Woke Progressivism’s Glaring Religion Gap

Identity politics demands that we "educate ourselves." So why are its practitioners so often ignorant of religious belief?

When I was an undergraduate, my favorite professor was Dr. Messer, an expert on the great 20th-century Southern Catholic novelist Walker Percy.

Percy’s novel The Last Gentleman begins with an epigraph from the philosopher Romano Guardini, predicting a future in which “the unbeliever will…cease to reap benefit from the values and forces developed by the very Revelation he denies” and love “will disappear from the face of the public world.”

To help us understand this abstract post-Christian prognostication, Dr. Messer would tell us a story. His wife had a friend who was educated, cultured, and smart. One day, the friend asked Mrs. Messer a question: “You’re a Christian, right?” Mrs. Messer confirmed that she was. Well then, the friend wanted to know, why do so many church buildings have the letter “t” on the roof?

While this level of ignorance might sound comical, it’s become increasingly acceptable among America’s cultural elites. In his recent standup special “Kid Gorgeous,” comedian John Mulaney sets up a joke about his religious upbringing: “If you grew up going to church and you have adult friends that didn’t, they have a lot of questions. They’re like, ‘Wait, so [your parents] forced you to go? …What do they say in there? What do they do? What did they tell you?’” When mimicking these chronically unchurched friends, Mulaney, himself a lapsed Catholic married to a secular Jew, drops his voice to a conspiratorial whisper, as if his sophisticated New York set sees no difference between the Catholic Mass and the Black Mass. To an entire generation, all organized religion is something mysterious, sinister even.

I’ve encountered the same ignorance about religion during my graduate studies at Georgetown. In a class on how British literature responded to the issues raised by the French Revolution, I mentioned to my Marxist professor that I was interested in writing my paper on Unitarianism, a sect that denied the Trinity and tended toward radical politics. She, the professor, suggested that I might start by reading a newly published book on Methodism. She wasn’t prompting me to shift or broaden my topic; she genuinely didn’t know the difference. She is a brilliant and accomplished scholar in other areas, but trying to study 18th-century Britain, or any other time and place, without knowing anything about its religion seems like an exercise in futility. She herself acknowledged her blind spot in her response to my paper, assuring me that she would put more emphasis on religion the next time she taught the class.

One more example. Last month, San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral (which is, of course, Episcopal) held a “Beyoncé Mass” that featured choral renditions of Beyoncé songs and a Beyoncé-based sermon designed to empower women of color. The entire thing was reprehensible, but there was one moment from Vice’s coverage that really caught my eye. About a minute into the video, Vice reporter Nyasha Shani Foy mentions that the Beyoncé Mass could help attract a younger crowd to church, and then recites some statistics about how drastically Catholic Mass attendance has fallen since the 1950s. I was flabbergasted. Foy, who I’m sure knows an entire encyclopedia of identity politics terminology backwards and forwards, couldn’t be bothered to learn the difference between Roman Catholicism and Episcopalianism.

Of course, this tendency to collapse the distinctions between sects in a sort of lazy ecumenism is partly the fault of Christians themselves. According to the Pew Research Center’s 2015 study of “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” fully 42 percent of Americans belong to a religion different than the one they were born into. This figure, however, is based on Pew’s somewhat arbitrary division of Protestantism into three branches: evangelical, mainline, and African-American. If the endlessly proliferating plethora of over 33,000 Christian sects in America alone were taken into account, I have no doubt it would be higher. The 21st-century habit of casually bouncing between Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and non-denominational churches looking for good sermons and hip music was unheard of among my grandparents’ generation. If you were born a Lutheran, you died a Lutheran. It seems that even Christians have become ignorant of what makes their particular religious traditions unique.

In a garish instance of the Procrustean bed, we cut our religion to suit our preferences instead of working to conform ourselves to the teachings of our faith traditions, a problem equally evident in mainline and evangelical denominations. As a result, the Church has become corrupted by politics. In 1960, only 5 percent of Americans said they would be uncomfortable with their child marrying someone from the opposite political party. By 2010, the number was up to 40 percent, even as interfaith marriages continued to rise. Commenting on this trend, the Institute for Family Studies suggested that politics has “taken the place of religion as a way of expressing our most basic values.” Of course it has. In each individual life, religion must either rule or serve. As a ruler, it can challenge ideas on every side of the spectrum and defend us against becoming blindly ideological. As a servant, it quickly becomes a mewling, conniving sycophant, eager to please its ideological masters.

This movement toward cafeteria Christianity also has consequences outside the Church. Christians have given secularists the impression that Christianity is whatever one makes of it, so why should those secularists bother to educate themselves? With 33,000 denominations all claiming to be correct, it’s not much of a stretch for an atheist to claim that his idea of Jesus must be just as valid as that of the 2,000-year-old Roman Catholic Church. As Christianity has lost its grounding, Christian religious identity has been taken less seriously, despite the rise of identity politics. Anyone who fails to stay up to date on the newest permutation of LGBT (last I checked, it was up to LGBTQQICAPF2K+) leaves himself vulnerable to angry demands that he “educate himself.” Yet Mulaney’s crowd, my Georgetown professor, Mrs. Messer’s friend, and Nyasha Shani Foy all see nothing wrong with being blithely ignorant of something that, for many people, defines them far more than their race or gender.

Appropriation of Christianity doesn’t seem to be an issue either. I have multiple Facebook friends who insist they aren’t Christians but still never miss an opportunity to secular-splain that Jesus would have supported universal health care or open borders or whatever the progressive cause du jour happens to be. Now try that with an identity other than Christianity. “I’m not black, but what MLK really meant was…” You can guess how that would be received. Or compare the praise secularists heaped on the Catholic-themed Met Gala with their vitriolic reactions to Selena Gomez wearing a Hindu bindi in a music video.

Still, all is not lost. When organized religion becomes mysterious and occult, it will certainly drive some people away, but it will also gain the power to attract dissatisfied secularists looking for something more. First, though, Christians will need to start taking their own faith traditions more seriously, not just as personal choices, but as historically and doctrinally grounded institutions. Switching from one to another may become necessary, but it should never be done lightly or in a way that implies they are all interchangeable. Christ prayed that his followers would be one. By utterly disregarding that instruction, American Christians have opened the door to the total erasure of their religion from the American cultural consciousness.

Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A. student at Georgetown University.

Hide 16 comments

16 Responses to Woke Progressivism’s Glaring Religion Gap

  1. grumpy realist says:

    I would also point out that a heck of a lot of religious people don’t know their own catechisms, so why are you getting indignant that secular people can’t tell the differences among any of you? Neither can a lot of you….

  2. tharpa says:

    “She herself acknowledged her blind spot in her response to my paper, assuring me that she would put more emphasis on religion the next time she taught the class.” So she’s going to teach something she knows nothing about?

  3. Caroline says:

    Amen.

  4. Fazal Majid says:

    The T on the churches may have been a sly allusion to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” that completely eluded the worthy Mrs Messer.

  5. Fran Macadam says:

    So we should be one by hewing to denominational differences? Sorry, makes no sense!

    I subscribe to the scriptural view that the true body of Christ is known only to God, and to individuals in their private conscience, who have been transformed by the Holy Spirit and have taken up Christ’s cross. Such will be found who are on the membership rolls of organizations, as well as those who are not. But there are members of such organizations who are unknown to Christ, as well.

  6. Matjaž Horvat says:

    Yeah, about the changing denominations thing… My atheist parents had me baptised Catholic, more or less to please my grandma, and that was it as far as religion was concerned, for a long time. I brought up an atheist and it wasn’t until relatively recently that I started studying these things and came to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion. I still haven’t chosen a denomination though. I’m studying varioud arguments to determine which one is the closest to the truth. And chances are it’s not going to be Catholicism. So in a sense, I’m probably going to switch denominations (if you count the baptism).

    So why is this a bad thing? Now, I’m sure many people switch denominations for bad reasons, but certainly not everyone.

  7. Mother124 says:

    I believe there is a method in all this: when God is removed from everything, there is no definitive right and wrong; there is only legal and illegal. The state becomes God.

  8. Daniel (not Larrison) says:

    If the endlessly proliferating plethora of over 33,000 Christian sects in America alone were taken into account, I have no doubt it would be higher…

    With 33,000 denominations all claiming to be correct, it’s not much of a stretch for an atheist to claim that his idea of Jesus must be just as valid as that of the 2,000-year-old Roman Catholic Church.

    Ok, was this meant to be sarcastic? I mean, the link you provide in the first quote challenges this oft-repeated yet largely bogus number (even mentioning that to arrive at that count even the RCC can be counted as hundreds if separate denominations using the methodology used in coming up with that wildely-inflated number.

    And the second quote implies that each of these 33,000 denominations have radically and fundamentally different views of what Christianity is, when in fact there is wide agreement among traditional Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches on a great many core doctrines (the Trinity, the Incarnation, basic Christian morality, etc.)

    Indeed, I’ve found in Conservative Evangelical circles very little emphasis on traditional denominational structures, and rather an emphasis on core beliefs. For example, a Conservative Southern Baptist will find more true kinship with a Methodist who really believes in the Incarnation than a Liberal Baptist who doesn’t…even if they disagree about the mode of baptism.

    It seems quite humorous that the author twice uses this bogus number in an article about ignorance of Christianity…unless, as I wrote, Grayson was trying to be ironic and I didn’t get it.

  9. Philly guy says:

    People ignorant of religion could fall victim to it.

  10. Olga says:

    In studies, Atheists had a better grasp of the tenants of world religion than many practicing Christians. Many Protestants switch from a Lutheran Church to a Methodist Church without any thought to the differences in theology. Most people choose churches based on worldly consideration– length of commute, children’s program and ability to network for their job.

    World religion should be part of the high school curriculum, but many “Christians” fear their children learning the tenants of Islam, Budhism or Hinduism. Understanding religion is important to understand history and current international relations.

  11. pitchfork says:

    Woah, woah, woah…

    You mean there’s a professor at Georgetown teaching late c18 or early c19 lit who doesn’t really know the difference between Methodists and Unitarians?!

    That’s my field, roughly speaking, and I’m genuinely surprised.

    That is all.

  12. Kiteran says:

    “American Christians have opened the door to the total erasure of their religion from the American cultural consciousness.”

    One can only hope

  13. Donald says:

    “I’m not black, but what MLK really meant wasL

    Poor example. I sometimes see people argue about what position MLK would take on current issues. I’ve done it myself without being black.

  14. Rob G says:

    “I would also point out that a heck of a lot of religious people don’t know their own catechisms, so why are you getting indignant that secular people can’t tell the differences among any of you? Neither can a lot of you….”

    Sounds like you didn’t read the article.

  15. b. says:

    Does religion demand that we “educate ourselves”?

    Know thyself is certainly a strong strain of functional religion, as it is the consequence of humility.

    Know reality is a strong strain of enlightenment (even its first iteration, and whatever “originalist” dead-enders persist among us).

    But a lot of professed faith appears to be neither humble, nor functional, nor interested in knowledge and its limits. “Progressives” might be ignorant of important aspects of society, but that is a pervasive ailment in many contexts these days.

    If you have a grievance about “identity politics”, whatever your attributed meaning of it, maybe you should focus on the aspect that spiritual faith and organization are very much part of our “identity”. Or is faith a lifestyle choice after all?

  16. EliteCommInc. says:

    “People ignorant of religion could fall victim to it.”

    Laughing.

    I encourage you fall victim to Christ even if to eschew religious victimization. but a great turn of phrase.

    _________________________________

    “Indeed, I’ve found in Conservative Evangelical circles very little emphasis on traditional denominational structures, and rather an emphasis on core beliefs.”

    I think this hits the core for me. As i read the article, well this the structural debate that outlines denominations – not the why christ over say beyonce’.

    I didn’t figure what the “t” was until this morning. I had no idea what denomination that was. I wouldn’t be surprised if the person asking the question wasn’t also fondling a crucifix attached to a necklace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *