Some thoughts on cultural christianity

And religious conversion more generally

When I was writing my critique of conservative arguments, I had included a placeholder to talk about ‘cultural christianity’. I removed it because I felt that it wasn’t a very mainstream thing, but yesterday my friend sent me this article, which is not about cultural Christians exactly, but it’s in the same ballpark, so now we’re doing this.

There is a resurgence of interest and goodwill towards Christianity, which is strange to witness after what seemed a near-total atheist victory in the early 2000s. This renewed affection for religion takes two flavours: that converts, who convert to some branch of christianity and start attending church, and that of self-described cultural christians, who do not necessarily believe in God, but who appreciate christianity’s ethos, traditions, and aesthetics.

Both types of new-age christians irk me, because I believe their appreciation of christianity is insincere and/or misguided. To be fair, I am sure there are people who are true converts; but I believe these are extremely few in number, because to be a true convert, one must meet all three of these criteria:

• They must start believing that God is real

• Not only that, but they must also believe that the Christian God is real, and His instructions to humanity, as imparted through Jesus, are true and inviolable

• They must feel touched and inspired by the rituals and traditions of the particular branch of Christianity they convert to — but not because of their standalone aesthetic value, but because they are a way of bringing one closer to the divine, as defined by Christianity.

Which is to say, if you convert to Orthodox Christianity because it ‘appeals to the masculine soul’ or because it is of a more conservative bend, you’re missing the point. Christianity isn’t about being macho: it’s about being humble. It isn’t about being tough: it’s about being forgiving. The difficult practices of Christianity, such as fasting, or standing in church, aren’t shows of strength and resilience, they are acts of respect, of humbling and purifying one’s self before God. And as one of the commentators in the NYT article above put it, ‘the true hard work of faith is to love your neighbor, feed the hungry, care for the sick, and welcome the stranger’.

But fine. One could argue that many people who convert to Christianity do not really internalise or accept its basic tenets, but that’s still a good path for them: the argument made by cultural christians is that you don’t need the theology of Christianity to benefit from it — the discipline it imposes, its conservatism, and its aesthetics¹ are all valuable in their own right, even if they are divorced from their original intentions (which are, it bears repeating, humility and kindness). A lot of people in today’s world feel lost, and cannot find meaning in their life: a practice and a framework that lends structure can help find this missing meaning.

I can see why one might think this. After all, most Christians find value in their religion, without really internalising its message: most Christians aren’t humble, and kind, and forgiving. Most Christians don’t really believe everything the church preaches, and do not follow its traditions because they are a means of approaching God. I don’t practice everything the church preaches, so why did I get married in an Orthodox ceremony, had my children baptised, and take them to church? Why is it that I take issue with converts to Christianity, and not all Christians?

Because it’s not the discipline and structure of Christianity that’s good, it’s discipline and structure and stability of any kind. The reason I am practicing and passing on Orthodox traditions is they are among the many customs and folkways of my family that I actively seek to preserve. I believe rituals and ceremonies are the strongest way of building a culture, and I think a strong culture is the best way of transmitting values to my children, values that I believe are conducive to a happy and fulfilling life. (A lot of people don’t believe this: they think you can pass on values without adhering to traditions — which are, after all, often restrictive, old-fashioned, and sometimes, downright unpleasant (my niece didn’t particularly enjoy her baptism last week).) But I think these people are wrong; and besides, even if traditions themselves do not help pass on values, they still do create a sense of shared history, community, and belonging: all of which are comforting and meaningful in themselves.

And so, someone looking from the outside might well see all this and say ‘I also want a sense of shared history, community, and belonging’, and decide that converting to Christianity is a shortcut to these things. But it’s not: tradition is a way of strengthening existing ties, not creating new ones. In fact, it’s downright contradictory to espouse a religion like Orthodox Christianity because of its emphasis on conservatism and tradition: there is nothing less conservative than abandoning your own religion and community for a new one. The Orthodox christians I know do not follow the traditions they do because those particular traditions are intrinsically better than others: they follow them because they are traditions.

So my advice to people who feel lost is, don’t get drawn to an exotic new thing — be it Orthodoxy, or Islam, or Buddhism: the risk is you might slip from religiosity to dogmatism and fanaticism, or, at best, that you will espouse something you do not quite understand.

Instead, practice those things that pretty much anyone with an iota of common sense will tell you are good for you: be kind; meet and spend time with friends and family in person; extend goodwill to people; eat healthily (but without obsessing over calories); exercise; don’t spend too much time on social media; go outside; walk whenever you can; be honest (and especially with yourself). These are all better and easier steps than joining a new church.

(Though the preceding paragraph is a great place to close, I do need to add an addendum: while I look upon religious conversion with a lot of suspicion in the abstract, I avoid judging any individual I meet who’s converted to a new religion. I do think there are many sincere converts, and I have nothing against conversion in principle. It’s just that in practice, I think most people who convert are doing it for the wrong reasons, and will not find what they’re looking for.)

1. Although, which aesthetics? ACX makes an implicit link between aesthetics and Christianity, but it’s absurd to suggest that Christianity has a monopoly on art and ornamentation. At best, you could claim religion as a whole stands against modernism, but even then you run into problems. Many Christians denominations are austere and take a dim view on ornamentation; and even those which do not have radically different aesthetics.

I am always fascinated by the contrast between Catholic and Anglican cathedrals on one hand, and Orthodox churches on the other. The former are always magnificent on the outside: huge, grand, and ornamented. But on the inside, they are cold, severe, and sparse — cold stone and plain wood. Orthodox churches, even cathedrals, are unimposing on the outside (with few exceptions), but inside, it’s a different story: carpets, gold, silver, brass, murals, mosaics, wood carved with leaves and flutes and myriad other patterns, incense, chandeliers, and everything crammed close together. I find the latter much more cosy, soothing, and conducive to prayer.