Intro. [Recording date: March 24, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: Welcome to the show on this fine March 24th, 2025! Today, I’m joined by the ever-illuminating Jonathan Rauch from the Brookings Institution. This marks Jonathan’s third visit to the program; you might remember his last appearance in August 2021, where he delved into the intricacies of the constitution of knowledge. Today, we’ll explore his latest book, Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy.
Jonathan, it’s a pleasure to have you back on EconTalk.
Jonathan Rauch: Always a joy to be here, Russ.
Russ Roberts: Let’s kick things off with the audacity of your book—though you might not use the term ‘chutzpah’ directly, it certainly fits.
Jonathan Rauch: Chutzpah is certainly part of it!
Russ Roberts: Why does this book encapsulate such chutzpah?
Jonathan Rauch: Well, here’s the twist: I’m an atheistic homosexual Jew, and here I am, addressing Christian America directly, urging Christians to act in accordance with the spirit of Jesus Christ. It’s a bold move, considering how many Christians might not exactly appreciate guidance from an atheistic homosexual Jew on their religious teachings. Yet, here I am.
Russ Roberts: What drives you to take on this role of preaching?
Jonathan Rauch: My work at Brookings, particularly in governance studies, involves a deep dive into the preservation of liberal democracy’s values and institutions. As you know, Russ, this is a mission shared by many, including those at Shalem College in Jerusalem.
Our ongoing analysis reveals a concerning trend: discontent, polarization, and anger among voters, not just in the U.S. but across Western democracies. We’re witnessing a surge in loneliness and isolation, manifested in the destruction of institutions and the rise of political extremism, particularly authoritarian populist movements.
Moreover, we observe politics becoming infused with quasi-religious fervor. There’s an apocalyptic mindset among many—if their candidate doesn’t win, it’s the end of the world as they know it. This zealotry exists on both the Left and the Right, with rituals of repentance in the realm of wokeness and the idolization of figures like Donald Trump within Christian nationalism. This trend raises a critical question: Why does it appear that Christianity, our dominant religious framework, is failing to channel the energies that have historically fostered social cohesion? Instead, these energies are being redirected into political movements and pseudo-religions like MAGA and QAnon, leaving us teetering on the brink of governance breakdown.
For anyone who cares about liberal democracy’s future, it’s crucial to scrutinize Christianity—understand its failures and explore what can be done to rectify them.
Russ Roberts: One of my favorite quotes comes from David Foster Wallace: “Everyone worships.” If it’s not a conventional religion, it’s something else. He offers a compelling critique of the idolization of power, beauty, and wealth.
I’ve long approached the idea that secular causes can often replace religion with caution. This notion tends to incite strong reactions, particularly when one suggests that a cause is akin to a quasi-religion. Yet, you highlight a vital point: religion fulfills these intrinsic human desires for belonging and meaning. As you suggest, we are at a pivotal moment in the West regarding the governability of our societies, which appear to be crumbling.
What went wrong? Your book opens with a compelling historical analysis of the Enlightenment and its implications for our current predicament. To summarize your perspective, you write:
Secular movements have their benefits. I’m not here to condemn them. But, it turns out that none of them is capable of replacing the great religions or anchoring moral codes, maintaining durable communities, and transmitting values. As Jessica Grose wrote in The New York Times in 2023, paraphrasing the sociologist Phil Zuckerman, “A soccer team can’t provide spiritual solace in the face of death, it probably doesn’t have a weekly charitable call, and there’s no sense of connection to a heritage that goes back generations.”
Feel free to add anything else that comes to mind regarding the human need for these aspects.
Jonathan Rauch: There’s much to unpack here, Russ. I’ve been particularly eager to join your show as we both identify as secular liberals, having contemplated the shortcomings and failures of secular liberalism together. So, I appreciate your insights.
When I refer to liberalism, I’m highlighting the foundational ideas from thinkers like Locke and Kant—the traditions of limited government, basic rights, tolerance, and free speech. Liberalism is a governance structure that upholds essential values. Historically, the Founders of the United States emphasized that while they could create the systems for liberal governance, they could not inherently provide the values needed to sustain it. Civil society must generate meaning and community, and this is where Christianity, particularly Protestantism, has historically played a vital role.
The Founders struck an implicit bargain with Christianity, prioritizing unprecedented religious liberty, with the expectation that Christianity would use that liberty to instill values vital for sustaining the Republic. For many years, it succeeded in this regard.
As a gay individual, I acknowledge the numerous failings of Christianity—its treatment of minorities, its history of anti-Semitism, and its darker aspects. Nevertheless, for over two centuries, mainstream Protestant churches effectively integrated Americans into their collective life. They answered fundamental questions about existence and morality that liberalism does not address. As a result, if Christianity falters—as I argue it has in the past few decades—who steps in to provide that sense of purpose? The response is often inadequate alternatives like self-improvement movements, crystals, or even political ideologies that foster division rather than unity.
Russ Roberts: You discuss the Church’s decline over the last 20 years, particularly in terms of attendance and belief. To what extent do you think this decline relates to the delays in marriage and the challenges facing families in America? I see a connection between the two. In my experience, religious affiliation often deepens around marriage and family.
Jonathan Rauch: It’s a multifaceted issue, Russ. I’m not one to subscribe to mono-causality.
We see educational polarization as a contributing factor; participation in faith and community tends to be stronger among those with college degrees than those with a high school education or less. So, various elements play a role.
I wouldn’t make a definitive statement about marriage and family’s specific influence, but I suspect they are interrelated. The decline of Christianity, alongside the social structures supporting it, likely contributes to the deferral and instability of marriage. This interconnection points to one of many ways the decline of Christianity—a foundational institution—affects social life in the United States.
That said, my book focuses more on the decisions Christians have made regarding Christianity itself to understand its current predicament. Yes, external factors—like the rise of social media—certainly matter, but I believe the choices made by Christians are at the core of this narrative.
Russ Roberts: You categorize Christianity into three types: Thin, Sharp, and Thick. Being Jewish, I can’t help but notice parallels with Judaism. However, Christianity holds more public significance in the United States than Judaism does.
Could you explain each category and why this analysis is significant?
Jonathan Rauch: Absolutely. Thin Christianity refers to a lack of depth in cultural and spiritual engagement. Historically, Christianity is a counter-cultural force, possessing a distinct message and ethos. When it loses its distinctiveness, it simply merges into the surrounding culture, becoming little more than a lifestyle choice.
This phenomenon is evident in the decline of mainline churches in the U.S. While they were once significant societal pillars—particularly in the mid-20th century—they have now lost relevance, largely due to their leftward shift. They have traded scriptural roots for social causes but forgot that people can champion those causes without attending church.
Now, shall we discuss Sharp Christianity?
Russ Roberts: Please do. Let’s go through all three before revisiting each one for further discussion.
Jonathan Rauch: Sharp Christianity, on the other hand, represents a response to secularization. Instead of promoting Christian values to society, it imports societal values into the faith. While mainline churches declined, Evangelical Christianity thrived, fostering a desire for a more counter-cultural experience rooted in scripture.
However, as the 21st century progressed, the Evangelical Church became entwined with partisan politics—aligning almost completely with the Republican Party. This shift led to a decline in individuals seeking spiritual nourishment, as many followers were uninterested in political narratives. Consequently, Evangelicalism has become increasingly radicalized.
A crisis emerged for pastors, with many considering leaving their roles due to the politicization of the Church. The once-clear message of Jesus was overshadowed by demands for political engagement, leading to a transformation that distances the Church from its foundational teachings.
As a result, we now see a collapse in the Evangelical Church, with those identifying as Evangelicals dwindling significantly. Where are these individuals going? Many are becoming Nones, or those without religious affiliation, which contributes to the larger narrative.
Russ Roberts: Lastly, what do you mean by Thick Christianity? I’d love to circle back to all three afterward to challenge your assertions and elaborate further.
Jonathan Rauch: Thick Christianity embodies the principles of a faith that demands commitment yet returns substantial benefits, remaining counter-cultural while supporting the liberal democratic framework in which it operates. This concept poses quite a challenge.
Historically, Christianity thrived in America by aligning with democratic values. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this alignment in the 1830s, observing a profound Christian influence on American society.
Russ Roberts: You also touch on James Allison’s three pillars of Christianity: ‘Don’t be afraid. Imitate Jesus. Forgive each other.’ These resonate closely with the core values of liberalism. Could you elaborate?
Jonathan Rauch: This is indeed the crux of my argument. While I’ve outlined the challenges Christianity faces and the decisions Christians have made, we must also examine the theological underpinnings of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus remain pivotal, particularly considering Protestantism’s role as America’s foundational faith.
Despite my secular stance, I recognize the profound impacts of Christian teachings. The three principles you mentioned—do not fear, imitate Jesus, and forgive each other—are not only central to Christian doctrine but also align closely with the values fundamental to Madisonian-style liberal democracy.
For example, ‘Do not be afraid’ addresses the dangers of fear-driven politics that can undermine democracy. The Founders were acutely aware of this threat, emphasizing the importance of trust in fellow citizens and the constitutional framework. Similarly, ‘Imitate Jesus’ resonates with the principle of equality, reflected in the Bill of Rights. Finally, ‘forgive each other’ speaks to the necessity of tolerance and pluralism in a democratic society.
Thus, one need not be a Christian to appreciate the wisdom in these teachings. Encouraging Christians to elevate these aspects of their faith may help heal the rifts within our society.
Russ Roberts: You eloquently discuss the importance of compromise, which plays a crucial role in fostering fair play and preventing violence in society. However, your perspective delves deeper, offering insights rooted in Christian and perhaps even Adam Smith’s values. Can you share your thoughts on this?
Russ Roberts: I bring this up because it’s a nuanced idea, and I found it compelling.
Jonathan Rauch: Thank you! Compromise is indeed central to the Constitution. If one were to encapsulate the Constitution on a bumper sticker, it would be that it serves as a compromise-forcing mechanism, structuring power in diverse directions.
James Madison, perhaps the most astute political thinker in history, grappled with the challenges of ambition and factionalism in democracies. His insight was that the only force capable of restraining ambition is ambition itself—pitting ambition against ambition. This dynamic encourages negotiation and compromise, leading to innovative solutions.
Many misunderstand compromise as a mere splitting of differences, but it should be viewed as a creative force. Often, through the compromise process, participants emerge with superior ideas compared to what they initially proposed.
Compromise fosters information sharing and collaboration, expanding the sphere of discussion, which is crucial for a healthy democracy.
Russ Roberts: I want to touch on fundamentalism in a religious context. While you briefly mention it in your book—especially regarding the Church of Latter-Day Saints—do you have broader thoughts on fundamentalism in Christianity and its implications?
Russ Roberts: I draw parallels with Judaism, where fundamentalism often feels authentic and grounded in divine revelation. Yet, fundamentalist groups can be small and exclusive, leading many to prefer a diluted, more inclusive version of the faith.
Russ Roberts: This tension seems perennial across religions. How do you perceive this dynamic, particularly with respect to Christianity?
Jonathan Rauch: That’s a rich topic, Russ. This book examines the tragic decisions Christians have made that have weakened both their faith and liberal democracy. However, I also reflect on my own past misconceptions toward Christianity and the need for greater curiosity about faith in secular spaces.
Many secular individuals, including myself, have often overlooked the significance of Christianity in society. While it’s true that secularization has advanced, I now recognize that Christianity serves as a foundational pillar in our democracy—a fact we cannot ignore.
Christians have valid concerns about the current secular culture, which can feel threatening, particularly when faced with consumerism and progressive movements. It’s understandable that fear arises in this context; however, Jesus consistently advised against fear. His teachings encourage calmness and dignity in the face of adversity, advocating for a more measured approach to the challenges we face.
Ultimately, the crux of the matter lies in how we respond to fear. Christianity, properly understood, can offer a framework for addressing these fears without allowing them to dominate our lives or politics.
Russ Roberts: You mention that your book is dedicated to two Christians, reflecting on your relationship with a devout Christian friend. As we wrap up, I’m curious whether writing this book has opened you up to the possibility of exploring religion yourself, beyond mere tolerance for others’ beliefs.
Jonathan Rauch: This question touches on personal territory, and I appreciate your sensitivity. The individual you referred to, my college roommate Mark McIntosh, was pivotal in reshaping my views on Christianity. As a young man, I viewed religion—particularly Christianity—with skepticism, seeing it as hypocritical. Mark demonstrated to me that Christianity could embody its teachings authentically.
Initially, I maintained a strong secular identity, believing that society could thrive without religion. However, as I engaged with people of faith, I began to realize that they experience a depth of existence that I lacked. I liken my perspective to someone who is colorblind—I can function well, but I recognize that I’m missing a significant aspect of life.
Through this journey, I’ve come to respect Christianity as a profound source of meaning and moral insight. While I don’t share the same beliefs, I acknowledge that these teachings offer valuable perspectives on life’s essential questions. My book serves as a tribute to the best of Christianity, a call for Christians to embrace their faith more fully.
Russ Roberts: That was beautifully articulated. You used the metaphor of colorblindness, which resonates deeply. It’s evident that you’ve gained significant insights regarding the spiritual terrain that many navigate, and rather than dismissing it, you recognize its value. Thank you for sharing that.
Jonathan Rauch: Absolutely. It’s crucial to understand that many people possess a deep-seated need for meaning that contemporary secular alternatives often fail to fulfill. We need answers to fundamental questions about existence and morality, and traditional faiths have provided these answers for millennia.
While I may not subscribe to the divinity of Jesus Christ, I respect the profound moral insights that have emerged from both Christianity and Judaism. As we navigate the complexities of modern society, these teachings remain vital to grounding our understanding of good and evil.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in how we uphold these values in a rapidly changing world, ensuring that we don’t lose sight of the rich traditions that inform our moral compass.
