I want to make a three-way distinction. You can be a Cultural Christian, a Political Christian, a Believing Christian, or any combination of the three. People may disagree about which of these constitutes being “A Christian”. For me it has to be Believing Chistian.
I am a Cultural Christian, specifically a Cultural Anglican. I was educated in Christian schools. The history of my people is heavily influenced by Christian tradition. I like singing Christmas Carols, and am deeply moved by the sacred music of Bach and Handel. My head is full of Biblical phrases and quotations. And hymn tunes, which I regularly play by ear on my electronic clarinet.
I think Ayaan Hirsi-Ali (who is one of my favourite people in the world) is a Political Christian. She was brought up in the culture of Islam and is well aware of the horrors that that religion is still visiting on Muslims around the world, especially women. She sees Christianity as a relatively benign competitor, worth supporting as a bulwark against Islam. Just as most of us support a political party without agreeing with all its policies, because we prefer it to the alternative, a Political Christian may support Christianity without being a Believing Christian, because it’s better than the main alternative. Ayaan is a Cultural Muslim, and it is this that has driven her to be a Political Christian.
Believing Christians believe that there is a supernatural creator at the base of the universe called God. They believe a First Century Jew called Jesus is the son of God. They believe Jesus’s mother was a virgin when she gave birth to him. They believe that Jesus came alive again three days after he died. They believe that we ourselves have an immortal soul which survives our bodily death. They believe that God listens to our prayers. I strongly suspect hat Ayaan doesn’t believe any of these things. She is not a Believing Christian.
In my language, that means she is not a Christian at all. Others may include Cultural Christian in their definition of Christian, in which case I am a Christian. Indeed, Ayaan herself is reported to have called me one of the most Christian people she knows. But by the same token, the implication would be that she is a Muslim because she is a Cultural Muslim. And she certainly would not call herself a Muslim.
So, Ayaan is a Political Christian but she is no more a Believing Christian than I am. Her example leads me to consider my own position. Am I a Political Christian? I am in no doubt that Christianity is morally superior to Islam. Just look at the regions of the world with an explicitly Islamic government, or where Islam is the dominant political influence: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Brunei, Turkey (betraying the admirable secularism of its post-Ottoman foundation) Saudi Arabia and many other countries of the Arab world. Laws vary, but recurrent patterns include mistreatment of women as second class citizens, persecution of gays, forced marriage, violent intolerance of what is considered blasphemous, anti-Jewish prejudice going so far as to laud Hitler, draconian punishment for apostasy, and for adultery which is often deemed to include simply talking to a member of the opposite sex other than a spouse or relative. Christianity has its bad points, and in earlier centuries it has been as bad as Islam. But today there’s no contest. When it comes to evil, Islam wins hands down, by a huge margin. No other religion comes close.
If I were American I would vote Democrat because, in spite of their idiotic stance on the male/female distinction, they are hugely preferable to the Republican alternative. Similarly, if I were forced to vote for either Christianity or Islam as alternative influences on the world, I would unhesitatingly vote Christian. If that make me a Political Christian, so be it. I am perhaps as much of a Political Christian as Ayaan is. But does that make either of us a Christian?
In my language, certainly not. For me, as a scientist, truth or falsehood of beliefs is what really defines a word like Christian or Muslim. If you are going to call somebody a Christian without qualification, I think it’s a confusion of language to mean anything less than a Believing Christian. You are at liberty to dissent from that definition. But let us at least be clear what definition we are using. If Ayaan says she’s a Christian and I say she’s not, we are really not disagreeing. We are defining our terms differently. She uses “Christian” to include “Political Christian” for herself and “Cultural Christian” for me. I don’t think you can be a real Christian if you don’t believe the fundmenta tenets of Christianity.
The only disagreement is a semantic one. I am a Cultural Christian but not a Believing Christian, which, in my language means I am not a Christian. You, Ayaan, are a Political Christian, which in your language, but not mine, makes you a Christian. But we are neither of us Believing Christian. And this, in my language but not yours, makes neither of us Christians. So, dear Ayaan, let’s not agree to differ. Let’s agree that we don’t really differ.
I’m happy to say I’ll be having a public conversation with Ayaan Hirsi-Ali at the inaugural Dissident Dialogues. Obviously her announcement that she has become Christian will be a major part of the discussion. The conference will be in New York, May 3rd & 4th. Distinguished speakers include Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, Kathleen Stock, Alex O’Connor, and many other leading thinkers.
There is a fourth category to consider: "Practicing Christian", meaning one who regularly participates in the ritual and communal practices of an organized group of Christians. Does Ali attend any church services? Does she pray at night before bed, or before meals or pray at all?
Note that practicing Christian is compatible with any of the the three types mentioned above.
I appreciate the care and generosity of the distinctions made in this comment, and perhaps I should learn some greater generosity from it. But I find it hard to understand how it helps for Ms. Hirsi-Ali to call oneself some sort of Christian, albeit a modified one. As you indicate, the fundamental thing that makes Christians Christians, and distinguishes them from others, is their particular beliefs, in God (which they have in common with other monotheisms), and then in Jesus as the son of God and the path to salvation (which distinguishes the from the other monotheisms). One can admire many of Jesus' teachings, and can join with Christians in social movements and politics, without being a "cultural" Christian or a "political" Christian. Labelling "goodness", or less harmfulness, as "Christian" seems to me to give too much credit to the religion itself, and to reduce further the recognition of the beauty and promise of atheism. While I am sometimes charmed by a polytheistic approach, which can have delightful elements of storytelling, only atheism locates our ethics, our morality, and our responsibility for our behavior, in reality. We are obliged to look to the history of our own evolution, to express how we want to be and can be as a species, including in relation to other species, and why we form the moral code that we do. (I do not mean to indicate atheists agree with each other, but rather to locate where the discussion should take place.) The obligation is on us to form an ethic, and to be able to articulate the case for it, without reference to religion. Undoubtedly any philosophy or moral code will overlap in some aspects with religiously generated codes as articulated by practitioners from time to time (and place to place). But what is gained by referring to, or preferring, one religious culture to another? Which one is worse, or better, will change. Would we gain anything if we referred to ourselves as "atheist Christians"? How is that better than, simply, "atheist"?
Respectfully (and gratefully) yours.