I appreciate this very much -- the effort to make Jesus Trump's cultural attache have seriously pissed me off. He doesn't work for any political project, and it's not like he didn't have the option. (When Peter cut that centurion's ear off, one part of him *had* to be thinking, "Hey, maybe *now* he'll lead us against the Romans!") I talk about the political implications that I think my faith has, but I try to keep the "Christian" before the "leftist" in "Christian leftist." The second thing is only a satellite to the first thing.
I think if I were just picking a religion off a menu for utilitarian reasons, I might be tempted to go with the somewhat Americanized progressive Islam that some of my brighter first-year students believe in. Or perhaps one of the friendlier varieties of Wicca. I don't think I've ever met a mean witch. But asking other people to believe something that you yourself think is bullshit, just for the sake of social cohesion, is insulting to others. Anyway, I think Jesus is God, so here I stand.
For instrumental reasons, I returned to Church with my family last year after decades away. It was an act of faith without belief. I subscribe to the idea that belief is largely a gift or a grace from God. I keep faith that God may bestow such a gift to me, but in the meantime, attendance has been good for my family and my community. I am jealous of those who can argue from a position of faith against instrumental reasons to identify with Christianity. Aligning one's convictions with one's behavior is an incredible act of faith for some. I welcome those choosing Christianity for instrumental reasons. I think that is how it has probably always been. I think Ryan Burge made the point that once the social expectations for church attendance eroded, those who didn't necessarily believe were given cover to stop attending. The number of believers didn't change; the number of those sitting in the pews did. For my money, I'd rather have pews full of those with mixed motives than quarter-full ones filled with true believers. God can make of us all what he will.
I suspect you are right, that there have always been those choosing Christianity for instrumental reasons. I take this as a necessary part of a what can be a longer journey.
I find it helpful to think of Bernard of Clairvaux’s four degrees of love that describe a continuum. The point of each degree is not know more or gain more spiritual status, but to surrender more deeply to love (and, so, I believe, become more truly what were made to be).
Bernard’s first degree is “love of oneself for self’s sake”, a fundamental and necessary form of love (and not a given in a climate of comparisons leading to self loathing!) but it is a limited love.
The 2nd degree is “love of God for self’s sake”, and I think this where instrumental or memetic religion would fall. It is an expansion in love and offers much good, but it also is limited, and Tara has described many of its limitations — because it still centers on human control and agenda.
The 3rd degree is “love of God for God’s sake.”The limitations of one’s self are recognized here, and we come to know and love God because God is essentially lovable and seeks personal relationship with us. This may be where relationship with the literal Jesus becomes the focus, and God’s action in the world can overshadow temporal, cultural agendas. But even this has its limits, incredibly, because it’s still the self that’s trying to accomplish love.
The 4th degree is “love of self for God’s sake” — and this might be the hardest to imagine. Bernard says “This degree no human effort can attain: it is in God’s power to give it to whomever he will.” It may be what Julian of Norwich described as being “one-d” with God, or what the Orthodox call theosis. I think it has to do with recognizing and loving ourselves with God’s own love, which means the joyful and willing surrender of the self entirely. But whatever it is, it is not a state of power (as transhumanists crave), but ecstatic powerlessness. It is the home we are made for. Though it is rare, it’s still worth looking forward to.
I don’t think we move deeper in any of these degrees by will power, but only by increasing willingness and desire for the real. They are all necessary, offering true gifts, and they are all dependent on grace.
May you experience and luxuriate and celebrate fully all the gifts of whatever degree you are in! And when/if the time comes, may you desire and receive more.
Coming from someone who writes against mimetic religion from a Muslim perspective, I enjoyed this piece. I appreciated the critique of these techno-Crusaders and right wing anti-Muslim zealots like Hirsi Ali who don't realize that they are actually more "woke" than they like to believe: in so far as they weaponize their identity by belonging to a Christianity that is fodder for power and culture wars. A Christianity that is more metaphorical than true. Isn't mimetic Christianity, here, then, another word for ideology? Judeo-Christian order/Zionism/the "Strong Jew"/techno-humanist defenders of "the West", all signal one thing to me as a Muslim who is fought on these "civilizational" basis: it is ultimately ideology of supremacist zealotry running off the fumes of the Crusades and European colonialism.
I think there's also a strong denial of mysticism and contemplative spirituality in memetic religion. I can't speak from the Muslim perspective, but as a Christian fascinated by our tradition of saints and monastics, I imagine the Hirsi Alis of our world would view this side of our faith as naïve or even infantile in it's pursuit of the intangible mercy and love of the divine. I'd be so curious as to what they would have to say after reading Julian of Norwich or St John Chrysostom, and perhaps Al Ghazali or Rumi in the Muslim case.
Absolutely, Bill. In the Muslim Sufi tradition, gnostics are referred to in the Qur’an as “the people of the kernels,” since they prefer the essence—the heart of things—over pretense, performance and the semblance of the real. It is for this reason that I consider myself a lifelong student and scholar of Sufism. Thanks for commenting!
Fascinating. I have such deep respect for the Islamic tradition and Sufism is so interesting. I adore many Sufi poets. Thank you! Your writing is fantastic
Such a brave voice. I would not worry too much, however, about the insufficiency of the pagan right (with whatever admixture of "Christianity"). Hard times have a way of cleansing men of their delusions.
Fabulous piece - but is not faith risk itself (Kierkegaard)? Does doubt, taking positive forms, necessarily hasten our decline? I prefer to construe them as positive, countervailing influences.
Horrible way to start a relationship. Nothing wrong with not being fully aligned with Christianity but looking to profit from your alignment and not being upfront about it? Not cool at all.
This is an insightful take from a Christian perspective, but it puts forward a stark choice for regular folks who aren’t profoundly weird tech oligarchs—either you believe it all or you shouldn’t even try. I think our culture is somewhat biased in seeing religion as largely about beliefs. It makes sense because we live in a time when belief-based religions are the main ones (although Jewish people might argue that their religion is less about beliefs than Christianity). I can see why someone might want to follow certain rituals and practices even if they can’t believe specific historical and/or theological claims. If there is in fact a natural need for religion, it likely has more to do with rituals and community and meaning, and less to do with assenting to a list of creedal statements.
"But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."
How come this discerning, this intellectual mind, like this author’s, can believe in the literal meaning of the events described in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments? It’s an honest and question and I’m not interested in facetious, mocking, or cynical takes.
Also, anyone competent in Christian Apologetics would be able to answer that question for you. Greg Koukl, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, J. Warner Wallace are some of the names that immediately come to mind.
It is interesting you started your article with an example of naked patriarchy made sacred. Sure the tech bros are eating this up to justify their aggression. We are just emerging from a culture of Western imperialism where we aggressively colonized the rest of the world spreading cultural and physical genocide in the name of Christianity. I am reminded of the Lieutenant Calley defence in Vietnam - “We had to destroy the village to save it.”
All Abrahamic religions are aggressively patriarchal at their core and most of the world’s conflicts today are Christians, Jews, and Muslims fighting each other for some macho dominance.
I am siding with Sam Harris in his book “The End of Faith” finding Western unbalanced religion a dead-end and a realization that Eastern Buddhist-Taoist meditative philosophy is more humane and stable. The soul and the world yearn for balance, not infinite polarity and aggression. There is a “middle way.”
Yes, "Buddhist Modernism" contaminated by Western religious philosophies does have problems, but not the problem of widespread religious warfare the Abrahamic religions promote.
While Buddhist Modernism in the West might be caught up in "exceptionalism" there is no evangelical impulse to "purify" the world from other belief systems. The focus on balance and harmony is sorely needed in today's world.
Are the religions patriarchal or just the cultures they sprang up in? I'm pretty sure most of the world civilizations in history were patriarchal. However, I can't for the life of me find the "men be the rulers" instructions in my bible...
People espousing war for the sake of Christianity are unfortunately part and parcel with the subjects of this essay. At the least they are misguided Christians, if they be Christians at all.
While not mentioned directly in the Bible, it is certainly conveyed with the use of masculine pronouns. "Jesus is Lord..." says it all.
How many female priests are there in Abrahamic religions? The Catholic Church still forbids females from the priesthood. Historically, ancient religions were balanced with gods and goddesses. The spread of patriarchy recently arrived with monotheism. It was somewhat modified during the Protestant Reformation, but the core message is still an angry male God modeled after human tyrants.
I mean, Jesus was a guy. Personally, I don't see an angry tyrant in his example, but I understand he's not represented the same in every context. There's a lively debate in Catholic and Protestant circles about the role of women in the church. For historical context, Christianity was often called a religion of women in the first few centuries. Jesus certainly models a masculinity that is definition defying for all times. Paul continually elevated women above the role prescribed by the household codes of the Roman Empire. For OT, Israelite women were treated far more generously than many near east peers, and they didn't need religious roles to expect that treatment.
While the God as father is a chosen representation by God, it's not the only analogy they choose to use, at least in the 66 books of the protestant bible.
I think it's a big stretch to say patriarchy was introduced with monotheism, but I don't know that this is the right forum for that, and it probably will just be a matter of selected sources. I can source the above items if desired, feel free to DM me.
TL:DR, I think most of the time, the problem is men, not the God they worship. Especially when it comes to their sexist abuses.
Jehovah, an absentee father who smites his children at the slightest whim. Yeah, the problem is men and God is one… As Voltaire observed: “God created humankind in his image and we returned the favor.”
There can be interest in God for what he can do for society, for culture, for proper adjustment to others and oneself. And there can be interest in experiencing and uniting with God because of who and what He is. In short, do you want God or the world. Two different things. And you only find out if He is “real” if you really insist on experiencing Him.
As someone who was raised Christian but is now an atheist, I can't help but think this LARPing of faith is straight up idolatrous. It's not the worship of God as a duty to one's faith, but the worship of the religion as instrument.
What I find striking about seeing figures who've been outspoken atheists talk about embracing their Christian roots for it's utility is the absolutely naked cowardice of their position. It's Cypher in The Matrix meeting with Agent Smith and saying he wants to be plugged back in.
Freddie de Boer had a really good line in his article "Ayaan Hirsi Ali Worships The God-Shaped Hole" where he said, "Why not urge people to get into Dungeons & Dragons instead? In what sense is that a less meaningful version of indulging a fantasy?"
Good article. Pragmatic belief has always been more popular than true conviction, I believe, because the evidence for Christianity is so flimsy that the pragmatism is necessary. I can see how bogus the start of all religions are – Mormonism, Islam, Scientology and the thousands of others. The lies of a founder and the delusions of some believers is what it takes to start a religion. I see how flimsy the evidence for miracles is, and how, as camera technology increases, miracles seem to disappear. Despite all that, I’m asked to believe that somehow, Christianity is an exception.
The will to believe, to make the leap of faith in Christianity, for me, is based on the testament of the millions of Christians who have gone before and the sort of society that they’ve built. I’d like to keep that society, so I choose to make the initial leap of faith based on pragmatism. I think you’ve got it backwards: people believe because of the “cash value,” the pragmatic value Christianity brings to their lives of the and then work backwards to convince themselves that it’s true. The road to Emmaus style conversion rather than a Damascene conversion: you start to follow Jesus, and then, in following you see the truth. I think the lightning bolt and conviction in the truth is a much less common.
As St Paul would have it, "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." However, I think one must allow for the sincere unbeliever that wants to believe and joins the church to grow in the faith.
Agreed that Christianity is true and that is the only reason to practice it.
However, at the cultural and political level, I’d prefer to have allies than enemies. Many of the “me Christians“ are probably harmless, and may serve as a gateway drug to the real thing.
Nonetheless, people who are serious about their faith, should not stop firmly and charitably asserting its truth, no matter how scandalous that may be both both to friends and to enemies.
I appreciate this very much -- the effort to make Jesus Trump's cultural attache have seriously pissed me off. He doesn't work for any political project, and it's not like he didn't have the option. (When Peter cut that centurion's ear off, one part of him *had* to be thinking, "Hey, maybe *now* he'll lead us against the Romans!") I talk about the political implications that I think my faith has, but I try to keep the "Christian" before the "leftist" in "Christian leftist." The second thing is only a satellite to the first thing.
I think if I were just picking a religion off a menu for utilitarian reasons, I might be tempted to go with the somewhat Americanized progressive Islam that some of my brighter first-year students believe in. Or perhaps one of the friendlier varieties of Wicca. I don't think I've ever met a mean witch. But asking other people to believe something that you yourself think is bullshit, just for the sake of social cohesion, is insulting to others. Anyway, I think Jesus is God, so here I stand.
For instrumental reasons, I returned to Church with my family last year after decades away. It was an act of faith without belief. I subscribe to the idea that belief is largely a gift or a grace from God. I keep faith that God may bestow such a gift to me, but in the meantime, attendance has been good for my family and my community. I am jealous of those who can argue from a position of faith against instrumental reasons to identify with Christianity. Aligning one's convictions with one's behavior is an incredible act of faith for some. I welcome those choosing Christianity for instrumental reasons. I think that is how it has probably always been. I think Ryan Burge made the point that once the social expectations for church attendance eroded, those who didn't necessarily believe were given cover to stop attending. The number of believers didn't change; the number of those sitting in the pews did. For my money, I'd rather have pews full of those with mixed motives than quarter-full ones filled with true believers. God can make of us all what he will.
I suspect you are right, that there have always been those choosing Christianity for instrumental reasons. I take this as a necessary part of a what can be a longer journey.
I find it helpful to think of Bernard of Clairvaux’s four degrees of love that describe a continuum. The point of each degree is not know more or gain more spiritual status, but to surrender more deeply to love (and, so, I believe, become more truly what were made to be).
Bernard’s first degree is “love of oneself for self’s sake”, a fundamental and necessary form of love (and not a given in a climate of comparisons leading to self loathing!) but it is a limited love.
The 2nd degree is “love of God for self’s sake”, and I think this where instrumental or memetic religion would fall. It is an expansion in love and offers much good, but it also is limited, and Tara has described many of its limitations — because it still centers on human control and agenda.
The 3rd degree is “love of God for God’s sake.”The limitations of one’s self are recognized here, and we come to know and love God because God is essentially lovable and seeks personal relationship with us. This may be where relationship with the literal Jesus becomes the focus, and God’s action in the world can overshadow temporal, cultural agendas. But even this has its limits, incredibly, because it’s still the self that’s trying to accomplish love.
The 4th degree is “love of self for God’s sake” — and this might be the hardest to imagine. Bernard says “This degree no human effort can attain: it is in God’s power to give it to whomever he will.” It may be what Julian of Norwich described as being “one-d” with God, or what the Orthodox call theosis. I think it has to do with recognizing and loving ourselves with God’s own love, which means the joyful and willing surrender of the self entirely. But whatever it is, it is not a state of power (as transhumanists crave), but ecstatic powerlessness. It is the home we are made for. Though it is rare, it’s still worth looking forward to.
I don’t think we move deeper in any of these degrees by will power, but only by increasing willingness and desire for the real. They are all necessary, offering true gifts, and they are all dependent on grace.
May you experience and luxuriate and celebrate fully all the gifts of whatever degree you are in! And when/if the time comes, may you desire and receive more.
Thanks Tara. With usual dazzling clarity. Yes, it’s a Pelagian wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Coming from someone who writes against mimetic religion from a Muslim perspective, I enjoyed this piece. I appreciated the critique of these techno-Crusaders and right wing anti-Muslim zealots like Hirsi Ali who don't realize that they are actually more "woke" than they like to believe: in so far as they weaponize their identity by belonging to a Christianity that is fodder for power and culture wars. A Christianity that is more metaphorical than true. Isn't mimetic Christianity, here, then, another word for ideology? Judeo-Christian order/Zionism/the "Strong Jew"/techno-humanist defenders of "the West", all signal one thing to me as a Muslim who is fought on these "civilizational" basis: it is ultimately ideology of supremacist zealotry running off the fumes of the Crusades and European colonialism.
I think there's also a strong denial of mysticism and contemplative spirituality in memetic religion. I can't speak from the Muslim perspective, but as a Christian fascinated by our tradition of saints and monastics, I imagine the Hirsi Alis of our world would view this side of our faith as naïve or even infantile in it's pursuit of the intangible mercy and love of the divine. I'd be so curious as to what they would have to say after reading Julian of Norwich or St John Chrysostom, and perhaps Al Ghazali or Rumi in the Muslim case.
Absolutely, Bill. In the Muslim Sufi tradition, gnostics are referred to in the Qur’an as “the people of the kernels,” since they prefer the essence—the heart of things—over pretense, performance and the semblance of the real. It is for this reason that I consider myself a lifelong student and scholar of Sufism. Thanks for commenting!
Fascinating. I have such deep respect for the Islamic tradition and Sufism is so interesting. I adore many Sufi poets. Thank you! Your writing is fantastic
Such a brave voice. I would not worry too much, however, about the insufficiency of the pagan right (with whatever admixture of "Christianity"). Hard times have a way of cleansing men of their delusions.
Fabulous piece - but is not faith risk itself (Kierkegaard)? Does doubt, taking positive forms, necessarily hasten our decline? I prefer to construe them as positive, countervailing influences.
Horrible way to start a relationship. Nothing wrong with not being fully aligned with Christianity but looking to profit from your alignment and not being upfront about it? Not cool at all.
This is an insightful take from a Christian perspective, but it puts forward a stark choice for regular folks who aren’t profoundly weird tech oligarchs—either you believe it all or you shouldn’t even try. I think our culture is somewhat biased in seeing religion as largely about beliefs. It makes sense because we live in a time when belief-based religions are the main ones (although Jewish people might argue that their religion is less about beliefs than Christianity). I can see why someone might want to follow certain rituals and practices even if they can’t believe specific historical and/or theological claims. If there is in fact a natural need for religion, it likely has more to do with rituals and community and meaning, and less to do with assenting to a list of creedal statements.
"But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."
(From Pascal's Pensées)
How come this discerning, this intellectual mind, like this author’s, can believe in the literal meaning of the events described in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments? It’s an honest and question and I’m not interested in facetious, mocking, or cynical takes.
Tara has written a lot about this on her blog. I recommend checking it out! https://open.substack.com/pub/lineofbeauty?r=1e53u&utm_medium=ios
I couldn't actually find any articles that seemed to delve into the particular contours of her belief. Is there a specific post you're thinking of?
Also, anyone competent in Christian Apologetics would be able to answer that question for you. Greg Koukl, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, J. Warner Wallace are some of the names that immediately come to mind.
Also see here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=christian+apologists+who+can+speak+to+the+historicity+of+the+bible
Mk,
This is a good place to start:
https://youtu.be/ocbtjLgUnQY
It is interesting you started your article with an example of naked patriarchy made sacred. Sure the tech bros are eating this up to justify their aggression. We are just emerging from a culture of Western imperialism where we aggressively colonized the rest of the world spreading cultural and physical genocide in the name of Christianity. I am reminded of the Lieutenant Calley defence in Vietnam - “We had to destroy the village to save it.”
All Abrahamic religions are aggressively patriarchal at their core and most of the world’s conflicts today are Christians, Jews, and Muslims fighting each other for some macho dominance.
I am siding with Sam Harris in his book “The End of Faith” finding Western unbalanced religion a dead-end and a realization that Eastern Buddhist-Taoist meditative philosophy is more humane and stable. The soul and the world yearn for balance, not infinite polarity and aggression. There is a “middle way.”
I agree with what you say about Judo Christianity but Eastern religions are no better and bad in their own specific ways.
What exactly are you referring to? How is Buddhism "bad"?
Similarly flawed and misunderstood in the West. This is worth reading in its entirety.
https://www.lionsroar.com/evan-thompson-not-buddhist/
Yes, "Buddhist Modernism" contaminated by Western religious philosophies does have problems, but not the problem of widespread religious warfare the Abrahamic religions promote.
While Buddhist Modernism in the West might be caught up in "exceptionalism" there is no evangelical impulse to "purify" the world from other belief systems. The focus on balance and harmony is sorely needed in today's world.
Are the religions patriarchal or just the cultures they sprang up in? I'm pretty sure most of the world civilizations in history were patriarchal. However, I can't for the life of me find the "men be the rulers" instructions in my bible...
People espousing war for the sake of Christianity are unfortunately part and parcel with the subjects of this essay. At the least they are misguided Christians, if they be Christians at all.
While not mentioned directly in the Bible, it is certainly conveyed with the use of masculine pronouns. "Jesus is Lord..." says it all.
How many female priests are there in Abrahamic religions? The Catholic Church still forbids females from the priesthood. Historically, ancient religions were balanced with gods and goddesses. The spread of patriarchy recently arrived with monotheism. It was somewhat modified during the Protestant Reformation, but the core message is still an angry male God modeled after human tyrants.
I mean, Jesus was a guy. Personally, I don't see an angry tyrant in his example, but I understand he's not represented the same in every context. There's a lively debate in Catholic and Protestant circles about the role of women in the church. For historical context, Christianity was often called a religion of women in the first few centuries. Jesus certainly models a masculinity that is definition defying for all times. Paul continually elevated women above the role prescribed by the household codes of the Roman Empire. For OT, Israelite women were treated far more generously than many near east peers, and they didn't need religious roles to expect that treatment.
While the God as father is a chosen representation by God, it's not the only analogy they choose to use, at least in the 66 books of the protestant bible.
I think it's a big stretch to say patriarchy was introduced with monotheism, but I don't know that this is the right forum for that, and it probably will just be a matter of selected sources. I can source the above items if desired, feel free to DM me.
TL:DR, I think most of the time, the problem is men, not the God they worship. Especially when it comes to their sexist abuses.
Jehovah, an absentee father who smites his children at the slightest whim. Yeah, the problem is men and God is one… As Voltaire observed: “God created humankind in his image and we returned the favor.”
There can be interest in God for what he can do for society, for culture, for proper adjustment to others and oneself. And there can be interest in experiencing and uniting with God because of who and what He is. In short, do you want God or the world. Two different things. And you only find out if He is “real” if you really insist on experiencing Him.
As someone who was raised Christian but is now an atheist, I can't help but think this LARPing of faith is straight up idolatrous. It's not the worship of God as a duty to one's faith, but the worship of the religion as instrument.
What I find striking about seeing figures who've been outspoken atheists talk about embracing their Christian roots for it's utility is the absolutely naked cowardice of their position. It's Cypher in The Matrix meeting with Agent Smith and saying he wants to be plugged back in.
Freddie de Boer had a really good line in his article "Ayaan Hirsi Ali Worships The God-Shaped Hole" where he said, "Why not urge people to get into Dungeons & Dragons instead? In what sense is that a less meaningful version of indulging a fantasy?"
Good article. Pragmatic belief has always been more popular than true conviction, I believe, because the evidence for Christianity is so flimsy that the pragmatism is necessary. I can see how bogus the start of all religions are – Mormonism, Islam, Scientology and the thousands of others. The lies of a founder and the delusions of some believers is what it takes to start a religion. I see how flimsy the evidence for miracles is, and how, as camera technology increases, miracles seem to disappear. Despite all that, I’m asked to believe that somehow, Christianity is an exception.
The will to believe, to make the leap of faith in Christianity, for me, is based on the testament of the millions of Christians who have gone before and the sort of society that they’ve built. I’d like to keep that society, so I choose to make the initial leap of faith based on pragmatism. I think you’ve got it backwards: people believe because of the “cash value,” the pragmatic value Christianity brings to their lives of the and then work backwards to convince themselves that it’s true. The road to Emmaus style conversion rather than a Damascene conversion: you start to follow Jesus, and then, in following you see the truth. I think the lightning bolt and conviction in the truth is a much less common.
Wonderful piece Tara.
As St Paul would have it, "if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." However, I think one must allow for the sincere unbeliever that wants to believe and joins the church to grow in the faith.
Agreed that Christianity is true and that is the only reason to practice it.
However, at the cultural and political level, I’d prefer to have allies than enemies. Many of the “me Christians“ are probably harmless, and may serve as a gateway drug to the real thing.
Nonetheless, people who are serious about their faith, should not stop firmly and charitably asserting its truth, no matter how scandalous that may be both both to friends and to enemies.