Faith in Name Only: Examining the Gap Between Christian Identity and Practice

A question that has been on my mind for quite some time is: If someone rejects the core teachings of Jesus, which emphasize love for God and neighbor, forgiveness, repentance, and the coming of God's kingdom, with a focus on compassion and service to others (as exemplified in the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount) can they truly call themselves a Christian?

Traditional Christian theology suggests that accepting the core teachings of Jesus is fundamental to Christian identity. His teachings form the ethical and spiritual foundation of Christianity as expressed in the Gospels.

From an orthodox perspective, rejecting these teachings while claiming Christian identity presents a significant contradiction. Many would argue that following Christ's teachings is inseparable from being Christian, as the very term means "follower of Christ."

However, it’s important to acknowledge the theological tension between faith and works. Some Christian traditions emphasize that salvation comes through faith alone, while others maintain that authentic faith necessarily manifests in works that align with Jesus's teachings. The latter does not ignore the fact that we are saved by faith and by grace; it simply acknowledges that our actions should model how we are being formed in Christ’s image.

The question touches on the difference between nominal Christianity (identifying as Christian in name) and substantive Christianity (living according to Christ's teachings). How do we then distinguish one from the other? 

A term commonly used is "Cultural Christians," referring to those who identify with Christianity for cultural, historical, or familial reasons, but don't necessarily adhere to its core teachings or practices.

Some theological traditions have their own terminology—for instance, Dietrich Bonhoeffer distinguished between "cheap grace" and "costly discipleship."

Then there’s the sociological perspective regarding the relationship between Christianity and Christian nationalism in the US. It’s among the Christian nationalists where much of the rejection of Jesus’ teaching as “weak” occurs.

For this context, terms like "cultural Christians" or "identity Christians" might be most appropriate, as they emphasize how Christianity functions as a marker of cultural or national identity rather than a lived spiritual practice aligned with Jesus's teachings.

The sociologist Philip Gorski uses the term "Christianism" (parallel to "Islamism") to distinguish political appropriations of religion from substantive religious practice. Others have used "civil religion Christians" to describe those who conflate American civic identity with Christian identity.

Whatever term you choose, sociologists have observed how nominal Christianity can become intertwined with national identity, creating a fusion where religious symbols and language serve primarily as cultural boundary markers. Where cultural witness of Christianity has not been “enough” for believers, they try to achieve more by embracing political power. Robert Jones's concept of "white Christian nationalism" and Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry's research on "Christian nationalism" have examined how religious identity becomes more about group belonging than theological commitment.

This phenomenon can explain why some who demonstrate little interest in Jesus's teachings on compassion, forgiveness, and loving one's enemies may nonetheless strongly defend "Christian America." For these individuals, Christianity functions less as a spiritual practice and more as an identity marker that distinguishes "true Americans" from perceived outsiders, even when those outsiders are themselves Christians (e.g. Hispanic immigrants and people in Ukraine.) However, this viewpoint ignores the fact that the motivation for Christians to emulate Jesus is love. Because we have received God’s love, we want to return it both to him and to our neighbors.

In essence, the question of Christian identity transcends simple self-identification and invites deeper reflection on the relationship between belief and practice. While individuals may claim the Christian label for various cultural, historical, or political reasons, the substantive meaning of Christianity has always been rooted in the ethical and spiritual teachings of Jesus himself. 

The contemporary phenomenon of Christian nationalism reveals the consequences of divorcing Christian identity from Christian practice, creating a form of religiosity that can directly contradict the very teachings of the figure it claims to honor. Perhaps the most authentic approach to Christian identity lies not in rigid boundary-drawing, but in the humble recognition that true Christianity involves a continual, imperfect striving toward the radical love ethic that Jesus embodied. As James 2:17 reminds us, "So also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."