I’ve been mulling over this particular essay for a long time. At least, I’ve been pondering the major theme. I’ve had lots of discussions with close friends and conversation partners about this topic. Some of them are pastors. Some of them are ethicists. Some of them are working in the world of public policy. Some of them are professors in Christian universities and seminaries. Many of them are fellow Baptists, but some of them are Presbyterians. All of them have helped me refine my thinking through a combination of their good questions, thoughtful pushback, and encouraging affirmations.
They say confession is good for the soul. Well, I have a confession to make. Over the past three years or so, I’ve gradually changed my mind about “cultural Christianity.” For most of my adult life, I’ve been opposed, in principle, to the very notion of cultural Christianity. Borderline allergic to it, in fact. When some of my friends were celebrating the collapse of “cultural Christianity” in the late-2000s and early 2010s, I was right there with them. Good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
To be clear, I’ve never been a theological or political progressive. My objections to cultural Christianity were never about denying the pervasive influence of the Judeo-Christian worldview on American culture. Nor were my concerns due to any sympathy for the post-Christian secularism and rejuvenated neo-paganism that has become increasingly ascendant in our society since the 1960s. As a historian, I’ve always readily acknowledged the seminal role of Christian ways of reasoning on Western Civilization and American culture in general.
Why this aversion to cultural Christianity? Well, as a convictional Baptist I’ve been informed by my commitments to a regenerate church and a free church in a free state. I was concerned that cultural Christianity is incompatible with the first commitment and is at best ambivalent with the latter principle. My motivations were more missional than historical or political, more evangelistic than ethical. I thought “cultural Christianity” is more about the first word in that phrase than the latter, at least in the New Testament understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
So, what happened? Have I abandoned my Baptist bona fides? To quote the Apostle Paul, by no means! I still hold to both those aforementioned Baptist priorities, along with all the rest of them, too. I’m not only just as Baptist as I’ve always been, but I think every Christian ought to be a Baptist! (So if you’re reading this and you need to be dunked like they did it in the Bible, you know where to find me.)
What I’ve really been opposed to all this time is nominal Christianity, not cultural Christianity.
No, I haven’t redefined my understanding of Baptist identity. Rather, I’ve adjusted my perception of cultural Christianity. Over time, I’ve come to believe that my concerns were rooted in a basic category error. What I’ve really been opposed to all this time is nominal Christianity, not cultural Christianity. And while the former can certainly be an unintended negative result of the latter, that doesn’t mean the latter is, by definition, a bad thing.
As I was preparing to write this reflection, I came across James Wood’s recent article in First Things titled “In Defense of Cultural Christianity.” I don’t really know James personally, though we’ve interacted a little bit as fellow contributors to WORLD Opinions. I have a ton of respect for him, even though I’m certain there are points where we don’t fully agree. More on that below. But in his First Things piece, he is critiquing the views I long held to, and he offers many helpful insights on this topic that resonate with the more recent shifts in my thinking. Here are some relevant quotes from James’s article.
“We should first define our terms. ‘Cultural Christianity’ refers either to the relationship of ‘cultural Christians’ to the Christian faith, or to the broader social phenomenon of a ‘Christian culture.’”
“A ‘Christian culture’ is one in which public institutions and the balance of social power encourage Christian behavior and promote Christian ideas of the true, good, and beautiful.”
“‘Cultural Christians’ are those who appreciate the civilizational benefits of Christianity without embracing faith. Cultural Christians prize Christian culture. They want the civilizational fruit without the religious root. Does this make them hypocrites?”
“The charge of hypocrisy commonly directed at cultural Christianity is a red herring. Its framing discounts the possibility that many ‘cultural Christians’ are on the path to genuine faith. No responsible believer would accuse a spiritual seeker of hypocrisy for attending his church before converting.”
James goes on to argue that cultural Christianity doesn’t automatically lead to nominal Christianity but often paves the way for authentic Christianity—regenerated individuals who have a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ by grace, through faith. He rightly notes that cultural Christianity can function as a “praeparatio evangelica, a process of socialization that disposes them favorably toward the gospel. This dynamic does not guarantee conversion, but it makes genuine faith more likely.”
In other words, cultural Christianity often informs the plausibility structures of unbelievers, which can in turn help them see Christianity as more believable. Of course, it takes a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to bring eternal life to a dead heart. But the Holy Spirit does his saving work through a variety of human means, including the cultures we humans create. Cultural Christianity often provides unbelievers with categories, assumptions, and instincts that can help them understand the truth of Christianity and their own need to turn from their sin and trust Jesus alone as their King and Savior.
To be clear, the Holy Spirit doesn’t “need” cultural Christianity to change lives. The gospel is both the power to save and public truth in every cultural context. But this is a conversation about American culture, not some other culture. And in the United States of America, our cultural roots are deeply Christian. This doesn’t mean that all, or even most citizens throughout our history have been regenerate. Nor does it mean that even those citizens who were regenerate have always acted in virtuous ways that glorify God and advance authentic human flourishing. What it does mean is that most Americans, for most of American history, until relatively recently, have been far more significantly formed by Christianity than they may have even realized, let alone acknowledged. The reason? Cultural Christianity.
Now as a Baptist, I’m still very opposed to nominal Christianity, which is rooted in phony faith and charactered by religious hypocrisy, even if the nominal Christian doesn’t realize it. But I don’t think the best way to combat nominal Christianity is to reject the value of cultural Christianity. Instead, I want to propose a four-fold strategy for responding to nominal Christianity.
First, believing parents (and grandparents) need to be diligent to pass the faith on to the next generation by raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. A godly home is ground zero for disciple-making. This includes teaching young people the difference between a cultural Christianity that is a blessing to a nation and a nominal faith that leads to the eternal damnation of individuals.
Second, churches need to be faithful in preaching biblical truth with clarity, forming disciples with intentionality, faithfully observing baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and sacrificially serving the needs of their members and their wider communities. Churches should cultivate a regenerate membership through the clear proclamation of the gospel and its implications, as well as the practice of redemptive church discipline. Healthy churches offer a corporate apologetic for the truth of the faith.
Third, we need to be intentional and urgent in our evangelistic witness to the spiritually lost, including those who claim to be Christians but are believers in name only. We shouldn’t assume someone is born-again because he claims the Christian label, is socially conservative, was raised in a church, or even is currently a member of a church. Nominal Christians may make great neighbors, but they are also a mission field.
Finally, we need to pray for spiritual awakening. This is one area where I definitely differ from James and his fine article. In much the same way that I was suspicious of cultural Christianity because I confused it with nominal Christianity, I’m not sure he doesn’t make the same mistake by confusing revival with revivalism. As a conservative evangelical, I long for widespread revival that will not only result in the salvation of unbelievers, but also contribute to national renewal.
I long to see the influence of Christianity spread across our land, for the sake of the health of our nation and the flourishing of her citizens.
In sum, I’ve come to believe that the obvious good of cultural Christianity far outweighs the potential shortcomings. It is a good thing that so many of our laws, customs, and values have been shaped by Christianity. Even our historic commitment to the separation of church and state and religious liberty for all has deep roots in the Christian tradition, not modern secularism. (I hope to publish an essay on that topic elsewhere next week.) The fact is America is in the sorry shape it is largely, if not exclusively, because we have rejected our culturally Christian heritage. Our cultural decline isn’t due to too much influence from Christianity, but too much influence from progressive fads that are rooted in secular delusions and pagan decadence.
I long to see the influence of Christianity spread across our land, for the sake of the health of our nation and the flourishing of her citizens. In other words, I desire to see a rejuvenated cultural Christianity that advances the common good. I also want more individual believers and local churches to be intentional in making a clear distinction between cultural Christianity and regenerate faith, lest people be deceived into thinking nominal Christianity is the real thing. As Richard Land so eloquently argues, American may have never been a Christian nation in the fullest sense of that term, but America has always been at her best when she has been a nation of Christians.
No comments have been added.