six months to go.
And for what it’s worth, the MN side of my family, the late reverend and his wife and kids, are devoutly Lutheran and hate Trump.
The problem I have with Christians is that they claim a virtue they refuse to live by, a strength they never exhibit. Indeed they demand concessions for their presumed virtue – tax breaks, respectful treatment in the public square, gentle treatment in education, the whitewashing of Christian history. We’re supposed to take these people seriously as people who believe there is an actual creator looking over their shoulders and yet lack the courage to stand up for their beliefs or the honesty to live them.
Do not compare people who believe they have an immortal soul and a direct line to the creator of the universe to normal people who are offered no eternal reward for virtue and nevertheless exhibit that virtue. Is there no higher standard for Christians? Why not? Don’t they claim a higher standard? Aren’t they offered eternal life in exchange for their virtue? If Christianity is just a social club then cop to it.
As I have said before I don’t believe Christians believe what they say they believe. I don’t think they believe in god. I see exactly what Christ saw: hypocrites. Hypocrites who won’t stop trying to shove their ‘beliefs’ down everyone’s throats.
TL;DR: Act like Christians or STFU and admit you’re just the Rotary Club.
@Michael Reynolds: Two thoughts.
I actually agree that, on balance, churches are just social entities, and they serve a social function. If this conversation were just about the fact that Christians, especially the evangelical ones, claim a divine access that they clearly do not manifest in the real world, we would be in full agreement. One of the things that led me to where I am in terms of religion is seeing the lack of evidence of that divine power, especially in the clergy, both in terms of those I saw up close and personal, as well as those at a distance (e.g., the sex scandals in various churches).
But, second, you are moving the goal posts. You asked if any Christians had Twitter or were opposing Trump. I demonstrated that they are.
Black Protestants have been the most consistently and vocally anti-Trump demographic in the US. Not unlike lazy the narratives liberals tell themselves about “the working class” (once again, the poorest households were won by Hillary, Biden, and Harris, not by Trump) narratives about “Christians” work only by erasing black Americans from existence, as left and right love to do except round come an election year.
Are Joe Rogan, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk Christian?
@Michael Reynolds: Like Steven I kind of don’t disagree. And I think you’re expecting contradictory things.
For instance, one of the primary teachings of the Bible is “do good in secret”. This is in contrast to the New Testament’s favorite whipping boy the Pharisee who parades around with virtue, drawing attention to himself (because yes, it’s gendered).
There’s a very clear message that trying to be closer to God is not something to boast about. And yet, here we have a country full of modern Pharisees. The teaching is that coming closer to God is something that should inspire humility in us, as we observe our flaws, and perhaps try to do something about them.
That’s not a message that gets much traction on Twitter. You’re not going to get a million views on Facebook with that.
AND, I do not for a second think that this is a problem with Christians in particular. It is a human problem. It engages people of all stripes of ideology. It is not so hard to observe the pattern where performativity conflicts with humility and growth in all kinds of places.
So your demand lands on me as “I want a better human”.
Me too.
@Jay L. Gischer:
What you’re telling me is that Christians are not better than the average Joe, nor should we expect them to be. Which would make perfect sense if we admit that Christians do not actually believe in God. Because if they believe in God, an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God, they would never have the balls to disobey Him or ignore His teachings. Christians are less concerned with their God’s opinions of their actions (and some pretty dire consequences) than they are worried about the judgments of their boss, or their children, or spouse, or that cute barista at Starbucks.
That’s because their boss and their spouse and the barista are all real, and God is not. And they know it.
ETA: If I had the time I could cite New Testament chapter and verse on the subject of hypocrisy. It’s a theme of JC’s.
Religion and its Brick and Mortar locations i.e. churches, are a business. You could be an educated pastor preaching to an uneducated flock, but you know darn well that interjecting politics into your sermons is going to alienate a large portion of your congregation. That is bad for business. People stop writing checks every week. Kind of like the Michael Jordan ” Republicans buy sneakers too” quote. Likely the underlying reason they are hesitant to denounce Trumps dementia fueled riffs on god and religion. Majority of their business depends on not rocking the boat, especially when church attendance and religion in general has been declining for years
@Jay L. Gischer:
Sigh. It really sucks that the biggest insults Christians have is to call people Jews.
The Pharisees were the Rabbis of the Second Temple Period. They were locked in a political and philosophical fight with the Sadducees – the Priestly class about what Judaism should look like and whether to cooperate/collaborate with the occupying Romans. The Sadducees were in favor of working with the Romans, the Pharisees were opposed. After the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 and dispersed much of the population (that they didn’t outright kill), it was the Pharisees that “won” the intra-community dispute and Judaism today *is* directly descended from the Pharisees. Calling someone a Pharisee is calling them a Jew.
[Oh, and the Pharisees were the ones teaching humility and virtue. the ones “parading around” were the Romans and Sadducees. Of course, that wasn’t a message the Church wanted to push…]
Somewhat ironically, most of teachings of Jesus that you are promoting are directly aligned with one of the two major Pharisee Schools(Hillel), There are convincing scholarly arguments that many of the teachings attributed to Jesus are best understood as being intra-Pharisee debates between Hillel and Shammai (the stricter school). Even your claim of humility as being opposed to Pharisee is contradicted by the reality that Hillel was particularly known for not only his humility but promoting humility as a virtue.
@SKI: Asserting that criticizing someone for being Pharisitical is tantamount to criticizing Jews in general strikes me as weaker than asserting that criticizing someone for being Jesuitical is tantamount to criticizing Catholics in general. While I appreciate your explanation, in normal parlance each criticism is directed to being overly arcane rather than belonging to a specific religious sect.
Christian is a word often mis-used to describe culture not the religion. They think its religion, but its culture. Believing it is religion gives their culture superiority. This is a form of self-worship that has permeated American culture.
@Joe:
You are simply wrong. Modern Jews are literally all Pharisees.* That “sect” is modern Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism is defined by Halacha – Jewish Law – which was established by the Pharisees. Anyone you think of today as Jewish is in that tradition.
*The sole exception are the Karaites – of which there are less than 100,000 and almost all in Israel or Turkey.
If you need an analogy, it would be akin to calling someone a “Papist”. As a matter of reality, doing so is calling them a Catholic.
@Joe:
You are simply wrong. Modern Jews are literally all Pharisees.* That “sect” is modern Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism is defined by Halacha – Jewish Law – which was established by the Pharisees. Anyone you think of today as Jewish is in that tradition.
*The sole exception are the Karaites – of which there are less than 100,000 and almost all in Israel or Turkey.
If you need an analogy, it would be akin to calling someone a “Papist”. As a matter of reality, doing so is calling them a Catholic.
@HelloWorld:
Are you suggesting that there isn’t a “Christian Culture”? Because I can assure you that there is.
Also, most surviving historic religious groups (aka, those that predate Christianity and Islam) don’t differentiate between religion and culture. It was principally those two that, as part of widespread evangelizing and efforts to convert, declared that you could be part of their religion without losing your own culture.
@HelloWorld:
Are you suggesting that there isn’t a “Christian Culture”? Because I can assure you that there is.
Also, most surviving historic religious groups (aka, those that predate Christianity and Islam) don’t differentiate between religion and culture. It was principally those two that, as part of widespread evangelizing and efforts to convert, declared that you could be part of their religion without losing your own culture.
The decline of Christianity (no matter what the denomination or form) has been declining for a while.
America’s Religious Decline Creates New Battleground
There is a whole segment of the population that is rebelling against that decline and acting out in various ways, including violence. They are also attempting to seize the levers of power to impose barriers to further decline.
Now I happen to believe the Christian Nationalists (for want of a better term) are actually accelerating the decline of Christianity in the US. The growth of atheists and non religiously affiliated can be seen as driving Christians away from Christ rather than draw new believers.
And that trend will continue.
@Michael Reynolds:
No. What we’re telling you is that you seem to hate Christians so much that you can’t see them as anything other than “bad people”.
Did the Underground Railroad in the Civil War get loud and “in your face” about what they were doing? Did Schindler? Did the French Resistance?
You’re locked into this notion that “if it’s not in your face, it’s nothing”. And you are so very, very wrong.
I spend half my work week in a very red town. On my way to work I drive by a church that has a prominent LGBTQ+ banner in front of the church, with a sign that says “everyone is welcome”. I would argue that a local pastor–backed by a congregation–can do far more to change the minds of Trumpers than a full-page add in the NYT.
You seem to think that change can only come from aggressive confrontation. Again, you’re wrong.
Change will come from communities slowly, quietly, and continually, educating their friends, colleagues, and community members on why they have been lied to, and why hate isn’t the way forward.
This is one of the most powerful trans acceptance videos I’ve ever seen–and it’s not aggressive in the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0P0Uj6h_SY
There’s a time and place for aggression and protest.
There’s also a time and place for working quietly behind the scenes to educate and convert people rather than attack them. A peaceful and enduring solution… y’know… one that Jesus would approve of.
You think that Christians (and other religious people) aren’t doing anything because they’re not making headlines. “Real” Christians don’t seek out the spotlight. They do their work silently.
When you can be bothered to come back to the US, visit a few community churches–not big evangelical ones–and ask the congregation what their attitude towards Trump, and what they’re doing to oppose him.
I think you might be quite surprised.
@SKI:
In practice much of Islam has been associated with the Persian-Arab-Turkic culture of the Middle East/North Africa/Central Asia.
And Christianity predominantly that of Europe.
Both being based more on traditiona and community custom than “chosen faith”.
The US is really a bit of an outlier in how many adults shift denominational allegiance; iirc its about about a quarter of all adults, and about half of all Protestants
In Europe skmilar numbers abandon “cradle faiths”: but mostly just to become vaguely atheist/agnostic or “non-observant”, rather than moving to another sect.
@Michael Reynolds:
@Michael Reynolds:
As I siad the other day, Christianity for most, historically, has been a social matter, and derived mostly from family and commuity traditions rather then conscious decision, with a bit of church “preaching and teaching” on top.
Also, because it grew up in the “Classical” world, and largely ignored the Old Testament except for psalms and some key stories (Adam and Eve, Noah etc) it never developed a full legal code, but conformed to Roman or Germanic or whatever legal and political systems.
Until some Protestants, thinking they were reviving the “original church” did what the early Christians (post the triumph of St Paul) had not: took the Old Testament far more seriously.
Vernacular New Testaments, and especially the Gospels, and Psalters were quite common in the early Church; vernacular tranalations of the Old Testamnet were rarer.
The point of all this is that because Christianity never really emerged as full-blown and free-standing legal/political system, when it does become “political”, especially in denomination without a full theological hierrarchy eg Catholicism, it’s liable to capture by pre-existing political preferences.
Hence the phenomenon of modern American “politcal Christianity” among many evangelicals that simply adopts right-wing prefrences and social prejudices (sexuality, race) and slaps some Old Testament exegesis over the top.
Plus a rather odd fascination with the Book of Revelations, which Martin Luther, amusingly enough, was so dubious about he considered leaving it out of his German translation entirely.
@Mu Yixiao: This is exactly right. My wife and I attend an Episcopal church. I’m not a believer but my wife is and that’s enough for me to attend. Besides, I can accept most of the teachings of Christ without believing in the divinity of Christ.
As it turns out, we recently tossed out the right wing school board members in the last election. One of our members is now the school board President. When we lived in San Antonio, there was a similar situation and one of our congregants got herself elected to the school board. Education is important to the congregation and it is one of the areas we are passionate about. Heck, even Ted Cruz sends his kids to an episcopal school. Here’s hoping they get well educated.
Did Jesus even have a religion?
Like MLK, I suspect theology doesn’t actually have much to do with it.
@Mu Yixiao:
I don’t hate Christians, on those rare occasions when I encounter one, I quite like them. I like people who live good lives and are generous and kind and humble and devote themselves to helping others? Seen any of those around? I’ve said before and repeat now: if Christians ever started acting like followers of Christ we’d be living in an earthly paradise.
How’s that working out? Because it looks like the very loud and very open and very aggressive white Evangelicals are wiping the political floor with the ‘good’ Christians. You’re just rationalizing cowardice.
@Michael Reynolds:
I dunno. At this point, some would similarly asses most white American men vs ‘good’ white American men, about most Israelis vs ‘good’ Israelis, about most cops vs ‘good’ cops, etc. You know, either Israel should adopt the virtues of Western liberal democracies or STFU about being “the only democracy in the Middle East.” Cops should be defunded if they won’t police bad cops. Etc etc blah blah blah.
Then again, some also say such broad attacks are counterproductive to winning, so we should be more circumspect in our language, so as not to alienate white men, or pro-Israel Jews and Gentiles, or Christians, or whomever. Because the focus should be on winning.
Of course, we who insist certain groups should be coddled Because Winning will then press on with indiscriminate attack elsewhere, winning-be-damned. Human as we are, consistency in our professed principles, across our various pet issues and hobby horses, eludes us.
Here’s my favorite example of quiet, local, personal paths to social change: Daryl Davis, the black man who has befriended Klan members, and convinced them to leave the Klan.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/davis
@JohnSF:
No disagreement but I’m not sure why you think this is responsive with what I said.
Christianity’s approach to non-Europe was, excluding the more blunt “convert or die” approaches, was that is was solely a matter of faith or belief and you could still be a [insert culture X here] and be a Christian too.
That intentional disassociation of religion from culture doesn’t fit with closed ethnoreligions like Judaism, Druze, Zoroastrianism or Sikhism which were the traditional model.
@JohnSF:
No disagreement but I’m not sure why you think this is responsive with what I said.
Christianity’s approach to non-Europe was, excluding the more blunt “convert or die” approaches, was that is was solely a matter of faith or belief and you could still be a [insert culture X here] and be a Christian too.
That intentional disassociation of religion from culture doesn’t fit with closed ethnoreligions like Judaism, Druze, Zoroastrianism or Sikhism which were the traditional model.
@Michael Reynolds:
It’s pretty clear from this statement, and others you’ve made about Christianity, that you have a very simple mental model of Christians, and an almost pneumatic view of the relationship between belief or faith and action. (IF the pressure of belief grows to a sufficient level, THEN good action will follow.)
But, as many faithful will tell you, that’s not how it works. Case in point: a good friend of the family was an Episcopalian minister. One day, she asked her flock, during a service, to do the following: when they recited the Nicene Creed, remain standing during the passages in which they believed, and sit down for the parts they didn’t believe. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that the attendees looked like a gaggle of jack-in-the-boxes, standing up and sitting down without any syncopation with their neighbor.
Now, you might jump on that and say, “Aha! Proof that they don’t really believe in their religion! It’s all cafeteria Episcopalianism.” I implore you to resist that urge. (And thank you if you don’t have it.) The room didn’t erupt into mutual accusations of heresy. Instead, the faithful during that exercise understood that everyone struggles to understand the meaning of the Creed, and what importance it has for them. To use the cliche, faith is a journey for them, not a destination.
The commitment to lead a Christ-like life — a good thing, whether you believe in the supernatural elements or not — is a great challenge. So, too, is the connection between what verses like the Nicene Creed are saying, and how they are supposed to inspire what we should be doing.
Or maybe we’re not supposed to take them too literally, or recognize that the words are often difficult to take at face value. Authors like Bart Ehrman, Bruce Bawer, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagles, and Karen Armstrong are really good at explaining how the words have been filtered through centuries of revision and re-interpretation, and how many modern clerics themselves don’t take everything too literally. (The book Stealing Jesus is pretty eye-opening. You might like that one especially.)
So, too use another cliche, it’s complicated. Not every Christian is a Bible-thumping literalist who banishes all doubts in his heart, blasts their piety over the loudspeakers, condemns everyone who doesn’t agree with them, and who moves seamlessly from belief A to action B. Many struggle on their journey to understand what is the right thing to do. They might disagree, such as the congregants in my friend’s church did, without abandoning their mutual commitment to their faith, and its implications for how they live their lives.
By the way, I’m not a church-goer, nor am I a believer in the supernatural stuff. In the same fashion as Scott, I had a wife who attended an Episcopalian church, and I tagged along. I was impressed by them, enough to also join her in a reading group. That was a forum for some very thoughtful people (self-selected, or else why be part of a reading group?) to explore many of these questions, and their practical implications. Plus, I learned more about Christian mysticism, the variety of early Christian sects, and a whole lot of other topics. I’ve had a life-long interest, as a non-religious person, in religion, so this was an enriching experience.
Which is all a long way of saying, there’s a lot to explore before making definitive statements about people’s beliefs, and their fidelity to them.