A huge incentive exists to adulterate terms like evangelical or Christian so that counterfeits and pretenders can claim the social clout and desired status of “Christian.” In this case, the self-identification that comes with “evangelical” is corrupted by compromise or syncretism. Throughout Hinch’s article he describes a supposed new wave of evangelicals who no longer believe in the same things as previous generations of evangelicals. The problem is that his usage of “evangelical” is both empty and outright manipulative.

The fact is that the term evangelical doesn’t mean a lot. Though there is a general idea of what it refers to now, it was never defined very well to begin with. The problem is even worse when you consider just how disingenuously it gets used in articles like this. Hinch starts his article with an anecdote about a supposed “evangelical Christian” named A.J. Zimmermann who attended Azusa Pacific University before directing a training program for soon-to-be pastors at the Pentecostal seminary Life Pacific University. According to the article “Since graduating from high school, Zimmermann has undergone a revolution in his thinking about evangelicals’ foundational text, the Bible, to the extent that he no longer regards the Bible as inerrant, dictated by God, historically accurate in all of its claims or even internally consistent with itself.”

The article continues to describe both Zimmerman and other supposed evangelicals who are “in the midst of a wholesale generational, cultural, and doctrinal transformation.” This “transformation” involves “revis[ing] their interpretation of key biblical passages (especially those addressing sexual or social justice themes), downgrad[ing] parts of Scripture as historical anachronisms, and reject[ing] the political call to arms still sounded by a dwindling generation of conservative elders.” Of course, what is being described isn’t a transformation of evangelicalism at all. In fact, describing it as such is disingenuous. What is happening is widespread apostasy through compromise and eventual syncretism. If this is evangelicalism, then it doesn’t mean anything at all. What exactly does the author think an evangelical actually is?

This is where we start to see just how manipulative it is to describe things this way. The article doesn’t bother to explain or define evangelical at all. We get a peek at the worthlessness of this designation by going a little deeper. Later in the article, the author talks about Pew Research data and pulls from the 2015 Religious Landscape Study. While describing demographic changes, he claims that “If current trends continue, evangelicals will be outnumbered by non-religious Americans in just a few years.” We already know this “non-religious” label is outright false (see here). However, this is even worse when you understand just how the Pew Research study categorizes evangelical. Notably, the only thing that evangelical means is that Pew either put them in a list of denominations (based on unclear and clearly circular reasoning if you look at Evangelical Beliefs and Practices) or mere self-identification (see Appendix B). None of which are truly reliable.

Let’s look at a couple of examples of how bad this is. Note in the list of denominations the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is part of the “Mainline Protestant Tradition” as opposed to evangelical. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is part of the mainline tradition, yet they would generally consider themselves to be evangelical (see here for this). Both the ELCA and the UMC would self-identify as evangelical, and for some reason they aren’t included. So again, what exactly does evangelical mean here? If all it takes to be classified as “evangelical” is merely claiming to be “born again” or evangelical, then why isn’t this applied consistently? This is outright incoherent and contradictory.

Although evangelical clearly means nothing at all in this article, and even in sources cited like Pew Research, why exactly are we supposed to believe the thesis? If the only basis for evangelical is the fact that people self-identify as such, then it doesn’t mean anything. Yet we are supposed to think it does and that “evangelicalism” (or Christianity at large) is changing because supposed “evangelicals” no longer trust the Bible. We don’t have any reason to trust this label at all. It’s so bad that it would be more accurate to describe the article as deceitful propaganda. If the author actually believes what they are saying, they are too incompetent to be taken seriously. I would argue that it’s more likely this article is in fact deliberate manipulation. A purposeful attempt to legitimize syncretism with Distrephism (basically the “social justice” religion; described further here).

Let’s take a very basic definition of evangelicalism that you can find on Wikipedia as described by Bebbington. He explains that evangelicalism contains four traits: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. In short, conversionism is the emphasis on being “born again” or some kind of conversion experience. Biblicism is the belief in Scripture as authoritative, inspired, and infallible. Crucicentrism is the belief in the centrality of Christ and his substitutionary atonement. Activism refers to an emphasis on evangelism and the active expression of faith in the social sphere. There are nuances to this, and I definitely have my issues with this definition (what valid form of Christianity does not contain these traits?) but it at least has a degree of substance to it. It’s way too broad, but at least it gives us general guidance on the rough meaning of evangelicalism.

However, even if we use this basic definition (coming from Wikipedia, no less) we can see just how disingenuous Hinch’s usage of the term is. He constantly repeats this claim that “the days when evangelicals defined themselves by their uncompromising style of biblical intrepretation are over” in the most credulous way. He talks about Ken Wilson’s book A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who are Gay, Lesbian and Transgender into the Company of Jesus and describes it as such: “In 216 densely argued pages, Wilson tells how what began as a ‘fleeting unease’ grew into a wholesale reevaluation not only of what the Bible says about sexuality, but of basic assumptions about biblical truth long considered sacrosanct within evangelicalism.” How exactly is Wilson an evangelical? This isn’t a change in evangelicalism, even using poor and insufficient definitions; it’s an outright abandonment of evangelicalism (and Christianity) for social acceptance and syncretism.

There isn’t a good reason to call these people evangelicals except to spin a misleading narrative. Hinch’s article represents a trend within media to water down and corrupt terminology to make room for compromise or full-blown abandonment of the Christian faith. All while pretending these people are still Christian in any meaningful sense! This is only being done so that they can encourage others to apostatize and throw away what Scripture clearly teaches. They are useful idiots that enable further compromise within churches. Watering down the very meaning of evangelical (and Christian!) until it means nothing at all. If somebody like mega-church pastor Adam Hamilton who was “named a Distinguished Evangelist by the United Methodist Church” can be called an evangelical despite “dismiss[ing]...the six-day creation of the world, subordination of women, opposition to homosexuality” and even outright rejecting the belief in “biblical inerrancy or scientific accuracy [of Scripture]” then evangelical means absolutely nothing. It is a shield for a neo-pagan and humanist religion that has supplanted Christianity. This makes him a heretic at best and a false teacher at worst. His position as a pastor makes it much more likely to be the latter.

Articles like Hinch’s need to be seen as a warning of the dangers of compromise and the deceptive usage of terminology. The labels that are used are important to examine skeptically. We need to expose the dishonesty and manipulative framing behind such claims. Accepting people’s self-identification at face value is not the correct approach. We cannot trust the reasoning behind their stated religious affiliation without verification.

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1 CSB)

We especially cannot afford to be lax in guarding against compromise and false teachings. The title of the article contains an unfortunate truth: evangelicals are losing the battle for the Bible. Not because they are fine with it, though. But because they have grown complacent and tolerant of compromise. Far too willing to appease the world rather than to stand on Scripture. We have allowed unbelievers and frauds to speak for us and claim titles they do not deserve. The people described in this article aren’t “evangelicals.” They are unbelievers who simply cling to a hollowed-out and superficial pseudo-Christianity. They are not the future of the Church, but those who have abandoned it. We cannot do the same, and we dare not follow in their footsteps.

Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it. (Matthew 7:13 CSB)

- Victoria Gratiae -

Some of it is going to be intellectual laziness. Polling organizations, and others that rely on this methodology, often do it because it’s easier than having to come up with more reliable methods. Another reason is going to be the self-interest and strong incentives people have to allow an extremely elastic definition for certain identities. Religious ones in particular. An obvious example is the Christian identity itself, considering just how much Mormons, Unitarians, and so-called progressive “Christians” (Distrephists in reality) want to claim the label. These are just a few examples, among many, who would benefit from the social cachet that being labeled “Christian” would bring.

Accurately gauging religious identities is complicated by numerous significant obstacles, separate from the matter of defining heresy versus orthodox belief (which is explored further in part 4). Setting aside the indefensible lack of precision and the conscious ignoring of self-interest in feigned or deceptive self-identification, there remain significant problems that lead to higher costs and fewer available alternatives for any study. Some of these difficulties might even be intractable. Making it impossible to get accurate data, except in very limited ways. At least without some kind of development or clever solution. The problems are as follows:

1) Defining a religion/worldview

One of the very first problems is going to be the act of accurately defining a religion or worldview in the first place. This is not as easy as it might seem. That is because religions contain considerable amounts of teachings, assumptions, history, and philosophical views. Distilling a religion into a succinct definition is not very easy. It is also fraught with issues. One of the biggest is that trying to create a definition for a religion, based on only a handful of sentences (like to fit into a dictionary), will, at best, lead to an incomplete summary. A summary that can actually be misleading if it is taken as the standard for that religion.

These incomplete summaries might be useful to get an idea of a religion, but they will never give you the full picture. They are too broad for precise religious identification. Especially when such broad definitions are deliberately used to encompass groups that shouldn’t really qualify for inclusion. For example, dictionary.com gives this as the definition of Christianity:

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God. (references to links removed)

This definition isn’t wrong, per se, but it is very incomplete. To the point that, if it were the standard, it would include groups that remain entirely outside the realm of true Christianity. Ironically, despite just how incomplete it is, it still contradicts beliefs that several supposed “Christians” claim to hold. Remember the Pew data? According to that, a full 12% of Christians say they don’t believe in the existence of heaven. Despite even having such an incomplete definition, it still ends up ruling out several people who get counted under this religious identification. Researchers include them anyway, which showcases just how misleading these studies can be.

Consequently, a dependable framework of criteria and definitions for various religions and worldviews will be considerably more extensive. That makes the problem much harder. Because it means you have to create a far more comprehensive set of doctrines, teachings, beliefs, or philosophical views. All of which need to be used to build well-defined criteria for all the different religions. This requires acknowledging the sheer scope of religions and worldviews, and organizing them with a greater number of detailed metrics and sophisticated algorithms, rather than relying on a brief question or definition. This rules out simple polls that do nothing more than provide a list of names and ask people to check a box for one they like.

2) Understanding a religion/worldview

Defining a religion is a problem all its own, one that leads into the next related reason. To accurately identify religious or worldview affiliation, you must understand those religions and worldviews at a level that goes beyond the superficial. Knowing only a religion’s dictionary summary means you aren’t qualified to perform accurate assessments of who belongs to that religion or what beliefs it is composed of. This severely limits accurate surveys of religious identification because it will require enough people who have enough expertise on the religions in question to provide the right set of criteria for religious identification.

This is an obvious problem found in a lot of mainstream media discussing religious affiliation. Often, the people writing these articles don’t have the slightest clue what a religion may or may not encompass. Worse still, they delude themselves into thinking they grasp the subject, but their overconfidence masks their lack of knowledge. This is an especially prevalent problem in the West regarding Christianity. It is extremely easy to find articles talking about Christian religious affiliation, but ones written by people whose understanding of Christianity is so distorted that it is obvious they don’t have any idea what they are talking about.

Understanding what Christianity is, what Islam is, what Buddhism, Hinduism, or Humanism are requires a level of research, time, and effort that cannot be bypassed. This is, of course, a serious obstacle to getting accurate data because it means that a level of expertise in many broad areas is required. Without this expertise, people rely on misleading heuristic definitions plagued with ignorant biases, preconceived notions, and outright falsehoods. That is one of the obvious problems behind the Pew research data. It’s obvious that many of the people who answer the questionnaire don’t have any idea what many of the religions listed actually are. Even when they identify themselves as part of it. The fact that atheists claim to believe in a god is a perfect example of such ignorance. This difficulty remains unavoidable, and polls or analyses offering merely a simplistic and incomplete summary of a religion or worldview cannot be trusted.

3) Working around self-interest

I have repeatedly mentioned the fact that self-identification is unreliable. But if we can’t ask people directly how they identify religiously, that means they have to be tested. This means you cannot ask only simple questions or rely on answers that are just checking boxes. Even if you had a perfectly acceptable definition of a religion, and provided these definitions, people cannot be trusted to answer honestly. Nothing guarantees people read these definitions, agree with them, nor answer truthfully. Self-interest, social incentives, and personal psychological incentives are too strong to guarantee reliable data.

This problem becomes even more difficult if you actually provide extensive, accurate criteria for all religions. Going beyond an incomplete, though accurate, summary definition of a religion means providing a considerable amount of text and reading for anyone being surveyed. You can’t accept people’s answers if in the end all they do is check boxes, with no validation. Even if you have accurate definitions and sufficiently comprehensive explanations of the religions or worldviews in question.

To reliably work around self-interest, people have to be put to the test and asked a rather large number of questions. This requires including mechanisms to catch people who answer in ignorance or who answer dishonestly. Implementing this will make any survey balloon into a very extensive test that has several deliberate guardrails built into it. Turning a questionnaire with a few dozen questions into an extensive test with hundreds of questions. The test would have to be designed specifically with the possibility of dishonesty or ignorance in mind and work to rule out false religious identification.

That’s just the problem as it relates to designing the survey or test itself. That doesn’t include dealing with the self-interest of people or organizations who have influence on the testing or design of the test. Without a doubt, there will be controversy in defining a religion, or how such criteria will affect the outcomes of any surveys or studies using such a rigorous methodology. That is because people have considerable incentive to change the test in order to generate outcomes that align with their own religion or worldview. A perfect example of that would be pseudo-Christian cults that need and want to be recognized as truly Christian (such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unitarians, as I mentioned prior). Another example would be so-called “non-believers” who have incentives to be viewed as “non-religious” (dealt with here).

Therefore, social pressure and individual or group self-interest are factors that have to be worked around to test accurately. Of all reasons, this is the one that is least recognized and the one most important to have solutions for. Because religious identification is not just a data point. It is a point of leverage and a weapon used to support desired narratives. Though it is one of the toughest problems to deal with.

4) Logistics

Considering the aforementioned problems leads to the idea that they could be effectively resolved by developing a comprehensive process. This process would utilize a meticulously crafted set of standards to ascertain religious identity. Something like an extensive exam that has many questions designed to test a person’s knowledge, beliefs on many topics, and lifestyle. You can rule out a good chunk of cheating or dishonesty by doing an interview with a trained interviewer. The interviewees could be required to provide documentation, or other evidence, of certain claims to catch people who would lie or exaggerate. Such as following up with a church, mosque, or synagogue (or equivalent) to ask about their attendance to validate claims they make about their religious life.

The issue with this is obvious. The complexity and cost of doing such a survey are much higher than doing a basic phone, internet, or mail survey. Collecting accurate data in this way would involve the logistics of having to design the test in the first place, having enough staff and time to perform interviews, the equipment for properly recorded interviews, and the time and effort taken to validate any provided evidence or documentation. Beyond the logistics of the survey itself, you would need to take legal precautions and deal with privacy issues. If you are collecting extensive personal information, documentation, or evidence to validate personal behavior and beliefs, or even recording interview results, you must do all of this in accordance with privacy laws.

Doing these things makes large-scale data collection significantly harder. The Pew data has thousands of survey results because they are relying on a relatively simple paper or electronic survey that uses 100+ questions with mostly multiple-choice answers. Doing interviews of nearly 37,000 subjects would be an enormous project costing a considerable amount of money. Realistically, you would have to reduce the sample size by a few orders of magnitude. Which would reduce the usefulness of the survey.

A multiple-choice survey or a more detailed written survey could be used. However, achieving comprehensiveness and covering a wide range of religious identifications might necessitate a survey with thousands of questions. It would need to test people in order to rule out self-identification and to mitigate dishonest or ignorant answers. While not every participant must answer every question, the survey must incorporate a process for directing individuals to relevant questions and enabling them to bypass inapplicable ones. An example of this would avoid questions that differentiate between Shia and Sunni Muslims for non-Muslim individuals.

There are a lot of logistical hurdles to overcome in order to get reliable religious identification. Testing religious identification and collecting reliable data is not as easy as giving out surveys that just ask people what they claim to be. It may be understandable why organizations don’t do this, but it isn’t excusable. Instead of accepting low quality, misleading polling data, we need to demand higher standards. Especially when people are trying to sell narratives based on this data.

In the next part, we cover major theological issues as they relate to religious identification and the nature of self-identification. Especially as it relates to Christianity. We need to stop pretending that the data we have is accurate in determining the religious makeup of our society. Any analysis that relies on uncritical self-identification is not to be trusted. It just isn’t based on trustworthy data. People simply cannot be trusted to self-identify accurately or honestly. To pretend otherwise shows ignorance or even manipulative behavior. Scripture even makes such things clear. The mainstream media is guilty of this kind of lazy, disingenuous “analysis” because they are propaganda outlets with a deliberate narrative they wish to push. We, on the other hand, need to see through the facade. It is not a trivial or academic matter.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Essentially, it is a serious category error that is routinely made and inadvertently reinforced by the language Christian apologists typically use. In short, the problem lies with the term “atheism,” especially when people contrast it with “Christianity.” This juxtaposition creates a misrepresentation of and a false equivalency between the belief systems in conflict. The contrast, worded this way, treats these opposing beliefs as if they are properly comparable; enabling a false portrayal of what the self-proclaimed “atheist” actually believes. However, this false portrayal is almost never deliberate (though it is opportunistic). So it is better understood as a reasoning error perpetuated by sloppy language.

What do I mean by this? Well, as the title of the article tries to hint at, atheism versus Christianity is comparing “apples to oranges”. It’s a faulty contrast that relies upon a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means and what atheists themselves actually believe. Christianity is a specific religion. One with specific and definable beliefs. Whereas atheism is a category of belief. Atheism only means no god/gods. So an atheist is one who believes there are no gods (plural) or god (singular). Hence the very word atheism derives from the prefix (“a”) meaning no or none and the suffix (“-theism”) meaning god or gods. It is not something somebody believes in specifically, but a category of belief (or worldview) that a person’s actual religion falls under. Nobody is merely an “atheist”. They are a Humanist, or a Buddhist, or a Marxist, or some other atheistic religion.

Generic atheists don’t exist. Not because people who are atheists don’t exist, but because nobody exists within a generic category by itself. Just like generic “theists” don’t exist. You have Muslims, Christians, or (religious) Jews. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity possess entirely distinct beliefs that require separate handling in most situations. Atheism is no different. Atheism is a category that contains several atheistic religions. So it is often misleading to compare atheists versus Christians because it implies that atheists somehow don’t have any religion/worldview or positive beliefs (I explain what religion means here). It allows the falsehood of “unbelief” and enables the claim that atheists have nothing to prove because they don’t believe in anything.

Christianity, for example, is a theistic religion. Theism, contrasted with atheism, means a belief in a god. Many times theism is shorthand for monotheism, the belief in one (and only one) god. While all Christians are in fact theists, who actually identifies themselves as a “theist”? Nobody! That’s because it’s a broader category that one falls under. It’s not wrong, but useless in contexts that require more specificity. This is especially true when you understand that theism can mean different, mutually exclusive, things. The god of Islam is not at all the same as the god of Christianity. Nor is the god of Sikhism at all the same as the god of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Theistic views of god can be, and in reality are, drastically different from one another. Comparing atheism (a category of religion/worldview) to Christianity (a specific religion/worldview) is like comparing apples (a specific fruit) to vegetables (a category of food) when discussing what is nutritionally optimal. It’s a comparison that makes little sense when one of the things being compared is an entire category of food.

Christians make a mistake in comparing the two rather than comparing one of the specific religions within atheism that atheists actually adhere to. If we want to make meaningful comparisons, then it means comparing atheism to theism more broadly and generically, or something like Humanism (what most self-described “atheists” actually are) to Christianity. Another mistake is in talking about what “atheists” believe, as if atheism were itself a coherent belief system. Because atheism is a generic category, the only actual beliefs held in common by “atheists” are the rejection of god/gods. That’s it. Many other things associated with “atheists” have nothing to do with atheism itself but instead apply only to specific atheistic religions that don’t apply to other atheistic religions.

It helps to understand this by seeing what it would look like by taking an example that replaces atheist with theist. If somebody talked about how “theists” are wrong because the Koran and the Book of Mormon are error-filled and contradictory, it would be immediately obvious what the problem is. “Theists” don’t believe in the Koran; Muslims do. “Theists” don’t believe in the Book of Mormon; Mormons do. Muslims and Mormons are in fact theists, but every other theist, like Christians and Sikhs, couldn’t care less what either of those sacred books claim because Christianity rejects the Koran and Sikhs put no faith in the Book of Mormon.

When Christians talk about atheism, as if it were a belief system, they allow actual atheists to pretend as if they are neutral non-believers with no belief system. Because Christians portray atheists as sitting under a categorical umbrella that has no coherent beliefs other than believing in no gods. This is a huge mistake, and one that has allowed many self-proclaimed “atheists” to rig the game in their favor by presenting themselves as vague non-believers with no positive belief system. Which is something that only exists at an abstract, categorical level. Specific atheists are always (without exception) adherents of a more specific religion/worldview that simply exists within the broader category of atheism. This needs to be made clear and brought up in any discussion that goes beyond the extremely general debates regarding the existence of a vague and deliberately undefined god (or gods). Using language that ignores this distinction is one of the major problems in Christian apologetics and religious debates today.

This problem is a factor in the overly broad generalizations that might be true in a theoretical sense but are entirely unpersuasive when applied to actual people. This is because any individual who hears these claims and knows they don’t apply to them will have good reason to disregard what you might say. Saying that atheists are “secular”, for example, is as misleading as claiming that theists believe in the Book of Mormon. Buddhism and Confucianism are both atheistic religions because they do not believe in a god or gods. That doesn’t mean they are secular. Buddhists, Marxists, Humanists, and Jainists are all part of the same atheistic category. Yet, we cannot accurately consider Buddhism and Jainism purely secular or naturalistic.

If you want to present arguments against secularism, then do not lump “atheists” in with this argument. Because at that point you are generalizing so much that many people who legitimately fit within the category clearly do not adhere to such a belief. If you are trying to debunk arguments made by people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, then describe them as Secular Humanists, not merely “atheists.” Dawkins and Harris do not adhere to a non-belief system that believes in nothing other than a rejection of the Christian God. They are adherents of a Humanist religion that has many specific and clear positive beliefs about the world, human nature, creation of the world and humanity, etc. Do not present them as “non-believers” as if they are empty vessels devoid of “belief”. They aren’t non-religious they are non-Christian. They are atheists, yes, but more specifically they are believers in the religion of Humanism.

Christians need to understand that the labels and wording we use are very important. Sloppy categorization and poor framing allow many problems to manifest. Notably, category errors like a contrast between the category of atheism and the specific religion of Christianity have enabled a popular narrative of “disbelief”; as opposed to the reality of these individuals having a specific religion but hiding behind a vague category. It is not a minor error but one for which we should vigilantly be alert to reframe debates more accurately.

- Victoria Gratiae -

The problem is the fact that we recognize deception as something all people are capable of, yet we still make determinations on things that are based on self-identification alone when it comes to the religious identities that they have. If you look at the Pew Research data, you would see just how unreliable this is. People answer the surveys in ways that are nonsensical and clearly not to be trusted. Yet this data is relied upon to make pronouncements like we find in this article. Supposedly, “The United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world. By 2070, those demographics could see a shift and the religion that has long been the country’s majority denomination could become a minority, according to a new study.” According to the article and the study, the “religiously unaffiliated” are projected to be near or exceed the number of Christians in the US by 2070.

Yet this premise is completely bogus. The basis for this data is merely people checking a box from a list of “religions” that they claim to be. That’s it. We are supposed to trust how people are identifying here, despite the data showing extremely serious problems in these identifications. Like those we covered in part 1 (atheists who believe in God? Christians who don’t believe in heaven?). This is such a flawed and almost worthless analysis as to make much of it pointless. There are a lot of problems if people are actually using such data to get an understanding of social trends without recognizing the unreliability of the premises behind these data.

First, we need to recognize that people make claims about their religious identity for many reasons. A lot of these reasons create powerful incentives to lie or misrepresent your religion. There is also the fact that people’s understanding of what “religion” actually means is usually shallow, inconsistent, and even outright self-serving (especially those who think “religion” is a bad thing). On top of the large number of people who have superficial or just plain false understandings of the religions in question. A perfect example of that would be the high number of “Buddhists” who believe there is a heaven. This confusion likely stems from ignorant Westerners who confuse nirvana with heaven, overlook the Buddhist cycle of reincarnation, and are simply drawn to new-age concepts. They clearly have a very confused understanding of the actual religion of Buddhism.

Let’s cover the reasons people have for claiming a religious identity that make self-identification such an immense problem:

1) Status

Social status is an enormously influential reason people would claim a religious identity, regardless of the truth. That is because we all want acceptance to a greater or lesser degree. Nobody is immune to the desire to be perceived in certain ways by their peers. Identities, including religious identities, all have a major impact on how you will be perceived by others. The social context in which you exist determines what kind of perception you will have. All religions are seen differently by different people and different cultures at various times. Some will give you more social acceptance, whereas others will create more conflict. Identifying as a Muslim in modern-day Saudi Arabia is something that would provide more social acceptance (ignoring all other factors) whereas identifying as an Orthodox Jew will do the exact opposite.

Therefore, we all feel pressure to identify with a certain religious identity, even to the point of lying about it, in order to change our status in our social circles and broader culture. The people who pursue social conformity, popularity, and general social acceptance as a priority are the ones most likely to claim religious identities, regardless of what they believe and the life they live, simply to gain status among their peers. This is one of the primary factors behind the band-wagoners who either claim to be a religion that is gaining in popularity within their culture or who downplay or outright reject a former religious identity, if it declines in popularity.

This is one of the most important reasons to reject the narrative about a former “Christian majority” in the study mentioned prior. This is because Christianity is increasingly perceived negatively in our society, which pressures individuals to minimize or abandon their faith. Conversely, in the past, Christianity held a much higher social standing and enjoyed favorable public opinion, encouraging people to identify as Christian. A better explanation of the data is that Christianity is fading in popularity, and those who used to have an incentive to claim to be Christian no longer have the social status gain that it used to provide. In reality, they were never Christian to begin with.

2) Ignorance

A lack of understanding of what a religion actually is and believes can lead to all kinds of ignorant religious identification. Especially when the lack of understanding stems from willful ignorance. One particularly relevant example of this (pulling from the Pew data) is the fact that 59% of self-identified Catholics believe that abortion should be “legal in all/most cases” and 74% who believe that homosexuality “should be accepted.” This phenomenon is not unique to Catholics (self-identified Catholics, that is) but is found in those who claim to be “evangelical Protestants” where 33% support abortion and 36% support the acceptance of homosexuality. What this really shows is a complete ignorance of Christianity. This is just a part of it, too. It is not unique to these specific beliefs in Christianity.

That self-identified Catholics support abortion is a particular problem here because, unlike Christianity more broadly, the Roman Catholic Church has very specific, official (and well-documented) doctrines on topics like abortion. The RCC is unequivocally opposed to abortion. To have such a high number of people outright defying the beliefs that the RCC holds shows how many self-identified Catholics are ignorant of their own religion. It is nothing more than a nominal identity that has no reflection on their individual beliefs.

Just review the fact that nearly 10% of atheists (which exceeds the margin of error) claim a belief in a god or universal spirit (it is unclear what “universal spirit” could mean). To call oneself an atheist while maintaining the belief in a god is a contradiction in the most direct sense. Many would dispute what Christianity is and teaches, claiming that one can be a Christian and still hold to the belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable. One cannot (by definition) hold to a belief in a god and be an atheist. Yet again, we have obvious ignorance of religious identification on display. Showing just how often people claim a religious identity while having little or no understanding of that religion.

3) Clout

When people are trying to make an argument that deals with right/wrong, public policy, or even overt religious disagreements, they might attempt to root their position in their religious position. For example, Hillary Clinton wrote an article in the Atlantic (an article I evaluate more specifically here) decrying the “MAGA movement” for its “war on empathy.” About a third of the way into this article she describes herself as a Christian and that her opposition to this “war on empathy” is because of her faith, what her reading of the Bible teaches her, and what she believes Jesus preached while on earth. She does this because she is using her religious self-identification in order to give some kind of authority to her claim. She is implying that “real” Christians (like her) reject the MAGA arguments that assert toxic empathy. She does this because she knows if she presented herself as an atheist, Humanist, Hindu, or some other religious identification, she wouldn’t have nearly as much clout behind her claims.

This happens all the time when people try to make their arguments more authoritative because of what religion they claim to have. Ex-Christians do this when attempting to debunk Christianity. They want you to think that they have “been there, done that” but escaped the falsehoods of Christianity once they “rationally” examined their faith. No doubt, some were truly Christian before they fell away from the faith. At the same time, many were never actually Christian to begin with. Not in any genuine sense. They think that having Christian parents meant they inherited Christianity, as if it were a hereditary thing like Jewish ethnicity. Or that being forced by their parents to go to a church when they were children meant they were actually Christian. They do this because they can present themselves as someone who “escaped” a cult or someone who isn’t motivated by hatred of Christians or Christianity.

This happens with Christians too. Those who claim to be ex-atheists or adherents of a previous religion will talk about that in a way that is meant to provide some sort of authority on the faults of their prior religion. That isn’t to say people are always manipulative or lying when they do this. The reality is that this situation creates an incentive to boost an individual’s perceived authority, leading people to be dishonest or to distort the truth. Individuals posing as “ex-Satanists” may exploit this to appeal to Christian groups excessively worried about Satanic infiltration. Furthermore, people might use their nominal religious identity for calculated self-interest, manipulating the public to support their political views, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton in the aforementioned article.

4) Self-interest/preservation

There is the fact that people will claim a religious identity solely out of self-interest, including self-preservation. One might seek to avoid embarrassment or association with unpleasant things, or conversely, protect themselves from persecution and physical harm, even up to death. The reasoning can be extremely petty and selfish, such as taking on a religious identification out of contrarian spite. Such as many Distrephists (see here for an overview of this terminology) who “convert” to Islam out of spite against the perceived connection between the Republican party and Christianity or “solidarity” with Palestinians. Alternatively, to obtain welfare or charity contingent upon a specific religious identity. People can also do this to preserve their careers, specific relationships, or circles of friends.

This reasoning increases in relevance whenever there are more perks or dangers for having a specific perceived religious identity. Countries with significant persecution of specific religious identities reward hiding a persecuted religious identity and reward claiming majority religious identification. Especially if there are material benefits, such as favored legal status, that coincide with some religious status.

5) Compromise/Syncretism

Finally, we have a factor that is not really a single reason per se, but more of a combination of other influences that exist in opposition to one another. Compromise is best understood as conflicting pressures upon a person that result in a corrupted or hybrid belief system. With syncretism as the resulting hybrid belief system from significant enough compromise. The reason this is important to take into consideration is that syncretism creates a new religion. Yet, people’s language often struggles to convey this due to various factors. Especially when those who compromise have every incentive to still identify as the religion that is being compromised (for example, see here).

All religions comprise several individual beliefs that are interrelated. Followers of a religion do not, and cannot, hold to only a few of them. There are exceptions, since some religions deliberately reject the concept of truth or require consistency. Unitarian Universalism is an example of this kind of exception. Other than religions that are inherently universalist or perennialist, most religions contain truth claims that are mutually exclusive with other religions. The beliefs within the religion are interlocking parts of a whole, or individual threads woven together. Some are more essential than others.

When people disregard this or start accepting beliefs that exist in conflict with a claimed religious identification, they compromise. If they do this enough, they can no longer accurately represent their prior religion. No matter what they claim as self-identification. Take the example of someone who claims to be Christian, yet believes in reincarnation, rejects Christ’s divinity in favor of the “Christ Consciousness”, still believes in “god” and in heaven, and appeals to Scripture selectively while rejecting inerrancy. This is a perfect example of syncretism. Their significant compromise rejects essential Christian doctrines and views, so they cannot be considered Christian. They also accept things that don’t really make any sense when you understand what Neo-paganism is. Making them inconsistent and weak Neo-pagans, holding to Christian principles that contradict the Neo-pagan principles they pull from.

They believe in a hybrid religion that is not Christianity; it merely pulls from Christianity in a syncretistic fashion. Though they identify as Christian and will claim to revere the “Christ”, their compromise has caused them to abandon meaningful and correct identification as Christian. They exist in a conflicted state with both the initially identified and compromised religion and the other religion they compromise with. Syncretism is inherently illogical and contradictory. The prevalence of compromise and syncretism, where individuals conform to competing (even mutually exclusive and hostile) influences by diluting their religious convictions, is a frequent basis for questioning the legitimacy of self-identification.

All told, many different reasons exist why we cannot trust self-identification. People cannot be trusted, through identification alone, to actually have the identity they claim to have. We cannot categorize people through such methods because of the inherent untrustworthiness of human beings. One can identify as whatever one wants, but that clearly doesn’t make it true. The obvious reason so many organizations lean on this extremely flawed heuristic for the religious categorization of people in society is because it is a lot harder to identify people otherwise. It would require a lot more than a handful of questions. You would have to put them to the test, and you would have to more carefully and properly define religion itself and the religions we name, in order to do so. However, despite the inherent difficulty of doing so, this isn’t an excuse to rely on data that is entirely unreliable. If we only measured sentiment and religious self-identification, this would help us understand people’s views. However, we shouldn’t use this measurement as a proxy for accurate religious identity. Next, we will cover the difficulties and problems that exist for religious identification. Highlighting how problematic it would be to do so, but with an eye to the fact that it is possible to get more accurate data by approaching things through more objective measures.

- Victoria Gratiae -

The book lays out an extremely important thesis. One that Christians would do well to understand. Specifically, Ms. Burton describes just how religious the “non-religious” really are. Throughout the book, she astutely points out the religious beliefs of the so-called “religious nones” (those who claim to have no religion on surveys) and the “spiritual but not religious.” This is extremely important to understand because it highlights the falseness of the “non-believer” and “non-religious” designations (see the problem with “non-believers” here). Tangentially, the book also showcases the very serious issues that arise with religious self-identification (these issues are covered more here).

Now, the overarching explanation that Ms. Burton provides in her book is that we are seeing a resurgence of what she describes as “intuitional religions” that emphasize emotion and feelings over institutions and creeds (p. 33). More specifically, she covers what she describes as the “Remixed.” These religiously remixed comprise three major categories: the “spiritual but not religious”, the “faithful nones” (those who claim no religious affiliation but believe in religious principles), and the “religious hybrids” (pp. 18-24). The religious hybrids are syncretists, those who claim religious affiliation but who reject core beliefs of their claimed religious affiliation and who subscribe to religious beliefs contrary to the religion they claim. An example given is that of someone who claims to be a Christian and also claims to believe in reincarnation.

Importantly, if you take these categories together, all the Remixed, you find they make up around 50% of the population. Though it’s most likely more than that. Especially since Ms. Burton was pulling data from Pew Research and PRRI surveys prior to 2020. If you examine the more recent data, there has been an upward trend of people who would fall into the Remixed category (as she defines it). Thankfully, the author takes an approach here that does not simply rely on self-identification (a serious problem). Instead; she dives much deeper into the nature of their belief systems. She perceptively infers the inconsistent nature of these self-designations throughout the book. Which is partly where she came up with the category of Remixed.

Another interesting insight here has to do with the three significant religions she covers that fit within the Remixed. The first is the religion of social justice, which the author clearly describes as a religion: “Social justice is a religion, and — as with any other religion — its potency as a source of meaning and its potential for zealotry are naturally correlated” (p. 177). The second is the religion of Transhumanism, or what she often calls techno-utopianism. Techno-utopians are described as “gleefully libertarian, comfortably capitalist, and deeply antiauthoritarian” (p. 189) who can be found to be “basically worship[ing] human potential and its technological manifestations, including artificial intelligence” (p. 191). Chapter 8, “Two Doctrines for a Godless World”, covers both of these religions. The third religion is something she calls “atavism” and covers in chapter 9, “Twilight of the Chads.” For all intents and purposes, atavism is a religion in which she lumps the non-Christian “alt-right,” the red-pill movement, MGTOW (men going their own way), Jordan Peterson followers, and other identitarian conservative movements together as a traditionalist, darwinian, and reactionary Neo-conservative Remixed religion.

Ms. Burton’s descriptions of the social justice religion are particularly fascinating. Though I would actually describe it as the religion of Distrephism since the “social justice” label is just not an accurate designation (see here for an explanation of this term). She spends most of the book describing it, just using different labels and a different frame of understanding. Ms. Burton covers several extremely important aspects of Distrephism that are key to comprehending it. One is the self-deification and hedonism inherent in it. Distrephists, drawing heavily from New Thought and the concept of “manifestation,” believe their thoughts and beliefs can change the world in a mystical way. Their beliefs possess a neo-pagan quality, elevating the self to a divine status. Making the “authentic self” the sovereign that determines right and wrong. Distrephists (whom she often just calls Remixed) “see the self as an autonomous being, the self’s desires as fundamentally good, and societal and sexual repression as not just undesirable but actively evil” (p. 57). She also explains that Distrephists believe “we have to listen to ourselves, to behave authentically, in tune with what our intuition dictates” (p. 94). The text provides many examples, especially in chapters 5, “Wellness Culture and the Rebirth of New Thought” and 7, “The New Perfectionism: Our Sexual Utopias”, demonstrating how the Remixed overall, and Distrephists in particular, elevate the self to deity status.

Another important aspect of Distrephism is its connection to the occult. In chapter 6, appropriately titled “The Magic Resistance”, Ms. Burton covers just how closely linked belief in magic or other neo-pagan “energies” and “powers” are with the religion of Distrephism. The neo-pagan nature of Distrephism, alongside its identity as a religion of antithesis, is highlighted. This is what I describe as antithetical revisionism (see the article linked above on Distrephism). Distrephism has a “contemporary occultism” that offers “a powerful spiritual counterpoint to organized religion, one that’s not merely orthogonal to traditional Christianity but actively opposed to it” (pp. 116-117). In fact, her book begins by talking about a neo-pagan theater event, Sleep No More (by British theater company Punchdrunk) that captures the essence of modern Distrephism: “Whether you were a superfan or just a Halloween reveler, these parties were, like the religious festivals they mimicked, rituals: ways of marking the passing of time through a carnival atmosphere of transcendence. They were invitations, not just to enter this world of witchcraft and magic that one British theater company had, via Shakespeare, created, but also to celebrate a very particular, if informally codified, worldview. A worldview that celebrated not evil, exactly, but subversion. A wholesale f*** you to repression, to patriarchy, to rules, to order, to the petty offices of men” (p. 7).

Strange Rites gives an excellent overview of Distrephism with the caveat that Ms. Burton’s interpretation of this religion is not something I always agree with. I frame it differently and categorize it more formally. That said, Tara Burton’s book here was an essential source for my research. I was able to extract quite a bit of useful information from her insights into this religion and the others within the Remixed. She does a fantastic job of exposing the religious beliefs and attitudes of those who often claim to be “irreligious.” She covers the difficulty in defining religion (p. 19) and shortly explains some of the better definitions of what a religion is (pp. 26-29). Specifically, Peter Berger’s definition: “Berger characterizes religion as the way in which humans internalize an orderly picture of the world and how we should act within it” (p. 28). This definition is actually very close to mine, though much less fleshed out (see how I define religion here). It helps us understand the nonsensical nature of the claim to be “non-religious” by many people in our society. People who actually adhere to one of the three major religions under the Remixed category. Just in ignorance of their own religious behavior. The Remixed is a category that is probably best understood as one consisting of different types of Humanism and/or Neo-paganism.

The weakest part of the book is going to be Ms. Burton’s chapter (chapter 9) on what she repeatedly calls “atavism.” This is because she paints a picture with overly broad strokes and falls into the trap that many people do when describing the so-called “far-right.” For example, she draws far too many connections between Jordan Peterson’s work and other ethno-nationalist identitarians. She hangs her understanding of issues on the false left/right dichotomy and therefore groups “far” or “alt” right groups merely because they can be labeled “right-wing” in some fashion. Giving the false impression that they are more ideologically aligned than they really are. Especially when she directly links fascism with atavism overall.

Without a doubt, she is pointing to a very serious problem within Christ-less conservative movements like MGTOW or the red-pill movement. Such as their Darwinian, nihilistic, and reactionary approach to modern social issues. She accurately points out that the broader pattern is a hostile overreaction to Distrephism. In particular, the problems brought about by feminism and the rejection of biological reality derived from blank slate views of human nature. Hence the emphasis on ethnic nationalism, strength, hierarchy, and Darwinian processes. However, this general trend is not as coherent as she thinks, and the attempt to link it to Jordan Peterson is weak, along with the attempt to link it to the broader “right” overall. This is a typical tactic that results from holding to the false left/right spectrum view of politics. Those who are unified by a common enemy, in this case “social justice”/Distrephism, are only related in so far as they have a common enemy. Not because they are necessarily aligned ideologically or actually work together. This atavism is far more fractured and divergent than the other two religions she describes.

What is useful about her description of atavism and of Transhumanism is the fact that it reinforces the thesis that the supposed irreligious are in fact very religious after all. Godless forms of conservatism aren’t non-religious; they just have a Remixed religion. Nor are the “left” or “progressives” irreligious either. The idea that our society has become less religious over time is outright false. What has happened instead is a shift in the majority religion. Christianity has declined, through complete apostasy or syncretism, and is being replaced by neo-pagan and humanist religions of various types. Strange Rites calls them Remixed, and though I would classify things differently, it is an accurate depiction.

Overall, Ms. Burton’s book is something I would actually consider to be essential reading for Christians. It requires some critical evaluation and an understanding of where the author is coming from first, though. She describes herself as a Christian in her other writings, but I personally doubt the validity of this self-identification. Her views do not seem to reflect orthodox Christianity. They echo “progressive” viewpoints instead. I would consider her a syncretist, mixing Distrephism and pseudo-Christianity at best.

Regardless of this, she is a very talented and engaging writer. She is much fairer in her treatment than many would otherwise be. Her book shows good sourcing, and she avoids exaggerated claims and unwarranted hyperbole. Even when it is obvious where she stands on an issue. Which means a lot of what she says is extremely useful when taken in context. Strange Rites is one of the best books one can read to shed light on the modern religious makeup of our society. It cuts through the nonsense of “irreligion” and reveals the highly religious nature of the “unbelievers” in our midst. If you want to understand the rise of Neo-paganism and Humanism in America, then you need to read Tara Burton’s Strange Rites.

- Victoria Gratiae -

I am an affiliate of Bookshop.org and I will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase using the affiliate link below. Consider doing so to support my work!

Buy Here!

Mrs. Clinton says this about Trump: “No one mistakes him for a devout Christian or a person of faith or morality.” Which, I would actually say, is (mostly) correct. I have never viewed Donald Trump as Christian. Nor even a particularly moral or upright individual. Even though a majority of what Democrats and the mainstream media accuse Trump of are slanderous lies motivated by envy and hatred, there is little doubt that Trump is an extremely flawed individual. If he were a “person of faith,” that faith would not be Christianity.

However, there is a huge flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s assessment here. It reeks of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. While she is right in pointing out the lack of genuine Christian faith in Donald Trump, she exposes her disingenuity in claiming Christian faith of her own. Fact is, despite whatever she might claim, Mrs. Clinton is not a Christian in anything other than a purely nominal way. While she can call herself whatever she wants, the “fruit” of her life exposes this label as nothing more than a facade. She’s using a Christian identity, not because it’s authentic, but to pander to a specific audience and falsely appear morally virtuous. She is justifying herself and then relying on the complacency or ignorance of others to take her self-identification seriously. Self-identification is notoriously unreliable (which I deal with further in this series). Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to present a Christian identity is manipulative and deceitful.

The useful aspect of this article is that her actions in falsely claiming to be Christian are very typical of pseudo-Christian Distrephists (Distrephism is what I name the “woke” religion and is explained here). It also reflects how many mainstream institutions (especially the media) deceptively dilute the meaning of “Christian.” The purpose of this dilution of the term “Christian” is to enable non-Christians the ability to claim social cachet in describing themselves as Christian. Mrs. Clinton does that here. She describes herself as Christian so that she can pretend to have some kind of authority in making her moral claims. If she described herself as an atheist, Humanist, or any other non-Christian religion, her claims of morality would lose considerable amounts of social persuasion and credibility. Especially when her argument hinges on her accusations that “MAGA,” and other “hard-right” Christian influencers, are directly opposing supposed Christian values like empathy and “neighborism.”

It is extremely important to understand what Mrs. Clinton describes Christians as and what their role should be, but we must first consider the context in which she presents these ideas. The context of this article was the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal agents in Minnesota. Both were protestors who took part in the statewide protests against the large-scale (and highly controversial) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the state. For all intents and purposes, the broader context is around immigration/illegal immigration as a whole. The shootings were just the triggering event for the article. According to her, these ICE operations are just jack-booted tyranny based on “President Trump’s abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution.” It was a “moral rot at the heart of Trump’s MAGA movement” and the “goal of surging heavily armed forces into blue states such as Minnesota and Maine” is because “Trump and his allies believe that the more inhumane the treatment, the more likely it is to spread fear.”

I will not cover these shootings in depth, as that is not the point I want to focus on. The shootings were extremely polarizing and have been used for propaganda by both Democrats and Republicans. Others have covered these in more depth, and I won’t repeat that here. What is more important is to understand the fact that Mrs. Clinton is using these shootings, and the broader issue of immigration and illegal immigration, as a framing device for her opposition to what she perceives as a “war against empathy.” While clearly politically motivated—given her past failed candidacy against Donald Trump and her firm entrenchment in the Democratic political party—I want to put all that aside. Even though I question her motivations in writing this article.

With this context in mind, Mrs. Clinton accuses “MAGA” or “hard-right” influencers of championing cruelty and demonizing empathy. This is presented as a concern for her, as she quotes, “Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves and help those in need. ‘Do this and you will live,’ he says. Not in Donald Trump’s America.” She appeals to this supposed love for our neighbor when she portrays the protests against ICE, “the people of Minnesota have responded with an approach you could call “’neighborism’—a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from. To my ears, that’s as Christian a value as it gets” (emphasis mine).

In reality, this manipulative plea for sympathy is a perfect example of the “toxic empathy” she so passionately criticizes. We know this is the case because her depiction of Christianity is superficial, distorted, and saccharine. Furthermore, its application is highly selective, aligning conveniently with prevalent Democratic talking points and, most significantly, the Distrephist religion. The religion which currently dominates both the Democrat Party and our mainstream institutions (academia in particular). Hillary Clinton is an extremely partisan individual, and it’s hard to disentangle the calculated political motivations from that which is genuine. However, in this case it is easier than normal.

I don’t actually doubt that she believes in what she is saying about empathy. Even when it has a manipulative and self-justifying character to it. What makes it so manipulative is the fact that she simultaneously misrepresents Christianity, creating a shallow, generically “good” pseudo-Christianity, while propping herself up as an exemplar of the values of this pseudo-Christianity she created. Take her claim that “neighborism” is “as Christian a value as it gets.” This just isn’t true. For one, she is describing protestors and activists who are protecting and shielding illegal immigrants. She even says that this “neighborism” is “a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from.” The problem here is that Mrs. Clinton seems to have forgotten another essential Christian teaching. Let’s look at Romans 13,

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7 (CSB)

Mrs. Clinton is pretending as if her so-called “neighborism” excuses people from law-abiding behavior. She knows this is about illegal immigration, even though she uses the deceptive euphemism “undocumented immigrants.” She says as much when she says that “Other recent presidents, managed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants without turning American cities into battlegrounds or making a show of keeping children in cages.” Ignoring the outright falsehood of “making a show of keeping children in cages” it is pretty clear she knows what this entire issue is about. Does neighborism mean violating Christian teachings on the necessity of law-abiding behavior? People who come to the United States illegally are breaking the law. Christian love for the neighbor does not, and has never meant, shielding criminal behavior. There isn’t a single example in Scripture of love for our neighbor involving lawlessness.

It isn’t just the misapplication of empathy for lawlessness that is a problem here, either. Mrs. Clinton clarifies that this supposed empathy is also why we must accept both homosexuality and abortion. Her pro-abortion stance is unquestionable. So is her promotion of Distrephism overall (see her campaign site here with her stances on major social issues). In response to Allie Beth Stuckey’s book Toxic Empathy (a book I intend on reviewing when I get the chance) she says the following:

“This is exactly the kind of mainstream Christian view that enrages Allie Beth Stuckey. The author of Toxic Empathy, who styles herself a voice for Christian women, has more than a million followers on social media. In between lifestyle pitter-patter and her demonization of IVF treatments, she warns women not to listen to their soft hearts. This commissar of MAGA morality targets other evangelicals whose empathy, she warns, has left them open to manipulation. Maybe they recognize the humanity of an undocumented immigrant family and decide that mass deportation has gone too far. Or they make space in their heart for a young rape survivor forced to carry a pregnancy to term and start questioning the wisdom and morality of total abortion bans. It’s all toxic to Stuckey.” (emphasis mine)

Her contemptuous and self-righteous tone comes through loud and clear. As does her attempt at emotional blackmail by her reference to a “young rape survivor” who is “forced to carry a pregnancy to term.”

First, Mrs. Clinton is being rather duplicitous about abortion. She talks about rape, but the fact is Hillary Clinton supports abortion regardless (See here). So she is using rape only to tug at the heartstrings and misrepresent her much more permissive stance on abortion. She presented it as if she would be okay with a “compromise” of a non-total abortion ban that had exceptions for rape. Mrs. Clinton is notorious for her non-answers and unwillingness to give straightforward answers about her stances (see here). So it is hard to tell, and given her general stance in favor of abortion, using rape is simply a dishonest misrepresentation. Especially when you consider the fact that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.

Second, abortion is simply murder. Christianity holds that life begins at conception. There isn’t a reason to believe there is any support for abortion in Scripture. Nor can you appeal to tradition, given the Roman Catholic Church’s official opposition to abortion. Pay close attention to the extremely selective and hypocritical attempt at framing this as an issue with empathy. She complains about total abortion bans and how they affect young rape survivors who become pregnant. Who actually believes we shouldn’t have empathy for them? That isn’t the issue here. What about empathy for the child? She completely ignores this aspect. Somehow her empathy for one person means a complete lack of empathy for the other person involved. Like the child she is trying to guilt you into murdering for the sake of another person! Where is the empathy for this child? The only person responsible for this evil is the rapist. Justice demands we punish the guilty. Not punish the innocent. The child had nothing to do with the actions of his/her father.

Not only is this not a Christian stance, this is not empathetic either. At least not without extreme hypocrisy and manipulative shifting of guilt and responsibility. In fact, at the end of the article she states, “When I see brutality like we’ve all witnessed in Minnesota, I ask myself: Can I really find empathy for people who insist on dehumanizing others?” (emphasis in original). Such a statement is rather rich coming from a person who consistently dehumanizes the unborn in order to rationalize one of the most selfish actions you can take. It is statements like these that are so lacking in self-awareness and rank hypocrisy that put her claims about Christianity and empathy in serious doubt.

The hollowness of Mrs. Clinton self-proclaimed faith is only made clearer when we consider the “faith” tradition she comes from. She describes herself as part of the United Methodist Church. A church she laments the “split by deep disagreements over gay rights.” This split created a “separate, less inclusive church.” Such language doesn’t come from Christianity. It comes from a religion entirely separate from and antithetical to Christianity. It just deceives people by using the name and title of Christian. This is exactly what Scripture describes as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (See Matthew 7:15). Mrs. Clinton explains the politically convenient nature of her pseudo-Christianity, “Democrats need a big tent that welcomes people of faith into our coalition, even if we don’t agree on every issue. Don’t forget, liberal Christianity has a long and storied history. Progressive people of faith have led virtually every major social movement. Think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marching with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in Selma. That’s a spirit we should work to reclaim.”

Make no mistake “liberal Christianity” is an oxymoron. No such thing exists. It is a counterfeit that denies the very essence of Christianity. So-called “liberal Christianity” rejects anything about Christianity that conflicts with the modern neo-pagan, humanist zeitgeist of our age. That is why Mrs. Clinton’s “Christianity” can support lawlessness, support the dehumanizing murder of the unborn, the defilement of marriage through homosexuality, and any other cause championed by the political left. The main takeaway from this article is that we need to question whenever someone presumes the identity of “Christian” in an attempt to guilt us into following their lead on social matters. Hillary Clinton is not a Christian; she has no moral authority, nor is there any value in anything she says about Christianity; except insofar as it exposes how wolves attempt to look like sheep.

- Victoria Gratiae -

The problem is obvious: our bodies are fundamentally male or female. Without exception. Even the rare cases of intersex conditions don’t actually validate the views of transgenderism. This is because they are not actually fully hermaphroditic in the way transgender advocates claim. Besides the fact that intersex conditions are extremely rare, making them somewhat irrelevant, the majority of cases involve individuals where it can be determined that they are clearly of a specific sex. They just have features or body parts of the opposite sex, which are deformed or non-functional.

You never have a perfect hybrid of male and female sexual characteristics. An examination of these conditions reveals the person’s actual sex, and then the genetic, developmental, or birth defects that led to stunted or partial features of the opposite sex. Making it an obvious physical defect. Just as Down syndrome creates physiological and mental issues as a person grows up. There may be some cases where we don’t really know, but not only are these so rare as to be useless as a point of validation for transgenderism, they only mean we don’t know all the details. Fact is, how many of those who claim to be transgender actually have a legitimate intersex condition? We all know the answer is close to zero.

However, there is another problem that goes far beyond this specific instance of self-identification. It is the fact that self-identification is extremely unreliable, yet it is constantly used to make determinations of what people are. Completely ignoring all the issues that exist in such categorization. Examining the Pew Research data on the religious landscape of the United States provides an example of this. I pulled the data from the Religious Landscape Study, focusing on the 2023/2024 survey (found here).

We get some indicators of this by looking at a handful of the results. For example, we are told that 62% of US adults identify as Christian. However, this identification is rather problematic. First, we are categorizing people as Christians only through self-identification. The only thing that makes a person a “Christian” here is having selected either Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Orthodox on the question “What is your present religion, if any?” This means a person is treated as a “Christian” merely because they claim to be a Christian.

All we have to do is look at the beliefs held by these self-identified “Christians” to get a glimpse of why this is an issue. Of these so-called Christians, 2% “Do not believe in God or universal spirit.” Which makes absolutely no sense. Putting aside the issue of what a “universal spirit” is, and how it muddies the question, you have people claiming to be Christian while simultaneously stating they don’t believe in God. Even the loosest definition of Christianity would include a belief in God. Besides this group, you also have a full 24% who state that they believe in God or a “universal spirit” but aren’t absolutely certain. While people have doubts, it’s questionable what answering this way means. It is hard to accurately call someone a Christian when one is uncertain about God’s existence. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to people who may experience some kind of crisis of faith or struggle.

However, it gets more absurd than this. According to this same survey, you have 1% of atheists who claim to believe in God or a universal spirit with absolute certainty! You have a full 7% who claim to believe in God, just without being absolutely certain. The very basis of atheism is to reject the belief in a god or gods, yet somehow a significant portion of self-proclaimed atheists state a belief in God. If you look at the survey data from 2014 and 2007, this percentage is much higher. In 2007 there were 8% who claimed to have certainty in their belief in God and 13% claimed less than certain belief in God. How do you have almost 1 out of 5 self-proclaimed atheists saying they believe in God?

The contradictions and nonsense found in this survey are plentiful. Here is just a sample of the examples that can be found that cast doubt on the validity of these self-identifications. Such as 14% of “Christians” claiming the Bible is “Not too/Not at all important.” There are 8% of “Christians” saying that “The natural world is all there is.” You have 5% of atheists saying they believe in heaven and 4% who say they believe in hell. It isn’t restricted to Christians or atheists either, as 7% of “Muslims” say they do not believe in God. Or the 25% of Muslims who say the Bible is “extremely/very important” (not the Koran but the Bible). And of course, a full 52% of Buddhists who say they believe in heaven. Clearly, people are giving answers in ways that make little sense. Or at least they make no sense if we assume they are telling the truth.

What the data indicate is the fact that people are not honest about their self-identification. An atheist who believes in God is an impossibility. Either they are making a mistake in the survey, are ignorant of what any of this means, or are answering falsely on purpose. We can’t rule out the possibility of people deliberately providing troll responses because of anti-social contrarianism. But this cannot explain all the discrepancies we find in the data. It cannot explain everything we see and doesn’t at all explain why 57% of “Christians” say that homosexuality “should be accepted.” What is really going on is an expose of the unreliability of self-identifying labels.

People are ignorantly and falsely claiming a label for various reasons. Which is a phenomenon of serious importance. This initial article is the first in a multi-part essay where I describe the significant problems of self-identification. Especially when it is relied upon as a method of evaluating religious belief and categorization. This serves as the introduction to the problem. Next, we will cover the reasons a person might want to label themselves as something they really aren’t.

- Victoria Gratiae -

However, the solution to this is not something that can be covered briefly. While I have what I am certain solves the problem of defining religion properly, it will be fully covered in more detail later. Here I will instead provide a working definition and a shortened summary. Many of my claims rest upon this definition, and it is necessary to make a shortened form accessible before I have the ability to complete the book-length treatment it actually deserves.

The fact that people heavily abuse and twist the term “religion” for self-interested purposes creates the primary need for a starting definition. One of the most obvious examples comes from a very common myth about “non-religion.” There is no such thing as a person without religion. There are no “non-believers” devoid of a religious belief system (expanded upon here). Definitions of religion that create the false distinction between “religious” people and “non-religious” people need to be countered. As this creates an entirely fictitious portrayal of belief systems and leads to a distorted view of the nature of religious beliefs. The main purpose for people using this idea is to create a false impression of neutrality or objectivity. Rather than being an accurate description of their own supposedly “non-religious” beliefs.

That said, what exactly is religion? The short answer is the following: a systematic expression of behavior, meaning, and identity rooted in a worldview and centered on the answers to the question “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” A religion is inextricably tied to an individual’s worldview, both informing and being informed by it. Religions have a structure, but a person’s individual religion need not be coherent or well thought out. Religions represent the outward expression, in a more fleshed-out form, of a worldview. These outward expressions all point towards the transcendent or the “ultimate truth” from which the religious question derives.

Religions can be understood as the other side of the coin of a person’s worldview (covered in part 3 [coming soon!]). A worldview represents the basic understanding and epistemological foundation that someone has in interpreting the world. A person’s religion is built upon that worldview, and becomes the way a person lives in the world. Religions and worldviews tie together inextricably, mutually affecting each other. They are essential for all sentient beings living in this universe and are therefore inescapable.

The longer answer to this question is that religion consists of three major parts. These three parts, each having subcomponents, are the following:

Religious Structure

The entirety of a religious system of conduct and subsequent beliefs. Ultimately, in response to the question, “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The religious structure is effectively equivalent to what we would call a religion as a whole. “Ultimate truth” is here equivalent to the transcendent and makes up the ultimate (or final) source of truth or answers to the questions asked in both a person’s worldview and the religious principles (mentioned below).

Religious Principles

The answers and principles held in response to the above question. The questions are broken down into three primary categories, followed by four secondary categories. Each of which is listed below. Notably, the categories deal with concepts that are interrelated, and the lines between them can be blurred. Some questions or beliefs can overlap and fit multiple categories simultaneously. The primary categories represent the broad concepts covering everything religion deals with at a fundamental level. It constitutes the three primary types of questions or beliefs that deal with the ultimate question of “How do I live my life relative to ultimate truth?” The secondary categories are the more specific questions and beliefs that start answering the question and describe what exactly the “ultimate truth” is and the way in which the questions made under the primary categories get answered. Religious principles are what underlie religious expression and provide the reasoning for the specific methods of religious expression. It is what links the outwardly visible actions and behavior in religious expression with the fundamental question asked in the religious structure.

Primary Categories:

Teleology
One of the first primary categories of religious principles. This concerns questions of purpose, design, or meaning. Including when answers to this are negative answers (as in a belief that something or person has no purpose, design, or meaning). It also concerns the ultimate end “goal” of things. Regardless of whether this end state/goal is something intentional (such as an intelligent design by a creator) or is merely the inevitable end state (such as the entropic death state of the universe in a purposeless universe without a creator). Including the self, other people, humanity as a whole, groups of people, animals, inanimate objects, the world, or the entirety of the universe. There are various questions that are asked in this regard:
- What is the meaning of life?
- What is my individual purpose?
- Where do I belong in relation to others?
- What is it that decides my purpose?
- Do beings or this world showcase a kind of intelligent design?

Sociology
The primary category of Religious Principles that concerns a person’s relationship with others. Questions of belonging, role, or identity relative to others fit under this category. This would include questions such as the following:
- Who am I relative to others?
- Where do I fit within my society, community, and personal relationships?
- What determines my status and perception by others?
- What roles do I have in regards to my actions towards others?

Normativity
The primary category of religious principles that deal with questions of what “should” be. It regards concepts of “right” or “wrong” and dictates what the ideal state is. Whether that is “correct” or “moral” behavior, what the “right” method of organizing society is, or what the ideal world looks like. The questions involved in this principle include the following:
- How should I behave?
- How should I relate to and interact with others?
- How should this world be?
- How should society be structured?
- Who or what is the authority(ies) that determine what is right versus what is wrong?

Secondary Categories:

Sacred
The sacred is that which has been “set apart” or given significance beyond an object’s purely material or pragmatic properties. This, in so far as it points to, is a part of, or is the source of the transcendent/ultimate truth. Regardless of how the ultimate truth or transcendent is understood. Where the sacred is located and what it points to is one major factor in differentiating different religions and worldviews. For example, Paganism/Neo-paganism refers to religions that locate the sacred within the world (including pantheistic views with the world or universe itself as sacred). Whereas theistic religions locate the sacred as ultimately existing outside the world.

Social Status
A religion’s view of belonging/status has to do with social hierarchy, perception of moral virtue, ranking, and how a person relates to others. It also deals with how restitution and social standing are supposed to be handled in society. In particular, this deals with questions of how a person is perceived in their society or community and the standing or moral authority they have. It involves questions about the roles a person has regarding others and the hierarchy they are involved in. This concept intimately ties to the secondary religious principle of identity, but it revolves around public standing and relationships or perceptions with/from others. Examples include what people often understand as cultures of honor/shame, guilt/innocence, victimhood, or dignity.

Identity
Identity is concerned with who and what one is. It deals with the roles that one has, the nature of self, and how we view ourselves. A person has multiple and overlapping identities that exist in a hierarchy. With higher-order or primary identities having the most importance and secondary, tertiary, quaternary (etc.) identities having decreasing levels of importance and/or permanence. Identities can be immutable or mutable to various degrees.

Problematics
Problematics refers to the understanding of potential problems or issues in this world. They are the obstacles or barriers between us and the transcendent or ideal state as understood via the primary religious principle of normativity. This is the understanding of “evil”, “wrongdoing”, or “sin.” Even if understood as a merely “undesired” state. While normativity asks the question of what things “should” be, problematics is the question of what differentiates this existence from how it “should” be. This includes the “null” answer from a belief that our existence is in fact currently in an ideal state or that no such desired state exists.

Moral Code
The moral code refers to questions of proper behavior and right actions. It is the answer to questions about what a person “should” or “should not” be doing in various situations.

Religious Expression

The outward expression of a religion. This is what one sees and understands as a person’s religion. The previous aspects are the structure that underlies a religion. Religious expression is the praxis of the worldview and religious principles that make up this structure. It consists of the four categories listed below.

Sacraments
Sacraments are sacred acts, objects, and times which have been granted significance through a connection to, and ultimately point towards, what the religion and worldview hold as the transcendent or ultimate truth. There are three main types of sacraments: sacred acts (such as rituals), sacred objects, and sacred times (which include holy days, celebrations, and festivals)

Remediation
The things and actions one takes to remediate the issues highlighted by the religion’s problematics, which act as barriers to the desired end state defined by the transcendent or ultimate truth.

Symbolism
The symbols used to express, communicate, and visually represent the transcendent or ultimate truth or aspects of the religion

Community
The part of religious expression that involves community involvement and a status within that community. Even if the sense of community is minimal or theoretical (a solitary individual). Whereas social status involves the understanding of social ranking and perception, this concerns the actual structure and makeup of the community itself.

- Victoria Gratiae -

The very first word to cover is a neologism that I coined. Specifically, the term Distrephism (pronounced diss-TREFF-fiz-uhm; with the emphasis on the second syllable), which refers to a religion/worldview and the term Distrephist (pronounced diss-TREFF-ist; using the same pronunciation rules as Distrephism) as the term that refers to either a follower of the religion of Distrephism or is an adjective describing something that adheres to the Distrephist religion. This new word aims to name and encapsulate a modern religion that has been extremely poorly defined up to this point. Prior terms used to describe this belief system were very flawed and often gave misleading impressions.

My upcoming book (stay tuned!) provides a fuller explanation of what Distrephism is, because fully understanding what it encompasses is not simple to describe. I give a shortened version here because I intend to use this word in my writings, instead of the common terminology found in most media. Terminology that mostly comes from a failure to understand the phenomenon.

What religion am I talking about? Well, the short answer is that Distrephism is the religion and worldview (both terms to be covered in future articles of this series) that we associate with “social justice”, “woke”, “progressivism”, “cultural Marxism”, or other terms like “leftism” and “liberal.” I coined Distrephism because none of these terms are very good, nor very accurate. Woke is a rather silly pejorative that has gained wide acceptance but is not a satisfactory label. Especially when used to describe “wokeism,” which is a rather contorted term based on an already poorly defined concept. One thing those on the political left point out accurately is that “woke” is ambiguous and ill-defined (for example, here). With far too many people using it pejoratively or sycophantically for it to be something to take seriously (making it a problem for whoever uses it, regardless of what they believe).

One could also say the same about terms such as social justice, cultural Marxism, or leftism. These terms are either misguided or so poorly defined as to have use only in casual conversation. These terms lack serious rigor and are prone to abuse. Thus, people either use them only in propaganda or they cause serious category confusion in more serious works. Especially when people use these terms interchangeably but attach different meanings to them.

So, what does Distrephism mean then? This subject warrants a more in-depth discussion than I can provide here, but I am offering a summary so that my use of the term is clear to readers who haven’t encountered my forthcoming book on the subject. I define it here:

Distrephism is a Neo-pagan form of Humanism. Distrephism is both a religion and a worldview. It has roots in the Age of Enlightenment and the late 1800s, but officially started during the 1960s in Western academia, where it eventually coalesced into a fuller form publicly known as “woke” during the 2010s. Distrephism has two primary aspects, Neo-paganism and Humanism, along with five secondary aspects that uniquely distinguish it from other religions. These five secondary aspects are Antithetical Revisionism, Intersectional Identitarianism, Hedonism, Extrinsic Evil, and Victimhood Culture. Taken together the two primary and five secondary aspects together serve as the full delineation of Distrephism as a religion and worldview.

First and foremost, one must understand Distrephism as a religion and a worldview. It is a fusion of Humanism and Neo-paganism with the five mentioned secondary aspects being the defining traits of this specific religion (though they aren’t the same, religion and worldview are two sides of the same coin; so I often just use one of them to imply both). A summary of these secondary aspects is given below; I will clarify them elsewhere.

Antithetical Revisionism refers to the fact that Distrephism is a religion that involves an emphasis on opposing and contradicting an “antithesis.” Meaning that Distrephism is defined at least as much, if not more, by its opposition to something than by that which it positively supports. The religion of Distrephism has opposition to Christianity (and the Western worldview) as the antithesis around which it revolves. Distrephism isn’t the only religion with this trait, but it is primarily a reactionary belief system with an inherent adversarial stance. This makes Distrephism prone to heavy revisionism of any stances or narratives held by its antithesis (Christianity). One can think of Distrephism as an “anti-Christianity” where Distrephism takes a position directly opposing whatever the Christian worldview holds to be true. One of the primary roots of this is the belief in postmodern power dynamics and the “oppressor versus oppressed” framing of all issues.

Intersectional Identitarianism is the secondary aspect of Distrephism, comprising a unique form of identitarianism. Identitarianism, in this context, signifies a perspective where ethnic, racial, physical, or tribal identities are deemed most crucial for culture, social belonging, and civil governance. People often refer to this as “identity politics,” yet it’s a mistake to consider it solely a political perspective rather than part of a comprehensive religion. The Distrephist variant focuses on different identities than other forms of identitarianism do. Specifically, those derived from intersectionality theory and the perceived victim identities of Distrephism. It is also the most complex of all the secondary aspects of Distrephism, because of the inherent complexity and multifaceted nature of identity. Intersectional identitarianism comprises 5 major components: racialism, standpoint epistemology, uniform egalitarianism, the blank slate, and the noble savage.

The 5 sub-components together make up the unique way that Distrephism approaches identity in intersectional identitarianism. Racialism refers to their adherence to racial identities and the framing of issues through a racial lens (Critical Race Theory). Standpoint epistemology is the stance that Distrephists take towards knowledge itself. Where they believe that people have unique qualifications and authority based solely on their standpoint. The appeal to “lived experience” as an authority is an example of standpoint epistemology. Uniform egalitarianism refers to the Distrephist belief in equality of outcome and a complete leveling of humanity, rejecting merit and meaningful biological distinctions (such as between male and female). The blank slate refers to the belief that human nature is like a blank slate and that what we are, even our gender/sex, is solely a social construct. Humans have no inbuilt human nature; society shapes them almost entirely. The noble savage is the belief that people are inherently good in a “natural” state and that without the large structures of society, humans would live in utopian, free societies. It is the idea that “indigenous” people like the Native Americans lived in collectivist and libertine societies without social oppression.

Hedonism is a simpler aspect that does not have a unique definition and refers to the belief that pleasure or “happiness” is the highest good in life. It is a devotion to sensual or psychological pleasure. Frequently understood as the pursuit of personal “fulfillment,” where such fulfillment means the satisfaction of one’s personal desires as the ultimate purpose and goal of life.

Extrinsic Evil is also not unique to Distrephism but refers to the belief whereby people externalize all evil, or sources of problems, onto outside entities. It is not merely the belief that people are innately good, but one that views all “evil” as coming from an external, often systematic, source. It is a perspective within the problematics of a religion. This creates the rejection of personal responsibility within Distrephism because the problems that occur, such as crime, racism, and disparate outcomes, are not from individuals or specific cultures but from outside enemies. The clearest example of this is the belief that disparate outcomes can only come from things like discrimination or systemic racism.

Within Distrephism, Victimhood Culture heavily dictates a person’s social status through their perceived victimization and “underdog” position. This is because Distrephism gives higher moral standing to those who have a perceived victim status. A person receives more moral weight as they accumulate “marginalized”, “minority”, or “oppressed” identities. Conversely, the more “privilege” a person has, the less moral standing they have. So, a hierarchy of victimhood exists. With the most “marginalized” on one end and the most “privileged” on the other end. This victim hierarchy is rooted in intersectionality and all the other secondary aspects of Distrephism.

The last point to make here about Distrephism is that it is meant to be distinguished from the false left/right “spectrum.” Distrephism is a religion that dominates the political left, such as the Democratic Party, but it is not to be confused as being the same as so-called “leftism.” That is because the left/right groupings are nothing more than political alliances. These alliances exist only because of the two-party system in the United States. Do not confuse a specific religion with the larger political alliance that its followers exist within. Even if they have a majority position within that party. Distrephism is only the current majority religion found within the Democratic Party and the political left (the left and the Democratic Party are really the same thing). This cannot be said to have been the case 100 years ago, nor will it likely be the case 100 years from now. This is yet another reason for the creation of a new term. Because this new term is not based upon the inaccurate depiction of left/right as an ideological spectrum.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. (Proverbs 26:4 NKJV)

At some point, you will have run across articles (or videos) that talk about “non-believers.” You will also likely have run into a person who identifies themself as a “non-believer.” They might use other terms instead, like atheist, unbeliever, skeptic, or freethinker. They may claim to be “non-religious” and therefore not a “believer” in anything. For example, an article from Salon, titled “6 kinds of atheists and non-believers in America,” explains that “unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are.”

A substantial problem exists with this ridiculous description. Understand just how self-serving and impossible this description is. While attempting to describe those who identify as having “no religion,” we are told we have nothing to look at to determine who they are. How exactly does this article even exist then? How do you have polls that categorize supposed “non-believers” if nothing exists to determine who they are? The real reason this confusion exists is that the category they created, this supposed concept of “non-believers,” is total nonsense.

Whenever we talk about “belief” we are using relative terminology. If I came up to you and told you that, “you just need to believe!” and then simply walked off, you would be confused. And it would be obvious why. Unless you are so shallow and devoid of thinking as to take an empty statement at face value, you would wonder, “believe in what?” That’s because nobody simply “believes” in a generic, contextless sense. We always believe in something. There are no “believers” there are believers in something.

This applies to so-called non-believers. Such a label is a worthless thing to say by itself, because everyone is a non-believer in something. The reason this ends up being so self-serving as a label is because it gives the impression that supposed non-believers are nothing more than neutral, free-floating observers devoid of bias. This is wrong, even disingenuous. To categorize people this way is very misleading. What is a non-believer? What exactly do they “non-believe” in? The Salon article insinuates they are non-believers in “religion.” Except we run into a very similar problem. One that becomes apparent if you were to ask them to define religion. Any definition they give is bound to be inconsistent, if not outright self-interested.

What makes this such a problem is that it allows people to portray themselves as neutral and purely rational, when they most certainly are not. It’s an extremely vain and self-righteous portrayal of themselves. It is part of how Humanists, which most of these supposed “non-believers” really are, get away with an image of a purely objective logic machine that only ever “follows the evidence.” This is far from the truth, and Christians would do well to call out this self-serving framing.

Atheists, so-called non-believers, and the self-designated “non-religious” are not being honest about who and what they really are. That’s why the author of the aforementioned article found such difficulty in understanding who the people from this category are. The category exists only because people were given a limited list of answers to a question that they subsequently answered in ignorance. Specifically, the ignorance that comes from the prevalent myth in Western society of “irreligion.” They’re not non-believers; they simply don’t subscribe to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or other widely recognized (and labeled) religions. None of these people are devoid of belief. They most certainly have a religion; they are just unaware of it because they do not grasp the actual definition of religion and instead adopt prevailing ignorance concerning religious belief systems (see my own definition of religion here).

Just take the quote from the Salon article at the beginning. It is outright false to say that non-believers have no authorities or hierarchies. What do you think communism entails? No hierarchies? Who are they kidding? What non-believing society or group exists with no hierarchy whatsoever? What about the appeals to “science” and “experts”? If science is something you can appeal to as an authoritative source of truth, then it is an authority! So-called non-believers have turned scientists into modern-day priests, with them having an authority all their own.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot appeal to someone or something and then pretend you have no authority. The author seems to conflate divine revelation and sacred writings with authority overall. As if people needed something they consider the infallible word of God to be seen as a valid authority. That is not how it works. Anytime you hear a “non-believer” make any claim that is justified with “science says...” or “experts say...” then you have an authority.

Non-believers, devoid of context, don’t exist. To even present yourself as such is to be deceptive about your own belief system. Everybody, without exception, believes in something and has a religion they adhere to. Regardless of how well thought through or understood that religion is. Categorizing people as “non-believers” based on a credulous negation of “belief” is merely a tactic for self-proclaimed atheists/non-believers to shirk the responsibility of justifying their own beliefs, while expecting others to do so. Christians should stop playing this game and call out the framing of belief without context. We need to stop using language that gives this impression. We never deal with non-believers; we deal with non-Christians of a nearly infinite variety. They are never objective logic machines; they are followers of a false religion that requires understanding in order to deal with properly.

- Victoria Gratiae -

Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. (1 Corinthians 14:9 NIV)

Do not underestimate the importance of precise language or the danger that lies in misleading wording. Failing to understand the necessity of accurate definitions and rigorously developed concepts makes one significantly more susceptible to exploitation and deception. There is peril in the perceived mundanity of definitions. People ignore how much wording can be weaponized against them because they think it is just a question for dry academic debates found only in dusty old tomes. Precision of language is a crucial shield against false narratives and deceitful manipulation.

That language can deceive is not new to anyone. We all know that people lie. Either in overt fashion, saying things that are blatantly false (and that they know are false), or more subtly, like telling white lies that leave out important information. Here I want to deal with a more specific issue. Leaving aside deliberate attempts at obfuscation or misdirection through loaded language, purposeful omission, or euphemisms. Instead, focusing on the less understood issue of definition.

Let’s take two words as an example of this problem. The first is gender. If I were to ask you how many genders there are, what would you say? Conservatives (the second word we will cover) might give a somewhat contrarian and counter-culture answer and say, “There are only two genders!” In emphatic fashion, too. Just look at the scandal that erupted when a seventh-grade student was told to remove and replace a shirt that said “There are only two genders” (see here). Those we commonly call “Social Justice advocates” might claim that there are many different genders. Far more than two, at least.

What is the right answer? Well, despite what “conservatives” might think, there are actually more than two genders. However, not in the way that their opponents think. The problem here is actually more fundamental. We have to back up a step and realize something. Gender is a grammatical construct. It is not a biological concept. There are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. The truth is that words have gender, not people! Gender refers to a grammatical classification of words that roughly, and often very loosely (if at all), corresponds to the two sexes. Saying that there are only two genders is a trap. The trap is failing to recognize what has happened to the word gender.

It is only recently that people have used the word gender in a way that contradicts its original meaning. Previously, gender referred to other words, as its proper usage is grammatical, not biological, or it served as a synonym for biological sex (i.e. male or female). It wasn’t until John Money twisted the usage of gender and used it to refer to some trait people had outside of and separate from biological sex that it came to be used in such a disingenuous and ignorant way.

To see this, you just have to look at older dictionaries such as the 1919 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (see here) or the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary (see here). The history of the word gender and how John Money twisted it can be found in Terry Goldie’s book The Man Who Invented Gender. In short, John Money needs to be understood as a fraud whose theories are deeply flawed, outright harmful, and the precursor of the nonsensical gender ideology we have today. He was the one who started the distorted and misleading usage of gender.

This matters because the right approach to such a perversion of language is to reject that language completely. Whenever conservatives keep using the word “gender” in this new way, they are unknowingly playing into the hands of the people who are pushing harmful gender ideology on others. The definition of the word matters because a key tactic of deception used by opponents of Christianity is to redefine words so that they have the framing of their anti-Christian belief system.

Whenever people claim to have a gender, we need to recognize that the issue is the corrupted definition of the word gender. A corruption that comes from a false view of human nature. People don’t have a gender; they have a biological sex. There are, of course, only two biological sexes: male and female. But there are actually three genders. That is because words and grammatical constructs need not match biological reality perfectly. If we mean biological sex (male and female) whenever we say gender, then it needs to be understood that people cannot have both a sex and a gender. Imagine saying “somebody ate the entire cake and also the whole cake.” You just said the same exact thing twice but phrased it as if they were two separate things. Either the words gender and sex mean exactly the same thing, and therefore cannot be treated as separate, or gender must refer to a grammatical construct, and is therefore not something people can have. If it implies something other than one these two things it is based on something that isn’t real.

The next example here is what I have already mentioned. The term conservative. What exactly is a conservative, though? The way most understand it, conservative refers to those on the “right” side of the political spectrum. However, if we consider it a belief system, this label becomes rather meaningless.

What exactly do “conservatives” conserve? We like to think conservatives are more “traditional” but this doesn’t actually make much sense. What traditions are we talking about? Many might say “conservatives” support traditional marriage. Except, what about gay conservatives? There is an organization called the Log Cabin Republicans consisting of self described LGBT members who support the supposedly “conservative” Republican party. Depending on the study around 50% or more of so-called conservatives actually support gay marriage.

What about small government? This might be true, except for the neoconservative expansion of welfare programs and foreign intervention. President George W. Bush in his 2001-2009 terms in office oversaw one of the largest expansions of government in American history. He was the president who signed the USA Patriot Act and helped establish the Department of Homeland Security.

The truth is that conservative is a largely meaningless label, except for when it refers to membership in the Republican party. This might conflict with what many people think. Including those who identify as conservative. Even I fell into this trap earlier in my life. Thinking there was such a thing as “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) or that “true conservatives” should believe in some particular view towards government or tradition.

The problem is that conservative (or conservatism) has no meaningful definition apart from membership in a political alliance. It does not refer to a principled belief system. It refers to a politically aligned group that contains several contradictory beliefs. The only unifying factor is the opposition to the “leftist” or “liberal” political alliance. We cannot keep using this term if we intend to portray a coherent belief system. Because “conservatives” don’t conserve anything, don’t believe in anything in particular, and only have a set of associated beliefs because those beliefs just so happen to reflect the majority of people in the conservative movement at a specific time. Why do you think conservative means something different whenever we talk about different time frames separated by generational gaps?

These are only two words that showcase the problem we have with the lack of definitional precision. There are many, many other terms that suffer from this problem and poison discourse. Because the ambiguity and shifting nature of these words creates a space for serious confusion, if not outright deception. We can say the same thing about terms like woke, social justice, racism, non-believer, and many more. Future articles will address some of the most egregious examples. Because they are so important to understand.

If we continue to use casual language for serious arguments or wording that is based on prevarication and ignorance, we will continue to set ourselves up for failure. Do not think that this is just a pedantic exercise in hairsplitting. Christians who do not arm themselves properly in the war of ideas can expect defeat at every turn. We need wordsmiths who critically evaluate the language we use, the language our opponents use, and who help arm other Christians with the right understanding. This will help us recognize and then defeat the sophistry and deception of the false religions of our age.

- Victoria Gratiae -

The Conquest of Grace (CoG) publication takes a specific approach on apologetics and world events. Which I outline here in this article. To understand what CoG is and who I am please check out my about page! This particular article explains how and why I deal with topics in the way that I do, provides a hub to some of the representative material that this publication will have, and contains a growing FAQ. It is meant to be a living document, and will therefore grow and change over time. So please check back in every so often for updates!

This is the first stop to understanding my work and a space for me to provide transparency on my worldview and religion. This is important because neutrality is a myth. I am not neutral, and I never pretend to be. I take an unabashed stance on the orthodox Christian worldview, and the Christian religion guides every aspect of my life. No matter how imperfectly I live in alignment with the demands of Scripture, I put my every hope in Christ. For which I will not be ashamed.

I am a Christian first and foremost. It is the identity that defines who I am above all else. I view everything through the lens of Christianity. Scripture is the only infallible truth and standard for all things: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17 CSB). One can only pursue truth when standing upon the Christian worldview.

Though truth demands a scriptural basis, “The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (Proverbs 12:22). Double standards and a lack of intellectual honesty are traits that God condemns. Despite my admitted lack of neutrality, I strive to be fair and even-handed. This means that one must be rigorous, willing to listen, and impartial.

Conservative tribalism is contrary to this. So is pretending that all sides of an issue are somehow equally valid. The motivation for this publication comes in part from the failure of the modern conservative movement and the compromises of churches in Western society. Christians in the West need a new paradigm in our approach and to reject shortsighted pragmatism.

It is for you, the reader, to judge the quality of this work and take into consideration the impact my worldview has on the claims that I make.

Focus

The focus of this publication differs from most apologetics publications or conservative media channels. There are a handful of areas that have become specialties of mine and that remain the primary emphasis of my work. Conquest of Grace focuses on the following areas:

Worldview and Religion Analysis

Analyzing worldviews and religions through a Christian lens. Deconstructing and exposing the religious nature of media and the worldview that sits behind everything we see in this world. Analysis that pulls back the curtain to expose the true nature of propaganda and the narratives we encounter. Especially those coming from the mainstream media.

Suggested Starting Points:

Compromise

The main reason for the dismal performance of American Christianity in resisting the rise of false religions comes from a long history of compromise, bad theology, and syncretism. It’s compromise that is the greatest threat of all. Not so much the open enemies of God. It is therefore a special focus of CoG.

Suggested Starting Points:

Terminology and Religious Taxonomy

This might sound dry, abstract, and even outright arcane, but it is of extreme importance. So much so that it will be something that CoG will provide original research on. Many false narratives remain popular solely because of the poor language and category confusion that enables them. Christians fall into trap after trap because of their ignorance of terminology and the importance of proper conceptual foundations. If you want to see how this is an issue, just ask yourself the question, “What is a religion?”

Suggested Starting Points:

Countering Humanism and Neo-paganism

Within Western society, there are two primary worldviews and religions (technically broader categories of religions) that oppose Christianity: Humanism and Neo-Paganism. They are the primary source of opposition to the Christian worldview and also the religions from which most syncretism derives. Apart from their overt hostility towards Christianity, these religions are also the ones about which Christians are generally most uninformed. Much of mainstream Christianity, and even the more conservative American Evangelicalism, contains unknowing syncretism with Humanism. Most Christians remain ignorant of the influence that anti-Christian Humanism and Neo-paganism have within our culture and within many churches.

Suggested Starting Points:

Theonomy/Christian Nationalism

The widespread myth of religious neutrality and a supposed “secular” government is extremely important to deal with. The media regularly denounces and misrepresents “Christian Nationalism” and demonizes Christian principles when applied to governance, unless it is in alignment with the heretical pseudo-Christianity found within left-wing politics. Many Christians likewise ignorantly decry “religion in government” while tolerating an official state religion of Humanism. Theonomy involves recognizing the applicability of Scripture to all aspects of life and rejecting the lie of religious neutrality in government. However, considerable ignorance and stigma obscure this topic, which deserves attention for proper handling. Especially because people immediately think of an Islamic ecclesiocracy like Iran (direct rule by clergy/religious institution) which is not comparable to what a Christian theocracy would actually look like. This is also an area in which bad theology is prevalent because you have the mixture of various theological traditions offering competing ideas under the ambiguous title of “Christian Nationalism.”

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Conspiracies

A kind of worldview and flavor of religion exists under the hood of many conspiratorial beliefs. This is an issue that most churches have struggled to address effectively, if they’ve addressed it at all. There are many traps and misguided approaches towards belief systems, including the flat earth, aliens/ufology, belief in “Jewish” control of world organizations, the Illuminati, Freemasonry, satanic cults, the Epstein files, among many others. I intend to deal with these more effectively because people often completely disregard these ideas, ignoring the existence of real conspiracies, or they accept them with total credulity, driven by obvious paranoid and unbiblical delusions. Christians cannot avoid dealing with this topic and handling it with the proper rigor and critical analysis it deserves.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

Demonology

The study of the demonic is a fascinating topic but one filled with misunderstandings, superstitions, bad theology, conspiratorial and irrational takes, or even full-blown denial that it is real or worthy of study. On one end is the “satanic panic” skepticism that portrays everything claimed to be demonic as exaggeration, superstition, and devoid of evidence. The other side is where everything is viewed as demonic, everything is “of the devil” (such as movies, books like Harry Potter, or even asking questions) and every illness or negative event is attributed to a demon of some sort. Both of these views are wrong. The demonic is very much real, contrary to secularist views, but studying it is fraught with difficulties and a lot of superstition really does exist. Both well-meaning people and con artists exploit the shroud of mystery surrounding the demonic. Perpetuating ignorant and uncritical takes that are amplified by modern media depictions of the demonic. Christians need to understand the demonic and be able to navigate this topic carefully, with a lot more rigor and theologically sound basis than usually exists.

Suggested Starting Points:

(Coming soon!)

FAQ

What denomination or theological tradition is Conquest of Grace?

Lutheran. Specifically, I am a part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). That means I believe in the primacy of grace and adhere to the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone), and Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). It also means, in distinction from other traditions, I accept the real presence of Christ in communion, rejecting the symbolic view of the sacraments held by other protestants, believe in infant baptism, hold to a young-earth creationist view, and reject the dispensational view of eschatology in favor of an idealist interpretation of Revelation.

Why did you choose the name Conquest of Grace? What does it mean?

For me personally, and as a Lutheran, grace is at the center of everything. Grace is the means of our salvation. To understand it is to understand the freedom and peace that it provides. Without grace, religion becomes either oppressive law or empty pleasure. Ultimately, both paths end in demise. However, grace is a gift of the Lord of Lords. It results from God’s inexorable will. God will defeat all who oppose him, and grace will conquer everything in the end. Christianity is not a feel-good religion. The Church Militant is engaged in spiritual warfare until the Day of Judgment, when God completes his ultimate victory. We are all part of a battle against the forces of darkness while we remain in this world. This spiritual battle is not an abstract metaphor but a reality that involves even the banal, material things of this world. False religions are not simply wrong; they are demonic constructs that ensnare and destroy people both spiritually and physically.

What about current events? Will you cover those?

Socrates once said, “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” I firmly believe that far too much conservative media, including Christian influencers, spend an inordinate and inappropriate amount of time talking about passing current events of minor relevance. Far too often, simply chasing whatever popular modern zeitgeist and viral event came out recently. It’s not that they have no relevance, or that it is never appropriate to cover them, but they rarely have the importance people place on them. Especially because what is actually at stake are the larger meta-narratives or worldviews that people have. Not the narrow, often misguided interpretation people have of a particular scandal or a contrived, dubious event popularized by social media. I avoid dealing with current events unless there is a good reason to do so. Even then, I will not try to cover things as they happen or with haste.

Why do you restrict comments on your articles to paid subscribers?

There are a couple of reasons for this. To be fully transparent, the first reason is that I am not interested in hearing from anybody who isn’t financially invested. If somebody wants to say something about my work in that fashion, they have all kinds of platforms other than my own. They can write their own articles and say whatever they like. I will respond to matters brought to my attention if I deem them worthy and the timing is appropriate. Within the Substack app there is the ability to restack posts and make comments. Those who wish to comment as free subscribers can do that instead. Otherwise, the point is to filter out comments that are poorly thought out, fake (as in coming from bots or scammers), or from people who have no incentive towards constructive criticism. Fact is, comments on most platforms are low-quality trash and pure ignorance. Even when they are actually from real people and not bots. Social media platforms are designed to promote low-quality, bot-driven nonsense, making their comment sections a hotbed for inappropriate behavior. Therefore, I aim to avoid the perverse incentive structure in such a thing in my community.

How will you deal with inappropriate behavior in your community?

From day 1 my policy is that anybody posting abusive, blasphemous, sexually explicit, or foul comments will have their posts deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. That applies to paid subscribers. Immature, foolish, and abusive conduct will not be tolerated. I would rather lose a paid subscriber than accept such a thing. I will allow any constructive criticism so long as it remains respectful. Including from anybody who vehemently disagrees with my claims. Another extremely important point is that I will have zero tolerance for anybody who attempts to attack others, including sending death threats or doxing, supposedly on my behalf. That means if you are someone who receives a death threat or otherwise abusive attack, seemingly from someone in my community, please send me direct proof of that (contact@conquestofgrace.com), and I will expose and call out that person. Including supporting any referrals to law enforcement, if necessary. That said, if anybody does anything like this and has posts of theirs deleted, an apology goes a long way!

How do you approach criticism or mistakes?

I have every intention of taking constructive criticism seriously. So long as it is constructive, I aim to incorporate it as much as is reasonable. If someone points out a legitimate mistake or error that I have made; I want to give credit where it is due. Therefore, whenever I make corrections, I will point them out in edits to an article and credit whoever first called out the mistake. My goal is to be transparent and as honest as possible. Which means I also want to give recognition properly to those who offer feedback and correction in a spirit of respectfulness. Iron sharpens iron. If someone wants to remain anonymous in pointing out corrections or offering some kind of feedback, please message me directly (contact@conquestofgrace.com) stating that you wish to avoid attribution, and I will avoid doing so. Of course, I do not accept the idea that I am obligated to respond to people who are insulting, obscene, or otherwise making claims in bad faith (such as empty assertions or poorly thought through challenges).

How do you utilize AI?

I use generative AI for thumbnails and images that go with various posts. Sometimes just as a placeholder (I am no artist!). I do not use AI to create posts or generate text. Other than the kind of tools that exist for spell-checking and grammar fixes, etc. Specifically, I use ProWritingAid to help with editing and cleaning up my writing. I do not use AI for research, brainstorming, or even organizing my notes. That is all done manually (I use Obsidian and EdrawMind for the most part). Especially because they mostly generate useless garbage and require so much work to fix and validate that it is a waste of time. The worldview I have is not something that can be found reflected in the kinds of training data that LLMs pull from (like Wikipedia). Nor do I trust the LLM models to accurately describe reality. So none of them are really capable of generating anything I care about.

What kind of affiliations or commissions do you have?

Right now I am an affiliate with Bookshop.org and you can find my specific affiliate storefront here. As an affiliate I receive a commission from purchases through my affiliate storefront. Please consider doing so to support this publication! Currently Bookshop.org is the only affiliate program, once I have any more this will be updated to include them.