For US news, any person who uses Christianity for something heinous is devout no matter how they lived. I don’t think I’ll ever understand radical evangelicalism.
I also hate the use of “devout.” My grandma was a devout Catholic. She was also awesome, didn’t own guns, didn’t tell you what to think, had a great sense of humor, and everyone loved her.
The different (though related) senses reflect the different etymologies. Devout (and devoted) come from having vowed, whereas radical comes from digging down to the root. So both are thorough commitments, but one tends to be 100% of one's time and the other 100% of the way down to the fundamentals.
For what it's worth, I'd say Boelter's version of Christianity (which, yes, is such a perverted Christianity that one can question whether it deserves the name at all) was both devout and radical. He was all in (devout) and sought to recover an uncorrupted (radical) version of Christianity.
I think it absolutely deserves to be called Christianity - it reflects what a significant portion of people who consider themselves Christians now believe.
I get where you're coming from, and it's not the Christianity I was raised in, but treating it as separate ignores the breadth of the problem
Very interesting. Thanks for that context! For me, if either word is used to describe religion, it means bad. Because I know religion is bad if taken too far.
I see this and rage. The headline is missing airquotes around devout....And really "christian"should be replaced with "piece of garbage". Let's try it out shall we?
I think that the only people who are surprised that a devout Christian could do a thing like this, are white Christians who have never read any world history.
It’s possible but I think it gives his Christianity way too much credit. In any event, reasonable folks can (and do) disagree but I don’t think we’d ever see this used with a Muslim.
"Devout" adds nothing to our understanding when placed before a religion because people who share a religion rarely believe the same things. "Devout Vikings fan" has more meaning than "devout Christian." Describe his beliefs with a word like "radical," not just that he held them firmly.
Yep. There are lots of devout Twins fans, then there’s the radical on the plaza a couple years ago carrying the “400 Days Since Byron Buxton Played CF” sign.
is the idea that by using “devout” here instead of “radical” they are being more unfair to christians than they would to muslims? i am genuinely confused on this
No, we uplift Christian beliefs by calling them devout (positive connotation; faithful) and are unfair to Muslims by calling their beliefs radical (negative connotation to most of the political spectrum).
i guess i just like, don’t think people are going to forget what this guy did because they see the word devout, and so tying him to more mainstream christian beliefs to the reader feels more damning and accurate about the nature of the relationship to me?
like, is there not a world where we see calling him an extremist or radical as basically excusing the relative mainstream evangelical beliefs that got us here and painting him as an outlier?
i know many and tried to say “relatively” mainstream to help. they also are describing his practices here *before* the murders and i think understanding the pipeline from those beliefs to what he did requires engaging with the fact that there’s a very large sect in the country that is scary!
I’d argue more that Radicalized Christianity is more widespread, and naming it would be good. If it extends to all/most of evangelism, fine (I’m not an expert there). I do think there are Christians who are not steeped in violence or violent rhetoric but I’ll leave that or the religion department.
I don't like the use of "devout" along with stories saying nobody saw it coming; when clearly his radical faith brought this on. "Devout" helps advance the idea this was a sudden change instead of explaining there are violent, radical forms of Christianity that are indeed a threat to all of us.
I just think we have inconsistencies in our language that over time accrete & turn out-groups more out. It’s about power and the Overton Window & it adds up.
I think you could parse the devout/radical division based on whether a person who commits political violence is part of an organized group of adherent of an ideology that espouses violence.
"Devout" implies the personal, "Radical" implies the social.
...the Strib minimizes the social foundations within Christianity of his actions then I can see the case. But I do think given what we know about this guy, his actions were as self-directed as they come.
That doesn't mean a follow-up on radical "pro-life" ideology wouldn't also be appropriate.
I do also think that we need an actual example (or ideally multiple) of the Strib giving a different headline to a similar perpetrator with differing religious beliefs to show hypocrisy here, rather than just waving at it as something everyone knows.
If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
For me the problem isn’t so much, “devout” v “radical” though that is a problem, but “Christian” v “Christo-fascist” or “Christian Nationalist,” which would be a better descriptor.
Comments
I get where you're coming from, and it's not the Christianity I was raised in, but treating it as separate ignores the breadth of the problem
"Devout" Piece of Garbage
*chef's kiss*
You can't just swap in radical without losing that contrast?
But they used the mug shot and called him an assassin in the headline. I don't see a whitewash here.
"Devout" implies the personal, "Radical" implies the social.
So if the criticism is that, by using devout...
That doesn't mean a follow-up on radical "pro-life" ideology wouldn't also be appropriate.
Fixed it.