Real World Applications

Understanding of adherence spectrum concepts can be very useful in enabling an accurate viewing and understanding of various present day issues, events, and situations related to the Christian belief system.


Case #2 - Christian Self-Dividing

In the Bible it says that Christians should make strong efforts to try to stay united in one body, and not divide over such things as dedicating one’s self to be a follower of a particular pastor, or some minor theological issue. Yet today, those things are exactly what fairly often seems to happen.

In Depth (Supplemental Information)

A case in point: In April 2019, there was the issue of during a city council meeting an a major U.S. city, that a councilwoman was asked to lead the council in an opening prayer. The councilwoman, who is a Christian proceeded to do so. During her about two minute prayer she mentioned the name of Jesus about 10 times, and made reference to a number of scriptures from the Bible, such as "...every knee will bow...". After the prayer, a number of people, including a Muslim council member, and a few professing Christians voiced their objections, saying about the councilwoman saying of the councilwoman saying that particular prayer, that they felt that she was using prayer as a weapon, and that it was an example of religious intolerance.

This incident became a topic for a particular Christian radio talk show. The host, played a recording of the councilwoman's prayer, and said that he approved of it whole heartily. He also noted that one of the Christians that said that they disapproved was a Democrat and strongly implied or outright said that they must be a Liberal Christian. He also said that he did not see how someone who proclaims to be a Conservative Christian could not agree with what the councilwoman did and said.

Unfortunately, this would seem to be the kind of dividing that the Bible speaks against. The concepts of adherence spectrum helps this to be evident. Its definition of a Conservative Christian is a Christians who subscribes to all or practically all the most important (ie. Essential and Secondary) Christian doctrines, and the definition of a Liberal Christian is a Christian who, for whatever reason, subscribes to substantially less than all or practically all of the most important (ie. all Essential, not all Secondary) Christan doctrines.

Agreeing with or not agreeing with theologically accurate particular prayer that someone may say to start a city council meeting is separate from, and is not significantly connected to subscribing or not subscribing to any of the most important Christian doctrines. Consequently it has no effect on which adherence spectrum category a professing Christian belongs to, and so would be what scripture characterizes as a minor disagreement. Therefore, for the host to say or imply that for professing Christians who don't one-hundred percent side with the councilwoman, that he didn't see how those Christians could consider themselves to be Conservative Christians is an incorrect characterization and sends an inaccurate message to people about how a Christian should be and act to be considered a particular type of Christian. It is also an unfortunate accusation that is probably somewhat offensive for at least some Conservative Christians who in fact did not one-hundred percent support the councilwoman’s action.

In summary, perspectives such as the host’s seems to unnecessarily and un-biblically sow division in the Body of Christ. But understanding and applying the adherence spectrum’s category definitions can help avoid such self-division, and lend to better relationships between Christians, minimizing distractions and divisions over minor issues, and so leaving more time and energy to spend on truly important ones.

An Important Related Point
An important point related to the talk show incident, is that the incident illustrates a related issue and hazard that the Bible warns Christians about. That is, by definition Conservative Christians are Christians who subscribe to what are considered to be the most important doctrines given to mankind by God. Thus them being accused of not being Conservative Christians just because they do not follow a particular fellow human being’s opinion about a particular issue that is not significantly related to, nor effect their subscription to, those important doctrines, is objectively bad and wrong. Essentially, it is an example of the warned against sin of people making human originated doctrines, values, or opinions of higher importance and above the doctrines of God (e.g. Mark 7:7).

In this instance the issue in question was the councilwoman’s prayer, but there are numerous examples in today’s world of other issues where the same or similar type of accusations or condemnations of Christians occur; issues such as illegal immigration, and public assistance policy. According to the Bible, Christians are to avoid making such accusations or condemnations of themselves; however to not be surprised when they come from outside of the Body of Christ, and when they come, to recognize them for what they are, and to value and follow God’s word above all other words or opinions, and act and/or respond accordingly (e.g. Acts 4:19).


Case #3 – Another Name For Phobia and Violence: The Far Right

When someone or some group does a violent act with bigotry or racism of some type as their motivating factor, they are often branded by certain people in the news media as “Far-right terrorists” or “Far-right extremists”. As well, those people often seem to assert and promote the association between "Far-right" and White-nationalism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia and/or similar. But, by using adherence spectrum concepts as a basis, it can be seen that they are inaccurately characterizing and misrepresenting the term "Far-right" by erroneously assigning to it arbitrary (negative) meanings.

In Depth (Supplemental Information)

The issue is two-fold. The first problem is of them asserting, or at minimum strongly implying, the idea that strong adherence to an ideology (ie. the typically used meaning of "far-right") is always not a good thing. However, in actuality, whether strong adherence to an ideology is good or not depends on the questioner and the ideology (ie. belief system) in question. There are many belief systems, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, American Democracy, Fascism, Communism, Secular Humanism, Moral relativism, et.al. Thus for example, from the perspective of the average Western civilization inhabitant, (another person) being a Far-right adherer to the doctrines of Fascism is seen as a bad thing, but being a strong (ie. Far-right) adherer to the doctrines of American Democracy is seen as a good thing.

It is also worth noting that the fallacious view of the Far-right as always being bad is also often used to conversely imply, particularly when used in discussions related to issues under public debate, that being or becoming either a "moderate" (ie. Mid-Right and Mid-Left adherence spectrum categories), or a Progressive, is inherently better than being on the far-right.

The second problem is of them projecting to the public a fundamental mis-characterization of the term "Far-Right" and its actual meaning.

A (simplified) example: If American Democracy is selected as the belief system, then based upon adherence spectrum concepts, a person who subscribes to its doctrines of; freedom of speech, freedom to choose and practice one's religion, and every person having equal rights under the law no matter their race, then that person would be classified a Far-Right adopter of American Democracy. On the other hand, if there is another person who does not subscribe to all of those doctrines (eg. they do not subscribe to equal rights for all people), then that person could not be accurately be considered a Far-Right adopter of American Democracy, but would belong to an adherence spectrum category that is to the left of Far-right.

Now, for the average Westerner, the Far-Right adopter of American Democracy would be considered as being good/better than the non-Far Right adopter, who would be considered bad/not as good. However, as previously mentioned, this is opposite to what is often asserted or implied by certain people in the news media. Thus, their use of Far-right is fundamentally flawed and is misleading to the general public; it causes people to have errant perceptions of other people, and impedes their ability to come to an understanding on important issues.

In summary, utilizing adherence spectrum concepts it can readily be seen that just using the term ”Far-right” in referring to someone or some group who does violent and/or terrorist acts without also stating the underlying belief system is both inaccurate and misleading. It is important to consider the belief system of the person/group under examination. A person being a Far-right adopter of a belief system may be good and desirable, such as in the case of American Democracy, or may be bad and undesirable such as in the case of Fascism and other belief systems that sanction violence or treat people unjustly.

To further emphasize the point, is to mention again that a good example of a Far-right Christian would be the late Rev. Billy Graham, who obviously was not a person who advocated for violence, but instead spoke about love and mankind’s unity under Christ. Thus, lumping all Far-Right people into one group without including the context of the relevant belief system, as well as being both erroneous and maybe to some extent intentionally manipulative, is also unfair to Far-Right Christians and Far-right people of other belief systems who do not promote division and violence.

Copyright (c) 2020 Christianmetrics.org

Home