Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Is Christianity Rejected Because It’s a “Low Status” Signifier?

 

I came across this intriguing post from Patheos’ site. The thesis is that in the aftermath of such things as the Scopes monkey trial, being a Christian has become a marker of low status, and that this explains both its decline and lack of appeal as well as the failure of attempts to “engage the culture” by making it appear hip.

The idea behind the “engaging the culture” movement was that, rather than withdrawing from the surrounding culture as their fundamentalist cousins did, evangelicals should go forth to meet it. The expected outcome of this going forth was a revival of Christian faith.

It sort of makes sense. If enough evangelicals, the idea was, could be trained to engage the surrounding culture, especially in the culture-making arenas of politics, education and the media, eventually these well-placed agents of change could turn things around.

What this plan never took into account is the dynamics of social status. Evangelicals sought to engage the culture by being relevant, by creating works of art, by offering good arguments for their positions. None of these addressed the real problem: that Christian belief simply isn’t cool, and that very few people want to lower their social status by identifying publicly with it.

I suspect that there is some truth to it. Your thoughts?

There are 338 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member

    Low status? I thought it was low intellect.

    • #1
    • March 27, 2018, at 9:20 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Richard Easton Member

    There was a hierarchy of churches 60-70 years ago. Episcopalians were at the top. Baptists or Pentecostals were much further down. Sneering at Christianity has been encouraged by many of the chattering classes for some time.

    • #2
    • March 27, 2018, at 9:31 PM PDT
    • 23 likes
  3. Saint Augustine Member

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    There was a hierarchy of churches 60-70 years ago. Episcopalians were at the top. Baptists or Pentecostals were much further down. Sneering at Christianity has been encouraged by many of the chattering classes for some time.

    Yes. It’s ok to be Christian as long as you don’t really believe in much of the actual theology. Just don’t be like Baptists. Baptists are stupid. If you become a Baptist you’ll look stupid. You don’t want to look stupid, do you?

    • #3
    • March 27, 2018, at 9:37 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
  4. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Contributor

    TeamAmerica:
    I suspect that there is some truth to it.

    Your thoughts?

    This writer, Dean, speaks specifically of evangelical Christianity, which, to many people (including self-identified Evangelicals) is as much a demographic group as it is a creed. For example, see his other story here. Whether we’re talking about the creed or the demographic group when we say “evangelical” has become a pretty big deal lately –

    Understanding the religious landscape, however, requires discerning differences between the smaller, let’s call it “big-E Evangelicalism,” which gets much media attention, and a much larger, little-e evangelicalism, which does not. The larger, lower-case evangelicalism is defined not by a political party, whether conservative, liberal, or populist, but by theological beliefs. This non-political definition of evangelicalism has been presented in many places…

    …Do the self-identified white “big-E Evangelicals” of the pollsters hold to these beliefs? Recent studies indicate that many do not. In many parts of the country, Evangelicalism serves as the civil or folk religion accepted by default as part of one’s social and political identity. So, in many cases, it means that the political is more defining than theological beliefs, which has not been the case historically. And, because of the enormous amount of attention the media pays to the Evangelical vote, the term now has a decisively political meaning in popular usage.

    Dean wasn’t just little-e evangelical. He was also working-class Hoosier. While it’s true academics can be unsympathetic to Christians, it’s not necessarily true they treat Christians as low-class. Unfortunately, if you’re also a working-class Hoosier… I question Dean’s attributing all the ill-treatment he experienced to his faith, rather than realizing class differences, irrespective of faith, may also have had something to do with it.

    I agree it’s true many people consider “evangelical” to be the folk religion of a certain class, though they don’t usually see all Christian denominations as being of that class.

    • #4
    • March 27, 2018, at 9:50 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  5. TeamAmerica Member
    TeamAmericaJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    TeamAmerica:
    I suspect that there is some truth to it.

    Your thoughts?

    This writer, Dean, speaks specifically of evangelical Christianity, which, to many people (including self-identified Evangelicals) is as much a demographic group as it is a creed. For example, see his other story here. Whether we’re talking about the creed or the demographic group when we say “evangelical” has become a pretty big deal lately –

    Understanding the religious landscape, however, requires discerning differences between the smaller, let’s call it “big-E Evangelicalism,” which gets much media attention, and a much larger, little-e evangelicalism, which does not. The larger, lower-case evangelicalism is defined not by a political party, whether conservative, liberal, or populist, but by theological beliefs. This non-political definition of evangelicalism has been presented in many places…

    …Do the self-identified white “big-E Evangelicals” of the pollsters hold to these beliefs? Recent studies indicate that many do not. In many parts of the country, Evangelicalism serves as the civil or folk religion accepted by default as part of one’s social and political identity. So, in many cases, it means that the political is more defining than theological beliefs, which has not been the case historically. And, because of the enormous amount of attention the media pays to the Evangelical vote, the term now has a decisively political meaning in popular usage.

    Dean wasn’t just little-e evangelical. He was also working-class Hoosier. While it’s true academics can be unsympathetic to Christians, it’s not necessarily true they treat Christians as low-class. Unfortunately, if you’re also a working-class Hoosier… I question Dean’s attributing all the ill-treatment he experienced to his faith, rather than realizing class differences, irrespective of faith, may also have had something to do with it.

    I agree it’s true many people consider “evangelical” to be the folk religion of a certain class, though they don’t usually see all Christian denominations as being of that class.

    I don’t know. One of the points o the Patheos article was that Leftism is now the only acceptable religion of our elites, which was brought home to me when a businessman like Bill Gates co-founded MSNBC, the network furthest to the left. I think there is now contempt for all Christian belief, especially now that our universities and law schools, the institutions that create our elites, are now dominated by post-modern radicals who demand all bend the knee to their trinity of race, gender and class.

    • #5
    • March 27, 2018, at 10:08 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  6. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Contributor

    TeamAmerica (View Comment):

    I think there is now contempt for all Christian belief, especially now that our universities and law schools, the institutions that create our elites, are now dominated by post-modern radicals who demand all bend the knee to their trinity of race, gender and class.

    I did not find it so in academia, although perhaps I was lucky – devout Christians were odd, but not contemptible. On the other hand, how Christians presented themselves did matter – drawing attention to one’s unwillingness to go along to get along in matters not essential to faith would attract negative attention, but that’s a common dynamic in many social situations: people who make it known they won’t go along to get along in any group often attract negative attention.

    There are Christians conversant with the language of race, gender, and class. Yes, people who consider those things essential to understanding how the world works lose patience with those who themselves lose patience with such a worldview. But at least when I was in school, it was possible to have conversations where both sides listened to each other and respectfully disagreed – it took rapport and circumspection, but it was possible.

    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Overall, I think it’s a complicated mix.

    • #6
    • March 27, 2018, at 10:28 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. Saint Augustine Member

    You know, I actually know a Christian in academia. He’s a weirdo. Also a Baptist, and therefore stupid. He’ll never go far. Or, with any luck, he’ll go far–far away, that is. Like Pakistan or Hong Kong. He’ll never amount to anything in America. Loser.

    • #7
    • March 27, 2018, at 10:31 PM PDT
    • 17 likes
  8. Cow Girl Thatcher

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Okay, is this a parody website? It doesn’t sound real. But, I can understand if a person is always up in people’s faces about religion, you’re bound to be considered obnoxious. That is kind of the idea I’ve gotten from the big-E evangelicals–be out there and loud about it, and annoy people, instead of just living your faith and being concerned with your own salvation.

    • #8
    • March 27, 2018, at 10:40 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  9. Saint Augustine Member

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Okay, is this a parody website? It doesn’t sound real. But, I can understand if a person is always up in people’s faces about religion, you’re bound to be considered obnoxious. That is kind of the idea I’ve gotten from the big-E evangelicals–be out there and loud about it, and annoy people, instead of just living your faith and being concerned with your own salvation.

    We’d hardly be faithful to our faith if we were only concerned with ourselves. Surely there is a middle ground here!

    • #9
    • March 27, 2018, at 10:42 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  10. TeamAmerica Member
    TeamAmericaJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    @Midget Faded Rattlesnake- You said “I did not find it so in academia, although perhaps I was lucky.” However you didn’t say what decade this occurred. If you look at the treatment of the Little Sisters of the Poor, of Larry Summer at Harvard, of Condoleeza Rice at Rutgers etc., we see that our elites are trained to be intolerant post modernists. And if Christianity stands in the way, it must be attacked and marginalized. 

    • #10
    • March 28, 2018, at 12:05 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Zafar Member

    There seems to be an inverse relationship between perceived traditional religiosity and perceived social class in a lot of places around the world. I don’t think it’s just Christianity and America.

    • #11
    • March 28, 2018, at 1:39 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  12. Amy Schley, Longcat Shrinker Moderator

    I have quite literally been told by a boss I was too smart to be a believer. If that doesn’t serve as an example of the disdain Christians are held in, I’m not sure what does. 

    • #12
    • March 28, 2018, at 4:13 AM PDT
    • 17 likes
  13. Cato Rand Inactive

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Okay, is this a parody website? It doesn’t sound real. But, I can understand if a person is always up in people’s faces about religion, you’re bound to be considered obnoxious. That is kind of the idea I’ve gotten from the big-E evangelicals–be out there and loud about it, and annoy people, instead of just living your faith and being concerned with your own salvation.

    We’d hardly be faithful to our faith if we were only concerned with ourselves. Surely there is a middle ground here!

    If there is it’s very low pressure sales – defined as bugging off when a reasonable person would “get” that the target isn’t showing any interest in the product.

    • #13
    • March 28, 2018, at 4:26 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Profile Photo Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    You know, I actually know a Christian in Academia. He’s a weirdo. Also a Baptist, and therefore stupid. He’ll never go far. Or, with any luck, he’ll go far–far away, that is. Like Pakistan or Hong Kong. He’ll never amount to anything in America. Loser.

    I think you’re being a little rough on the guy. He’s not that bad. Sometimes even shows some promise. ;-)

    • #14
    • March 28, 2018, at 4:39 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  15. Cato Rand Inactive

    I think there’s something to this but don’t underestimate the fact that for many of us, the eschatology is just simply not intellectually compelling. It is unevidenced and has all the look, feel and smell of both primitive superstition and a narrative developed by an elite to gain and maintain social control. In short, it just seems very likely to have been made up — for perfectly human and understandable reasons — but made up nonetheless. Add to the skepticism about the eschatology the history of Christianity having once made and been dogmatic about demonstrably erroneous claims (and in some quarters still being dogmatic about some of them) — a 6000 year old earth, an earth centered universe, etc. (yes, evolution too) — and many of us are just honestly, rationally, incredulous.

    That doesn’t justify mistreating or discriminating against Christians obviously. But it explains why some of us look at them (you?) and just scratch our heads wondering what you could possibly be thinking? Even wondering (or fighting the temptation to wonder) if you’re serious?

    • #15
    • March 28, 2018, at 4:40 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  16. Saint Augustine Member

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I think there’s something to this but don’t underestimate the fact that for many of us, the eschatology is just simply not intellectually compelling. It is unevidenced and has all the look, feel and smell of both primitive superstition and a narrative developed by an elite to gain and maintain social control. In short, it just seems very likely to have been made up — for perfectly human and understandable reasons — but made up nonetheless. . . .

    Can you elaborate? In particular, what eschatology are you referring to?

    Epistemologically, the eschatology primarily comes in based on the authority of Christ and Scripture (and, Catholics and others may add, the church). Critiquing or defending the eschatology in itself is interesting and perhaps somewhat important, but not as much as other questions.

    The more foundational questions are more important–whether the inerrancy of the Bible makes sense, whether evidence given for it is good, whether the historical claims regarding the Resurrection meet the standards of historical evidence, whether the Messianic prophecies Jesus fits were really made centuries before him, whether it’s rational to trust the testimony of the church, etc.

    (Epistemologically speaking.)

    • #16
    • March 28, 2018, at 5:06 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  17. Saint Augustine Member

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Okay, is this a parody website? It doesn’t sound real. But, I can understand if a person is always up in people’s faces about religion, you’re bound to be considered obnoxious. That is kind of the idea I’ve gotten from the big-E evangelicals–be out there and loud about it, and annoy people, instead of just living your faith and being concerned with your own salvation.

    We’d hardly be faithful to our faith if we were only concerned with ourselves. Surely there is a middle ground here!

    If there is it’s very LOW pressure sales – defined as bugging off when a reasonable person would “get” that the target isn’t showing any interest in the product.

    Yeah, that might well be it–at least as far as the direct evangelism goes. (There’s still prayer, helping our neighbors, etc., etc.)

    • #17
    • March 28, 2018, at 5:08 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. GrannyDude Member

    I’ve said this before, but what the heck, I’ll say it again: Eschatology is, in my experience, the least interesting and compelling part of Christianity (et al) and the most potentially pernicious. It is also how one recognizes the religious element in, for example, environmentalism, wherein the phrase “sinners in the hands of an angry God” sums up the fate of mankind as imagined by climate change enthusiasts. 

    The religion creates (or at least frames) the urgent, life-and-death problem that the religion is then uniquely able to solve. 

    This emphasis on eschatology seems to me to be largely a marker of younger religious traditions, and those which, faced with hard times, are in need of reformation. It serves a unifying function in the beginning or renewal of a faith, when the adherent most needs to believe that his cause isn’t just good but transcendently good, not just true but The Truth; that his categories of Us and Them aren’t just temporal and proximate but eternal and ultimate. 

    It’s not that any given eschatology might not, in fact, accurately describe reality. For all I know, the End Times really are near, and some are going to get Raptured while others (doubtless myself among them) are going to be wailing and gnashing our teeth. Or maybe Osama bin Laden really is lolling by the rivers of wine surrounded by virgins.

    Is it just me, or does anyone else feel inclined to shrug at this? And think: Okay, but right here, right now my job is still to love God and my neighbor with all my heart, soul, strength, mind…? And this is such a compelling and interesting project—and the Bible and history have so much to offer when it comes to this—that the afterlife and/or the end of the world are just going to have to take care of themselves?

     

     

     

    • #18
    • March 28, 2018, at 5:40 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  19. Saint Augustine Member

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    I’ve said this before, but what the heck, I’ll say it again: Eschatology is, in my experience, the least interesting and compelling part of Christianity (et al) and the most potentially pernicious. It is also how one recognizes the religious element in, for example, environmentalism, wherein the phrase “sinners in the hands of an angry God” sums up the fate of mankind as imagined by climate change enthusiasts.

    The religion creates (or at least frames) the urgent, life-and-death problem that the religion is then uniquely able to solve.

    I’m lost. What points of eschatology are you talking about exactly?

    This emphasis on eschatology seems to me to be largely a marker of younger religious traditions, and those which, faced with hard times, are in need of reformation. . . .

    So . . . Buddhism and Christianity are younger religious traditions? And Second-Temple Judaism? And Islam?

    Or do we not use the word “eschatology” in the same way?

    • #19
    • March 28, 2018, at 5:57 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Travis McKee Inactive

    It was founded by a fatherless carpenter, and first caught on among fishermen and prostitutes. Among the fastest groups to convert, once introduced to the religion, were the Untouchables of India. It was always for the low caste, and today, is still most devoutly followed in the Global South, the poorer half of the globe.

    Regarding elites, anti-theism in general is clearly trending as a shibboleth of the power elite. I don’t expect our current order to last much longer, but it is troubling, because I can no longer stand just about anybody with influence in modern society. 

     

    • #20
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:14 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  21. Mate De Inactive

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    There was a hierarchy of churches 60-70 years ago. Episcopalians were at the top. Baptists or Pentecostals were much further down. Sneering at Christianity has been encouraged by many of the chattering classes for some time.

    I’m Catholic, and everybody looks down on us. Including Catholics.

    • #21
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:22 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  22. Spin Coolidge
    SpinJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    There may be some truth to it. I think at the heart though, is the fact that we often turn to Christianity when we have nothing left to turn to. If you have a high tech job in Bellevue and a swank office, and you have a lot of sweet friends with man bags and skinny jeans, and you can afford that non-fat vanilla whatsit and gluten free bagel every morning, what need do you have for Christ?

    But if you don’t know how you are going to get the electric bill paid before it is shut off, and you are at the end of your rope, you might have more of a tendency to turn to Christ as a source of hope. 

    There is another angle to consider, though. As a life long Christian and conservative, I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think what really turns the left away from Christianity is its individuality. There is no bureaucracy in to which you plug to gain your identity. Your identity is in Christ alone. Your salvation comes from Him alone. This is anathema to the left.

    • #22
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:27 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  23. Zafar Member

    Mate De (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    There was a hierarchy of churches 60-70 years ago. Episcopalians were at the top. Baptists or Pentecostals were much further down. Sneering at Christianity has been encouraged by many of the chattering classes for some time.

    I’m Catholic, and everybody looks down on us. Including Catholics.

    No way! I like youse. 

    • #23
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:28 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  24. Zafar Member

    Travis McKee (View Comment):

    It was founded by a fatherless carpenter, and first caught on among fishermen and prostitutes. Among the fastest groups to convert, once introduced to the religion, were the Untouchables of India.

    Sorry to be picky but most Dalits are still Hindus. Dalits are about 16% of the Indian population. Christians are about 2.5%.

    • #24
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:33 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  25. Vectorman Member

    Spin (View Comment):
    I think what really turns the left away from Christianity is its individuality. There is no bureaucracy in to which you plug to gain your identity. Your identity is in Christ alone. Your salvation comes from Him alone. This is anathema to the left.

    • #25
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:37 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  26. Cato Rand Inactive

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I think there’s something to this but don’t underestimate the fact that for many of us, the eschatology is just simply not intellectually compelling. It is unevidenced and has all the look, feel and smell of both primitive superstition and a narrative developed by an elite to gain and maintain social control. In short, it just seems very likely to have been made up — for perfectly human and understandable reasons — but made up nonetheless. . . .

    Can you elaborate? In particular, what eschatology are you referring to?

    Epistemologically, the eschatology primarily comes in based on the authority of Christ and Scripture (and, Catholics and others may add, the church). Critiquing or defending the eschatology in itself is interesting and perhaps somewhat important, but not as much as other questions.

    The more foundational questions are more important–whether the inerrancy of the Bible makes sense, whether evidence given for it is good, whether the historical claims regarding the Resurrection meet the standards of historical evidence, whether the Messianic prophecies Jesus fits were really made centuries before him, whether it’s rational to trust the testimony of the church, etc.

    (Epistemologically speaking.)

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Biblical inerrancy as an epistemology strains my credulity way past the breaking point. It does for very large numbers of people. BTW, I’m not going to go round and round with you on that epistemological question. I’m well aware you’re able to fill a book with arguments for it but I’ve read that book already, and to say I am unpersuaded is a gross understatement. My point was simply to articulate one of the alternatives to class snobbishness for the the failure of the “engage the culture” movement discussed in article cited in the OP.

    • #26
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:42 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Cato Rand Inactive

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Cow Girl (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    I witnessed some instances of this at school, where the individual’s awkward or otherwise obnoxious presentation, not his faith, caused the conflict.

    Okay, is this a parody website? It doesn’t sound real. But, I can understand if a person is always up in people’s faces about religion, you’re bound to be considered obnoxious. That is kind of the idea I’ve gotten from the big-E evangelicals–be out there and loud about it, and annoy people, instead of just living your faith and being concerned with your own salvation.

    We’d hardly be faithful to our faith if we were only concerned with ourselves. Surely there is a middle ground here!

    If there is it’s very LOW pressure sales – defined as bugging off when a reasonable person would “get” that the target isn’t showing any interest in the product.

    Yeah, that might well be it–at least as far as the direct evangelism goes. (There’s still prayer, helping our neighbors, etc., etc.)

    Helping our neighbors is probably something we can agree on. And if the example it sets generates interest in what motivates your good works, good on ‘ya.

    • #27
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:44 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  28. Stina Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    There was a hierarchy of churches 60-70 years ago. Episcopalians were at the top. Baptists or Pentecostals were much further down. Sneering at Christianity has been encouraged by many of the chattering classes for some time.

    Yes. It’s ok to be Christian as long as you don’t really believe in much of the actual theology. Just don’t be like Baptists. Baptists are stupid. If you become a Baptist you’ll look stupid. You don’t want to look stupid, do you?

    Honestly, yeah.

    Catholics and Anglicans have a richer history of apologetics and well-reasoned theology. Anyone who studies their faith in those traditions are a bit more intelligent.

    Baptists are great at prioritizing scripture, knowing it, and memorizing it, but they are weak on context, theology, and apologetics.

    The lack of Reason + Faith kinda does make them dumber.

    However, I’ll take the faithful adherence to scripture of Baptists over the well-reasoned justifications to do the opposite of what scripture says any day.

    Baptists are the children with faith.

    There’s a great holiday coming up in a few days – Easter and April Fool’s. I keep telling my husband how disappointed I will be if the priest doesn’t talk about being a fool for Christ.

    In our weakness, He makes us strong.

    • #28
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:47 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  29. Cato Rand Inactive

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    The religion creates (or at least frames) the urgent, life-and-death problem that the religion is then uniquely able to solve.

    This is where I was going with my “narrative designed to obtain and maintain social control” comment.

    • #29
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:50 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Cato Rand Inactive

    Spin (View Comment):

    There may be some truth to it. I think at the heart though, is the fact that we often turn to Christianity when we have nothing left to turn to. If you have a high tech job in Bellevue and a swank office, and you have a lot of sweet friends with man bags and skinny jeans, and you can afford that non-fat vanilla whatsit and gluten free bagel every morning, what need do you have for Christ?

    But if you don’t know how you are going to get the electric bill paid before it is shut off, and you are at the end of your rope, you might have more of a tendency to turn to Christ as a source of hope.

    There is another angle to consider, though. As a life long Christian and conservative, I’ve thought about this a lot, and I think what really turns the left away from Christianity is its individuality. There is no bureaucracy in to which you plug to gain your identity. Your identity is in Christ alone. Your salvation comes from Him alone. This is anathema to the left.

    Anathema? Or just mystifying and perplexing? I’m probably a proxy for “the left” where this discussion is concerned and I can tell you that I don’t hate it, in a “whatever floats your boat” way, but I do find it a genuine head scratcher. 

    • #30
    • March 28, 2018, at 6:56 AM PDT
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.