As Christianity continues to say no within the West, the broader world has begun to note something’s missing. There appears to be a growing awareness that—for all of the scandals and failings of the church—the lack of a Christian culture leaves us all worse off, and that there are advantages to being a Christian and to living in a Christian society.
For example, Derek Thompson recently wrote in The Atlantic in regards to the lack of community that comes with declining church attendance. “Maybe religion, for all of its faults, works a bit like a retaining wall,” he concluded, “hold[ing] back the destabilizing pressure of American hyper-individualism, which threatens to swell and spill over in its absence.”
Likewise, Harvard scholar Tyler J. VanderWeele has extensively researched the advantages of participation in religious services, finding that it results in improved mental and physical health, happiness, and sense of meaning. Statistically, going to church frequently will enable you to flourish as a human being. As Brad Wilcox, a professor on the University of Virginia, has shown, regular church attendance even correlates with a more satisfying sex life!
And then you’ve gotten those like former atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who explain their conversion to Christianity a minimum of partly as a response to the decay of the contemporary world, a world threatened by “woke ideology,” “global Islam,” and authoritarianism. “The only credible answer, I think, lies in our desire to uphold the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition,” Hirsi Ali said in an essay announcing her latest faith. Famous atheist Richard Dawkins objected to Hirsi Ali’s conversion yet seems to resonate together with her reasoning, as he recently described himself as a “cultural Christian” in response to the growing influence of Islam within the UK.
What these arguments have in common is the popularity that Christianity is tangibly good for the human person and society. It improves our sex lives, mental health, and social networks, and it gives us a stability, order, and foundation for liberty and justice that the contemporary secular world can’t replicate. These are powerful reasons to turn out to be a Christian and encourage the spread of a minimum of a superficially Christian culture—one which assumes the ethos of Christianity even when it doesn’t accept the orthodoxy of Christianity. After all, the info seems clear: A more Christian culture would produce more human flourishing.
But is that this awareness of Christianity’s measurable advantages a threat to authentic faith or a chance for the gospel?
On the one hand, as Christians who do accept the orthodox doctrines of the religion, it’s unsurprising to us that living based on God’s law will produce blessings. Living against the grain of the universe is certain to cause harm to individuals and society alike. And since we’re called to “seek the welfare of town where I even have sent you into exile” (Jer. 29:7), we must advocate for policies, practices, and social norms that align with our Christian faith. If we imagine that God’s will for our lives is to live based on his design of the universe, and if we love our neighbor, we must always encourage our neighbor to live based on that design. In this light, even Dawkins’s faithless “cultural Christianity” is probably a small step in the correct direction.
But God’s will for our lives shouldn’t be just that we live based on his law. His will is that we all know him through his Son, Jesus Christ. And this introduces a challenge for Christians as more individuals are becoming aware of the private and social advantages of our faith: How can we proclaim the goodness of Christianity without turning it into just one other tool for achieving well-being? In other words, we must ask ourselves whether a culture that adopts the virtues of our faith for its material advantages might perpetually neglect and even turn out to be inoculated against its spiritual advantages.
In a recent article about Dawkins’s comment, CT editor in chief Russell Moore expressed just this concern. “Christianity shouldn’t be about national anthems and village chapels and candlelight carol sings,” he wrote. It isn’t simply not-Islam (as Dawkins would really like) or not-wokeness (as Hirsi Ali wants). And if “the gospel isn’t real, the gospel doesn’t work. Genuine paganism will win out over pretend Christianity each time.” Christianity without orthodoxy—Christianity that shouldn’t be a living faith in response to a living God—becomes nothing greater than a social identity.
And the world is crammed with social identities. If one can receive the fabric advantages of Christianity without actually believing the gospel, then why hassle dying to self and living in radical obedience to Christ? As I argued in Disruptive Witness, the fashionable tendency is to view Christianity as a lifestyle option, not as a revealed truth from a transcendent God who entered into history in the shape of Christ. If people come to Christianity only because they see it as a superior approach to self-optimize, then when the demands of Christianity turn out to be too great, they’ll abandon it for some easier fad.
In that context, it’s easy to assume an alternate Christianity evolving that actually makes a mockery of the religion by denaturing it, removing the Christ from Christianity. Even worse, Christ could come to be understood as a mere symbol, a meme for a largely political movement which is utterly unconcerned with the reality of Scripture.
It’s easy to assume this since it’s already happened for a very long time in some segments of American Christianity. The social gospel of progressives who’ve abandoned core doctrines just like the Resurrection is an ideal example. And on the political right, Christianity can turn out to be a type of civic religion, as in former president Donald Trump’s recent promotion of an America-themed Bible. Christianity is all the time susceptible to being co-opted by those that want the fabric advantages of the religion without the spiritual reality of the gospel.
But is it necessarily the case that those attracted by the fabric advantages will fail to adopt a deep, personal, orthodox faith? Is it possible that folks concerned a couple of world gone insane could come to faith via this mundane path—first drawn to the God-designed order that’s inherent in Christianity, after which drawn to God himself? Is it possible that people who find themselves lonely and depressed could come to faith by first being drawn to the God-designed community inherent within the church?
I see the actual risks of cultural Christianity. But I think unbelievers who’re first attracted by the advantages, not the gospel, may yet stumble into the religion. They may seek God “and maybe reach out for him and find him, though he shouldn’t be removed from any one in every of us” (Acts 17:27).
There is danger here, and we have to be wary of encouraging a superficial, denatured Christian culture. But we discover ourselves with a remarkable opening to proclaim the gospel. Whether people come to church to socialize or out of obedience to God, they should hear the gospel. Whether people show interest in Christianity due to their fears about progressive culture or because they’re convinced in regards to the historicity of the Resurrection, they should hear the gospel.
The challenge is to ask those that see the advantages of our faith to see that these are perfect gifts from the Father, not merely positive outcomes from an optimized lifestyle. The gospel is that invitation. Proclaiming it’s how we are able to explain to our neighbors that Christian culture is nice since it comes from a loving God who “richly blesses all who call on him” (Rom. 10:12), a God who desires them to repent and switch to him.
O. Alan Noble is associate professor of English at Oklahoma Baptist University and creator of three books: On Getting Out of Bed: The Burden and Gift of Living, You Are Not Your Own: Belonging to God in an Inhuman World, and Disruptive Witness: Speaking Truth in a Distracted Age.
