In this episode of EconTalk, Russ Roberts and Jonathan Rauch explore the instrumental and existential purpose of true religion in liberal democracy. In his new book Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy, Rauch argues that the recent failure of Christianity has led Americans to transform politics into a “pseudo-religion.” Instead of relying on the protestant Christian theology that built America, both the Left and Right have replaced true faith with their radical partisan doctrines. These secular pseudo-religions fail to provide the profound values and community that liberal democracy requires to be successful, the consequences of which are apparent in the rapidly growing ungovernability and radicalism of America.
To heal the nation, Rauch pleads with Christians to return to their faith and become more Christian. He points out that the founding fathers recognized liberal democracy’s inability to fulfill the necessary human need for meaning and community in life. Therefore, they made an implicit bargain with Christianity to maintain the republican virtue that American democracy needed. This bargain however has fallen through, and the liberal institutions it was supposed to support are floundering.
Although Rauch acknowledges the multi-causal nature of Christianity’s failure, his book examines the tragic decisions that Christians made about themselves that have brought us to this point. To do this, he organizes Christianity into three categories: thin, sharp, and thick.
Thin Christianity refers to the secularization of the ecumenical, mainstream churches. These churches have lost their shiny counter-culturalism and have melted into secular culture. Instead of “exporting values into society,” they import secular ones into their own thin theology and become culturally irrelevant. Rather than remain distinct, they blend in and lose their dynamic appeal and influence.
Sharp Christianity refers to the secularization and arming of the evangelical church. Rather than blending in, the evangelical church picked sides and aligned themselves with the Republican party. They fell for Donald Trump’s promise of power and ignored the political importance of good character. They scream, “fight! fight! fight!” and desire domination over their secular enemies. Such extremism goes against Jesus’s teachings and drives those interested in Jesus’ message away. In doing this, they lose the essence of their faith and have morphed into right-wing radicals.
The last sector of Christianity is that which Rauch hopes to ignite: thick. This term refers to the type of Christianity that answers the existential questions of life and bolster liberal democracy, the type the founders desired, and the type that clings to Jesus’s teachings. Rauch presents these teachings in three core principles, each with significant secular ramifications.
The first, do not fear, refers to Christian’s profound trust in God that all will be well. In the secular sphere, this hopeful faith counteracts the tyrannizing, apocalyptic fear both political parties exhibit, assuring them that losing the election is not the end of the world. The second principle, to imitate Jesus, promotes the protection of minorities and equal dignity of every human as an image bearer of God. These biblical precepts are key principles of liberal democracy and are embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Finally, the third principle of forgiveness recognizes that retribution and judgment are reserved for God. Instead of seeking vengeance, we should treat others with grace and mercy. Liberal democracy also relies on this mindset and rests in the peaceful, merciful governance of toleration, pluralism, and forbearance over the terrorization of the elected political party. These three principles are the linchpin that held America together in the past and they are the remedy for her ailment now. The Christianity that holds to them will support liberal democracy and start to rebuild the meaningful society that Alexis de Tocqueville once found in America.
In closing, Rauch leaves Roberts with a charge for non-Christians to recognize the importance of Christianity for society. Rather than neglecting or being hostile toward Christianity, non-Christians should acknowledge the importance of Jesus’s teachings and the stable, liberal society that they foster. People of faith should not be marginalized in society but welcomed and accepted. In support of this, Rauch shares his own personal journey from despising Christianity, to realizing the essential role it plays in American society. Although not entirely impossible without, American liberal democracy relies on Christianity to preserve and keep it.
Some questions for discussion:
– What distinguishes a true religion from a pseudo-religion?
– Why cannot liberal democracy provide existential meaning? Can any political system? Why or why not?
– Can any other religion support liberal democracy? If so, which ones can and what distinguishes them from those that cannot?
READER COMMENTS
Roger McKinney
May 31 2025 at 10:13pm
Richard Dawkins also calls himself a cultural Christian. That’s the definition of irony. After decades of trying to destroy Christianity, atheists regret their success?!!!
There is no Christian nationalism. Democrats who made the term popular merely meant by it that Trump is Hitler and his voters are Nazis, nothing more. It’s funny watching people trip over each other trying to make a lame insult come alive and walk on all fours. A tiny group of charismatics called the New Apostolic Reformation have gone crazy about Trump, but in no way do they represent evangelicals. Evangelicals played no role in giving Trump the nomination. None approve of his lifestyle of decades ago. But we know Trump isn’t especially immoral. He’s a typical politician, only average in his immorality for politicians.
Evangelicals did not choose the Republican party. The Republican party chose to adopt policies friendly to Christians. Democrats chose to adopt anti-Christian policies. Christians would be stupid to choose the Democrat party.
Rausch recommends compromise. Hayek wrote that he was not a conservative because they had no purpose but compromise with socialists. That’s why the US is more socialist today than ever.
Greg McIsaac
Jun 2 2025 at 12:44pm
US Senator Josh Hawley (Republican of Missouri) is an advocate of Christian nationalism
Sen. Josh Hawley | The Christian Nationalism We Need | NatCon 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgNbGxdDZ2I
As with most ideas based on the Bible, there are a variety of interpretations and critiques
What Is Christian Nationalism Exactly? | Christianity.com
https://www.christianity.com/newsletters/breakpoint/what-is-christian-nationalism-exactly.html
Anna Leman
Jun 2 2025 at 10:33pm
Your comment about Richard Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian highlights what I think is the most fascinating point Rauch makes: man’s innate need for the spiritual. This is a truth once understood by Medieval philosophers like Khaldune, Alfarbi, and Aquinas but lost to the material modernism of Machiavelli, Bacon, and Hobbes.
But not just any spirituality will do. No, it must be true religion. Rauch points out that much of today’s spirituality is not sufficient to uphold a liberal democracy, especially the emerging practice on both sides of making politics a religion. This begs the question of the proper relationship between religion and politics. I think Rauch’s thesis implies that religion informs politics and therefore must comes before politics, at least in a liberal democracy. It is a bold, intriguing implication to say that a human’s connection to the spiritual runs deeper that his connection to fellow man.
Greg McIsaac
Jun 2 2025 at 2:14pm
“Can any other religion [presumably other than Christian] support liberal democracy?”
Are Japan, India, Malaysia, Taiwan or Israel considered liberal democracies? If so, then we have examples of liberal democracies supported by religions other than Christianity. Israel might be only a partial example because of considerable overlap between Christianity and Judaism.
Also, different forms of Christianity were preached and practiced for well over 1000 years before liberal democracy appears. The US Founders came from a variety of Christian traditions, and they were willing to overlook their religious differences and cooperate to resist the monarch and set up a system that did not require a monach. A common language and to some degree a common culture surely facilitated that cooperation. Various versions of Christianity were part of the culture, as was literacy and Enlightenment thinking, including science (then called Natural Philosophy). I think the Founders’ willingness to cooperate despite their religious differences is an imporatant reason behind developing a Constitution that prevented the federal government from imposing religion on the people or the states (although the states could impose religion until they decided not to).
It seems to me that when people share a common faith tradition, they set up institutions based on those beliefs (as many of the original 13 states did). But when people from different faith traditions come together to accompish a common goal, they can make progress by articulating general points of agreement and focusing on empirical progress toward their common goal. Arguing theology is generally a distraction from the common goal. In this view, creating institutions that treat all people equally as individuals regardless of religion, race, or gender, may have been facilitated by the cooperation of people from different faith traditions rather than one faith.