Acton Institute Powerblog

Rev. Sirico Responds to NPR’s ‘Christian Is Not Synonymous With Conservative’

Share this article:
Join the Discussion:

Jon Erwin, director of the pro-life October Baby movie, was recently interviewed by National Public Radio and, in the background article that accompanied the audio, the network reported his view that Christians didn’t feel very welcome in Hollywood’s movie community. This provoked a lot of comment by NPR listeners about what, really, a Christian is. The title of the NPR article, “‘October Baby’ Tells A Story Hollywood Wouldn’t” probably had something to do with that.

Ombudsman Edward Schumacher-Matos followed up the interview with an article titled, “Christian Is Not Synonymous With Conservative,” which was widely discussed by religious bloggers and news sites. As Schumacher-Matos wrote:

What we have, then, is a question that goes beyond NPR to what should be a national debate over how to use the word “Christian.” A truly useful debate would extend even further, to what it means to be Christian, given that nearly 80 percent of Americans claim to be one.

Yesterday evening, Schumacher-Matos published a roundup of responses to his question in a post titled, “Christians: Who Are The 78 Percent?” Overall, a pretty even-handed job of deepening the discussion, which he hopes to continue. Schumacher-Matos invited Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute, to participate. Because of space limitations, Rev. Sirico’s response was slightly edited, so I’m published it here in full:

Christianity is and always has been a religion that “receives” its faith rather than one that “invents” it. Hence, a basic definition of “Who are the Christians?” begins with an adherence, doctrinally, to the ancient Creeds of the Church, beginning with the Apostles Creed (believed to have been of apostolic origin, the Apostles having in turn received their mandate from Christ Himself) and continuing on to the faith articulated at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orange, Hippo and Quicunque Vult (aka, The Athanasian Creed), all of which were formative for the belief of Christians. The traditions that would agree with this ecumenical Trinitarian confession (most Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, et al.) have historically recognized that whatever other doctrinal differences may separate them, this is the meaning they share when they use the term “Christian.”

However, many Americans—and almost all journalists—are less interested in theological distinctions than they are in determining how the moniker can be shared by groups who differ on matters of political dogma. Asking “Who are the Christians?” is less an existential query than a question about partisan branding: What political group gets to claim the word for themselves—and exclude others from its rightful use? The irony is that many mainstream groups wish to recover the franchise at a time when several historically Christian organizations (such as the YMCA) are attempting to distance themselves from the Christian brand. Mr. Edwards claims that “politically and socially conservative Christians have in fact co-opted the title.” But perhaps they never really abandoned it while the politically and socially liberal Christians discarded it, embracing instead, the sort of Christianity that Niebuhr so memorably described as, “A God without wrath [who] brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross” (H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1959), 193.).

John Couretas John Couretas is Director of Communications, responsible for print and online communications at the Acton Institute. He has more than 20 years of experience in news and publishing fields. He has worked as a staff writer on newspapers and magazines, covering business and government. John holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in the Humanities from Michigan State University and a Master of Science Degree in Journalism from Northwestern University.


  • Pingback: Rev. Sirico Responds to NPR’s ‘Christian Is Not Synonymous With Conservative’ | Koinonia()

  • fundamentalist

    Nice response! Modernist theologians invented a religion by definition. They redefined the meanings of the terms God, Jesus, Christ, salvation, sin, righteousness, justice, judgment, etc, so that in they mean the exact opposite of what traditional Christianity meant by them. But because they retained the gutted terminology they kept the name Christian.

    I attended a Presbyterian undergrad school and took a couple of religion classes from “Christian” professors. I would classify there theology as Americanized-Hinduism. 

  • Pingback: So, Who’s a Christian? » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog()

  • Mo

    Why does this issue need to be confusing? At its most basic, a Christian is one who follows Christ. (Imperfectly though it may be, since we are all human!)

    So the next question needs to be, do your political views line up with what Jesus and the Bible as a whole teach? The short answer is that conservative principles do, while liberal principles do not. Some quick examples are murdering unborn children vs. not doing so, the government forcibly taking from one group to give to another vs. people giving freely, the government forcing citizens to buy health insurance vs. free market choice in this and other areas, government spending out of control vs. fiscal responsibility, etc.

    The problem is that both liberals and conservatives who claim to be Christians seem to have no idea what the Bible actually teaches about these (and so many other) issues!