A little over a week ago, the always insightful Hannah Anderson posted a thread on the reality that many we are calling “nones” aren’t actually irreligious. In fact many are deeply conservative, their just no longer attending church. And there is an entire segment of those leaving the church of whom the populist religion of Christian Nationalism holds great appeal.
This is her conclusion, but you would do well to read the entire thread:
IOW, becoming a “none” doesn’t necessarily mean leaving religion. It means leaving ORGANIZED religion. And for those on the right or in conservative spaces, it means deconstructing toward the populist religion of Xian Nationalism.
— hannah anderson (@sometimesalight) October 24, 2022
It’s not my intention here to discuss the relative merits or demerits of Christian Nationalism. But for the sake of argument let me say that who I am particularly referring to here are those described in Hannah’s thread. They have some vestiges of religion, can probably talk somewhat Christianly, but they do not have an active and vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ.
Such a person may enjoy hearing a reading from the Bible, they may fight to have the 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn, they’ll argue for prayer in schools, and may even know every verse of sacred hymns. Yet, a relationship with Jesus Christ they do not have.
Are Cultural Christians Still Lost?
There was a day when we called these “cultural Christians”. I remember in my early days of door-to-door evangelism, encountering many folk who shared a cultural worldview with us, but at the end of the day they did not have a relationship with Jesus. We shared the gospel with them.
But something has happened in the past 10-15 years that has been astonishing to watch. We’ve merged gospel fidelity with adherence to conservatism. In my experience, Christian folk became so concerned about secularism, postmodernism, etc. that we’ve taken some strange bedfellows.
The result is evidenced by a conversation that I had with a woman about 5 years ago. She was mourning the loss of a nephew. As she was sharing about his life she told me, “I do not know if he was a Christian or not. I know he didn’t go to church, but he was very conservative and so I always assumed he was a believer.”
All this to say that I believe Hannah is correct in her assessment. And it explains the rise of this populist religion. But it seems to me that some are no longer even considering such a person as lost. It seems that in some circles so long as someone is a conservative, that’s victory enough.
But what if we started engaging them as if they are lost? And not only lost, but what if we began sharing Jesus with them using some of the same tools we’ve used for engaging secular people with the gospel.
Yes, But No, But Yes
It is my opinion that we are assuming entirely too much about the “nones” who are on the right-wing. I suppose its because we bought the lie that one cannot drift to the right, that we’ve gotten here. But, that’s a myth and a dangerous one. There is abandonment of the gospel on the right and the left.
What if those of us entrenched in more conservative circles began to use principles of contextualization? Contextualization means that you “resonate with yet defy the culture around you.” (Keller, 99) What would that look like?
In his book on Preaching, Tim Keller uses the example of the apostle John contextualizing the Greek word logos. He calls it the “yes, but no, but yes.” Here is how Keller explains John’s engagement with the unbelieving Greeks:
Yes, Christians agree that history is not random and the world is not meaningless, that there is a logos, a purpose and order, behind it all. Yes too, if you align yourself with that order, you will live well. However, no—it is not something you can find through philosophical reasoning, because it is not an ‘it’ at all; it is a him. Jesus Christ is the creator God, come in the flesh. Finally, yes—ultimate meaning in life is possible. What you passionately seek is there, and your desires can be fulfilled if you enter into a reconciled relationship with the one who created you and who governs the universe. (Keller, 98)
Might I suggest that we engage in a “Yes, But No, But Yes” framework as we engage not only the secular left but also the secular right (even if cloaked in familiar religious garb)?
Some of the intuitions of the secular right are likely correct. There is truth to be gleaned there. But there are also things which must be confronted. After all, they are still without Christ and without hope in Christ. There must still be a call to repent and believe.
Might it be wise for us to really listen to some of the hopes and fears and longings of the secular right? Would it be good for us to reframe some of these questions, reshape the concerns, and redirect hopes? (Keller, 99)
What would this look like…?
—
Photo source: here
