Column Entry, “Whose Faith Is It, Anyway?”, by Mark Williams

Column Title: Meaningful-Faith: Words, the Word, and a Life of Substance

Column Entry: “Whose Faith Is It, Anyway?”

By Mark Williams, Ph.D.
Professor of Rhetoric, California State University, Sacramento

February 2025 / January 2025 / July 2024 / June 2024 / May 2024 / November 2022 / October 2022 / March 2022 / February 2022 / November 2021 / October 2021 / September 2021 / August 2021 / June-July 2021 / April-May 2021

Whose Faith Is It, Anyway? 

A post popped up in my social media recently that I found rather disorienting. It purported to explain to me the distinction between fake Christianity and the “real deal.”[1] The post was distributed by the “Occupy Democrats” group. The Occupy Democrats group is seldom praised for the depth of its theological reflections or the acuity of its somber contemplation of the complexities of Christian thought. Their posts tend to run more like, “Famous Conservative Person Completely Destroyed by Liberal Person in this Stunning Interview” or “Conservative Person Makes Shockingly Racist Comments During Some Sub-Committee Hearing on Capitol Hill.” The Occupy Democrats organization “publishes hyper-partisan content, clickbait, and false information,”[2] in carte blanch support of various left-wing causes, in case you were still confused.

Nevertheless, there were two things I found worth considering in their post on how to tell real Christianity from the fake stuff. First of all, I was honestly a bit surprised, though flattered, that they thought the word “Christian” was a term still worth stealing. Really!?! I thought you only got respect on the Left if you scowled at the word “Christian” and everything associated with it.  I am pleased to have my horizons broadened. The Left, evidently, is quite happy to welcome Real Christians. Real Christians, according to Occupy Democrats, say and do things that are indistinguishable from the convictions and goals of the party on the Left.  Real Christians pursue those goals politically.

Actually, now that I think about it, I seem to recall having heard a rather similar argument on the other side of the political divide. Somehow, I’ve spent five decades misunderstanding the relationship between Christian faith and American politics. Evidently, all the political parties love Real Christians.

In contrast, Augustine tells us that a Christianity posing no threat to the Party is no Christianity at all. He insisted that Christian faith must, in a fallen world, be at odds with every system of governance that uses power, glory, reputation, and wealth to order its affairs (that is to say, every system of governance).

And that brings us to the second, and much larger, question in this moment. Whose Christianity is it, anyway? Somehow, the folks at Occupy Democrats decided the definition of Christianity belonged to them—that they were qualified to discern the truths of faith. They concluded that they have the authority to determine what constitutes the “real deal” in Christian thought and action, in the meaning and essence of our Lord’s incarnate life, passion, resurrection, and teachings.

My, my, my. That’s quite a theological assumption. What qualifies one to make such a claim? Far be it from me to be judgmental, but I do wonder how long it has been since anybody at Occupy Democrats spent three days on a silent retreat contemplating the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Or prayed through the entire Psalter in a month. Or read a chapter from John Paul II’s theology of the body. Or took a semester-long class on the ethical dimensions of Distributist Economics, as championed by Hilaire Belloc or Dorothy Day.

Or even watched a YouTube video on the basic principles of categorical reasoning, honestly.

And that is the rub, isn’t it? Even if someone at Occupy Democrats has done all these things, would that qualify them to define the difference between real and fake Christianity?  What actually does qualify one to define Christianity? Do I get to define it? And if so, how do I know where my personal definition is somewhat mistaken?

Or maybe I can’t make a mistake. Maybe the word Christian simply means anything I feel the word Christian should mean for me, personally? But if that is the case, it doesn’t seem like the word Christian is very useful. If you use the word grumpfel to refer to shooting stars that have a bluish tint and I use the word grumpfel to refer to bird seed without sunflowers in it, then the only logical conclusion is that the word grumpfel is not very useful. At least if you and I want to talk to each other.

But it isn’t just Christianity that has this problem. If, today, I want to find out what anything actually is—being healthy, or being loving, or being just, or patriotic, or, yes, Christian—I am suddenly adrift. Who has the authority to define any of these terms? Evidently, we are supposed to “do our own research” and we should all to come to our own conclusions.

The consequence, of course, is that most of our words become, like grumpfel, pretty useless. At least if we want to talk to each other. We are busy crafting a post-truth world where all authority to define anything is equal. But that is not necessarily a world anyone would want to live in, is it? Under that view of language and meaning, it becomes frighteningly easy to tell someone they aren’t a Real Christian.

Or a Real Person.

Our very humanity is pretty fungible, if humanity is simply a word that we can define however we like, once our Party has enough power. But we all need to remember that Real Christianity, at least according to Augustine, will settle into neither party faction. But then, seriously, what does St. Augustine know? Do your own research.

Notes

[1] Occupy Democrats, 27 January. “BREAKING: A deeply religious group of Quaker congregations hits Donald Trump’s DHS with a brilliant lawsuit….”

[2] Wikipedia, s.v. “Occupy Democrats.” See also, Politifact, s.v. “Occupy Democrats” and Media Bias/Fact Check, s.v. “Occupy Democrats.