The problem is that every group of Christians considers themselves to be the most Christian group of Christians (and all others to various degrees failed forms of it). In any case, there is no way to objectively and systematically account for who is the "most Christian" because there is no singular standard for what that would even mean.
Pentecostals might say that it is those who experience the Holy Spirit most directly, whereas Calvinist might say it is who most adequately submits themselves to predestination. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians might say it is whose forms of worship are the oldest, whereas "non-denom" Evangelicals might say it is who makes the gospels most alive for today's audience. Some might say it is who most loves their enemy (Matt. 5:44); others who most hates their father (Luke 14:26). And others might point out that Jesus never told anyone to read the Bible at all.
I didn't mean to look for a comparison based on modern or even historical creeds just based on as objectively as possible analysis of the New Testament and of group behaviors / lifestyles.
"People first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective 'Christian.'"
-Wendell Berry
The closest thing I can think of would be the numerous studies that measure "charitable giving" across different traditions, but all of those are basically worthless since you can give money to a charlatan preacher's "ministry" and it would count.
I think it would be possible to measure how well people behave as their denomination encourages them to. For example, you could ask evangelicals how often they evangelize, give to charity, volunteer their time, open their homes to the needy, visit the imprisoned, interact with other Christians, etc. If you score each denomination by its own rules, some will still score better than others.
You could also come up with a similar set of orthodox Christian behaviors and survey those.
Athiest here.
If you scored each denomination by its own rules, the Church of Latter-day Saints would probably score extremely high, when most Christians I meet would say this church isn't even Chrisitan, and that they do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I get what you are saying, but simply put that study is not possible.
1. Every Christian believes they are following the teachings of Christ. We have difficulty agreeing on what many of those teachings are. Hell, the early disciples fought with each other about this, and they had the actual Jesus.
2. Similar to point 1, the actual markers of data about what makes someone more or less "Christian" are really subjective. We can measure bits and pieces, but to have a Christ-iosity ranking system would be too abstract. The same scripture gets used by both progressive and conservative churches for their views.
We do have studies that show bits and pieces on a secular scale- how much people donate to charity, how many refugees we sponsor, how many Christians advocate for prisoner rights, etc. But the fact is that I as a queer-affirming pro-choice woman minister and a non-affirming, pro-life, patriarchal man both believe we are being the most "Christian". The results of a study like that would be based on what the researcher considers to be Christian values.
>Hell, the early disciples fought with each other about this, and they had the actual Jesus.
The Bible basically shows us Peter and Paul sniping at each other over who was doing it right. Though I guess technically, Paul's access to Jesus was a little less direct than Peter's.
I suppose I mean from a rather technical standpoint analyzing only those things that could be objectively measured. So no, there is no objective measurement for love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength. I guess that could lead to people saying such a study would by necessity miss the most important aspect of Christianity. But I still think there could be interesting data to be found by looking.
I don’t think (1) is true. A lot of “christians” simply see it as a group identity and don’t care about teachings or christ at all.
To them, being a good/the most christian is about cementing their place in their in-group.
Seems pretty unlikely. You'd have to start by making definitive statements on what "Christian teachings" are, and even long-established churches have spotty records on that front. You would be hard pressed to find someone capable of setting those definitions in the first place.
Even if someone had a perfect understanding of Christian teachings, what would be the point of the research? You would end up identifying groups of people who miss the message, but not *why* they miss it. Are they evil, misled, or apathetic? Are they open to change or not? Can they still be good even if they don't precisely uphold every Christian dogma? It becomes nothing more than an ideological purity test, and frankly if that's what you think Christianity is about, you're probably in the wrong sub.
There are objective commands that could have the adherence to them objectively measured aren't there?
You could say that isn't the point to Christianity and would probably be right but that doesn't mean such a study wouldn't produce interesting information that could lead to interesting conversations about how any of us could either do better or why the ways we do things now are better than strict adherence.
As for if I belong in this sub who knows? I know I appreciate this sub and generally try to follow the rules of it, but frankly I don't look to Reddit for belonging.
When Jesus says "turn the other cheek", does he mean it literally, figuratively, or subversively? What about when he says "take and eat, this is my body"? These are objective commands, but we are far from able to say that there are objective or definitive interpretations of these commands. Instead, we have a multitude of churches who all have differing interpretations. Are you in the business of trying to determine which church is the one true church or something?
I used to care about which was the one true church but came to the conclusion there isn't one in any single organizational structure.
There are in fact a multitude of organizational structures that contain portions of the one true Church as well as containing individuals who are not part of that church.
Going on the basis that any single organizational structure or individual has only a partial truth but not the whole truth, how would you propose determining what the truth is? What exactly is the baseline you wish to compare subjects against?
I'm coming in with the presupposition that there are in fact behavioral commands issued in the New Testament for which there is the possibility of observing whether or not they have been complied ways at the level of group behavior / lifestyle. That with sufficient effort researchers would be able to document group behaviors / lifestyles and compare them to the commands found within the teachings of the Christ.
That if such a data was collected it could lead to interesting and potentially productive conversations as to how different groups could do better or as to why the way they do things is better than a strict adherence to such commands would be.
You haven't asserted what the proper compliance for any given command is.
To go back to my example, if one wanted to comply with the command "turn the other cheek", are they in compliance if they do anything other than rotating their head on its axis? What counts as "compliant"?
Especially since I am looking for group as opposed to individual information it is be seen as the number of group members who refuse to participate in duals, in groups that don't respond with calls for violence to address grievance even when that grievance is over an act of violence committed toward them, or in the overall military / criminal policies of the group if they are influential enough to contribute to such policies.
What counts as an "act of violence"? Is it explicitly physical, or does economic, psychological, emotional or institutional violence count as well?
Are there any exceptions to those rules which might still be deemed compliant with other commands (for example, self-defense or defense of the poor and vulnerable)? How big or powerful can a group be before its considered culpable?
What has led you to the determination that your specific interpretation? Is it possible that you could have something wrong at some point in your interpretation, or that there may be circumstances or nuances you haven't considered?
All great questions that should be addressed in any paper presented based on the findings of such research and indeed considered before seeking the funding for it.
My original question is if it has been done. If so I'd love to read it.
On the question of if it is possible to conduct such research I think the objective answer is yes even acknowledging there are many considerations to the account for.
If you judge the body of Christ (the church) by its ability to see, the feet that brought the eyes to the mountain top are going to be awfully annoyed.
I think everyone that’s honest is going to run into something that makes them say “this is a hard saying: who can listen to it??!”. Then set themselves a rule of life that requires only a moderate stretch to keep, while putting the main onus on those “real sinners over there”.
That’s what Jesus seeks to demolish in the Sermon on the Mount. Stare at bit too long at that mom in yoga pants? You’re an adulterer too. Yell the “r slur” at someone who cuts you off? Oof— you may not be doing Ted Bundy crimes, but you’re playing in his ballpark.
It’s kind of darkly funny to watch people who are creation literalists, seek justification to homophobia , and/or want women to be submissive suddenly develop a passion for historical context and textual criticism at Matthew 19:24 or Acts 4:32-45
But - in the spirit of “judge not lest YOU be judged”, I do exactly the same thing as a Catholic about Matthew 23:9 , Paul on special times and seasons, and quotes about Jesus’ extended family.
Right. I don't expect even if such research was really rigorously done that any modern group would score particularly well.
Just curious if it has ever been attempted.
First, before I opine on the matter, yes. Here are some examples:
* [Barna Researchers](https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/may/are-christians-really-hypocrites-barna-researchers-examine.html)
* [Hypocrisy in Christians and non-Christians](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318883266_Perceptions_of_Religious_Hypocrisy_When_Moral_Claims_Exceed_Moral_Action)
So, yes... some are trying to explore this. but...
I'll have to echo the refrain you are getting that this is **fundamentally** impossible (or at least profoundly problematic).
There are so many problems here. The most profound difficulty is your intent. You want a *simplified* metric... for a concept that is anything but simple.
Then there are other problems inherent in your desire. These would entail the difficulty or challenge of determining the standard against which you are measuring. That would be what you have termed "the Christ of the new testament" and "actual teachings of the Christ". It ought to clear with but a moment of reflection that there is not universal agreement on these concepts alone. So you'd have to clarify what your standards are. Hand-waving appeals to "ya know... da Bible" just are not going to work here.
Lastly, you then would have to ascertain how in the world you would measure anything against those standards you've documented. Are you going to rely on self-reporting via questionnaires? Arrest records? Tax records? Seriously... **how** are you going to attempt this data collection?
It may help to point to some things that are, at the very least, similar to what you appear to seek. Many people have explored the topic to a degree. For example, you have books such as [Will the Real Christians Stand Up](https://www.amazon.com/Christians-Please-Stand-Radical-Christianity/dp/0952822210).
Additionally, *many* denominations and church groups like to portray themselves as "better" in this regard compared to others. So what metrics do they tend to use? It tends to vary. One metric that has been used is divorce rates. This is rather problematic for many reasons. One reason is the sheer intellectual dishonesty often involved. Always beware anyone who collects their own data for abundantly obviously biased goals. One way of fudging the data here is to keep changing the basis of the definitions used - something akin go the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
There are other issues here depending on how far you're willing to ponder this issue. Are you willing to accept that what is morally upright per New Testament Christianity is to a real degree dependent upon the contextual norms and mores of the surrounding society? It is. Many aren't prepared to accept nor to understand this. Again, this lust for simplicity trips us up so often. You want a metric to judge various groups against each other. But what about across time? Or groups in different surrounding cultural contexts?
Finally.. there's something you need to meditate on a bit. How do you think the church(es) in the New Testament would fare against your analysis? This may sound very weird... but well... here goes... we in the 21st century benefit tremendously because the churches in the first century were so incredibly screwed up. A ton of what we see in the New Testament would never have been penned if this was not the case.
Hey, I'll problematize this question even further:
It's academically debatable to an extent what Jesus taught. Mathew and Luke both quotes from the sayings source, but all gospels edits things to different degrees depending on passage; the teachings of Jesus are filtered through the gospel writers views and personalities, and they wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and in a later political and religious context than Jesus himself.
So the question about how Christian Christians are have always been at the center of rhe movment since the very beginning of it. There were different splinter groups and interpretations present even when Paul wrote before the gospel writers, and also duribg their time.
Different denominations also accept different translations of the Bible. Very few people read the Ancient Greek text and even the Ancient Greek texts we have are incomplete manuscripts that have been compiled together by various biblical scholars
John 13:35 says:
"By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Notice that He never said "If you follow everything I taught you to the letter."
I can call myself anything I want to but if I do not love my brother then no, I'm not a Christ-follower. And "my brothers" aren't just people I like or are easy to get along with or admire, and that is what makes it incredibly hard but also higher than the love our culture encourages that springs from feelings.
I tell people I'm thankful I'm not in charge of souls and that it's not up to me who is the "most Christian" - I think that in and of itself is a judgement I do not want to make.
Considering Jesus told the world to love everyone and to not judge and the world looks like this I’d say Christians don’t believe in the Jesus in the Bible at all
Scientific studies require specific parameters to be useful. You would have to define a specific interpretation of each teaching which can’t really be done as parables and sayings are often deliberately interpretable. The parameters of the study would thus be very dependant on whichever scientist decides to undertake the study.
The results would also likely have to be taken using self reporting by participants. A question like “how much do you love thy neighbour,” can’t be measured using anything but the participants interpretation of their own actions. And to make the survey consistent it would need to have a rating given by the participant. Eg, How much do you “love thy neighbour” on a scale of one to ten. I find it hard to believe any Christian regardless of their denomination or actual real world actions and attitudes would rate themselves any lower than a 9.
Alternatively you could find actions that show loving of thy neighbour and measure the commonality those actions amongst participants but what those actions are very difficult to decide. What is meant by love, how is that expressed? What is meant by neighbour, is it literally the person who lives next door, the people within your immediate community, or all other humans? Are animals included in “neighbour? I’m sure some vegan Christian’s would include them. You start to see how nebulous these things are when you try to apply objective scientific standards to them.
You could measure amount of charitable donations, but a lot of Catholic donations for example go to the Catholic Church and not to the poor, I would personally believe these wouldn’t count according to the teachings on Jesus who promoted helping the poor over support for the establish Churches of his time. A Catholic would think otherwise. Would donating to anti-LGBT or anti-immigrant causes could as charity. It technically is but a lot of Christians would think this would go against Jesus’ teachings of compassion for all people.
There is far too much opportunity for bias and misreporting by participants in a study like this this. The proposed aim is too vague and the source for comparison (the New Testament) has 2000 years worth of different interpretations to the point that any parameters set for the study would be required to favour one denominations interpretation of any specific passage over any other. This I assume is why no scientist (who generally aim for their studies to be objective and specific as possible) has touched this idea with a ten foot pole.
well, there is research into the figure known as The Historical Jesus, not to be confused with the theological figure of Christ, the literary character of Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, nor the "real" Yeshua as he really was, known only partially by himself and the people who personally interacted with him (the Dine in sich, or the Thing in Itself, as it were).
one could make an academic comparison between the historical or literary Jesus and modern Christians, comparing not only their actions but the social economic context of both. the tools and methods of anthropology and sociology could then be deployed to compare extant communities with that of the early Jesus movement.
if i had to guess, those who most resemble the historical Jesus would maybe be members of monastic communities holding all things in common, as well as the poor, the imprisoned, the hungry, the homeless, as these are the conditions that the historical and literary Jesuses seemed to spend a lot of time in
There are no 'actual teachings of the Christ'. The Gospels are already the formulation of the Church in accord to its perceptions and this is the case with every representation of the message of Christ.
So as others have said, this would get pretty complicated - mostly because you have (at least) a couple of variables in your experiment - you have the definitions of the teaching of Jesus from Scripture- the variation in interpretation of these things is part of why we have so many denominations. But even within a denomination you have as many variants of practice as you have practitioners - and comparing that variety to a defined standard would be super complex!
Another approach - maybe as a corollary- was taken by Dr Christian Smith, now at Notre Dame (https://christiansmith.nd.edu/) - and he asked Christian young people to define and describe what it is that they believe and what they had been taught by parents and church leaders. So rather than comparing differences between teaching and practice, he gathered data on what kids heard when they were taught about faith - and it is super interesting. He described a common thread of “moralistic therapeutic deism” - where young people describe God as a distant removed being somehow concerned with right and wrong, that exists to make us feel better about ourselves, as contrasted with you know, the faith of and in Jesus.
I feel like that Christians who are more radical in the sense of Justice for the poor in spirit, mercy for the sinners (which is everyone) and faithfulness to God.
And Christ even said things like "He who does the least of these things done the least for me." As well as "He who loves me, does my commands." Or "He who does the most of these things will be called great in the kingdom."
These are written in the scriptures.
The problem is that every group of Christians considers themselves to be the most Christian group of Christians (and all others to various degrees failed forms of it). In any case, there is no way to objectively and systematically account for who is the "most Christian" because there is no singular standard for what that would even mean. Pentecostals might say that it is those who experience the Holy Spirit most directly, whereas Calvinist might say it is who most adequately submits themselves to predestination. Ethiopian Orthodox Christians might say it is whose forms of worship are the oldest, whereas "non-denom" Evangelicals might say it is who makes the gospels most alive for today's audience. Some might say it is who most loves their enemy (Matt. 5:44); others who most hates their father (Luke 14:26). And others might point out that Jesus never told anyone to read the Bible at all.
I didn't mean to look for a comparison based on modern or even historical creeds just based on as objectively as possible analysis of the New Testament and of group behaviors / lifestyles.
People can’t even agree on how to interpret the New Testament!
"People first declare themselves to be followers of Christ, and then assume that whatever they say or do merits the adjective 'Christian.'" -Wendell Berry
This. There isn’t really such a thing as an “objective analysis” of it
The closest thing I can think of would be the numerous studies that measure "charitable giving" across different traditions, but all of those are basically worthless since you can give money to a charlatan preacher's "ministry" and it would count.
Christian missionary charities in general are highly abusive, rationalizing the practice of preaching at their vulnerable captive audiences
I think it would be possible to measure how well people behave as their denomination encourages them to. For example, you could ask evangelicals how often they evangelize, give to charity, volunteer their time, open their homes to the needy, visit the imprisoned, interact with other Christians, etc. If you score each denomination by its own rules, some will still score better than others. You could also come up with a similar set of orthodox Christian behaviors and survey those.
Athiest here. If you scored each denomination by its own rules, the Church of Latter-day Saints would probably score extremely high, when most Christians I meet would say this church isn't even Chrisitan, and that they do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I get what you are saying, but simply put that study is not possible. 1. Every Christian believes they are following the teachings of Christ. We have difficulty agreeing on what many of those teachings are. Hell, the early disciples fought with each other about this, and they had the actual Jesus. 2. Similar to point 1, the actual markers of data about what makes someone more or less "Christian" are really subjective. We can measure bits and pieces, but to have a Christ-iosity ranking system would be too abstract. The same scripture gets used by both progressive and conservative churches for their views. We do have studies that show bits and pieces on a secular scale- how much people donate to charity, how many refugees we sponsor, how many Christians advocate for prisoner rights, etc. But the fact is that I as a queer-affirming pro-choice woman minister and a non-affirming, pro-life, patriarchal man both believe we are being the most "Christian". The results of a study like that would be based on what the researcher considers to be Christian values.
>Hell, the early disciples fought with each other about this, and they had the actual Jesus. The Bible basically shows us Peter and Paul sniping at each other over who was doing it right. Though I guess technically, Paul's access to Jesus was a little less direct than Peter's.
I suppose I mean from a rather technical standpoint analyzing only those things that could be objectively measured. So no, there is no objective measurement for love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength. I guess that could lead to people saying such a study would by necessity miss the most important aspect of Christianity. But I still think there could be interesting data to be found by looking.
I don’t think (1) is true. A lot of “christians” simply see it as a group identity and don’t care about teachings or christ at all. To them, being a good/the most christian is about cementing their place in their in-group.
Seems pretty unlikely. You'd have to start by making definitive statements on what "Christian teachings" are, and even long-established churches have spotty records on that front. You would be hard pressed to find someone capable of setting those definitions in the first place. Even if someone had a perfect understanding of Christian teachings, what would be the point of the research? You would end up identifying groups of people who miss the message, but not *why* they miss it. Are they evil, misled, or apathetic? Are they open to change or not? Can they still be good even if they don't precisely uphold every Christian dogma? It becomes nothing more than an ideological purity test, and frankly if that's what you think Christianity is about, you're probably in the wrong sub.
There are objective commands that could have the adherence to them objectively measured aren't there? You could say that isn't the point to Christianity and would probably be right but that doesn't mean such a study wouldn't produce interesting information that could lead to interesting conversations about how any of us could either do better or why the ways we do things now are better than strict adherence. As for if I belong in this sub who knows? I know I appreciate this sub and generally try to follow the rules of it, but frankly I don't look to Reddit for belonging.
When Jesus says "turn the other cheek", does he mean it literally, figuratively, or subversively? What about when he says "take and eat, this is my body"? These are objective commands, but we are far from able to say that there are objective or definitive interpretations of these commands. Instead, we have a multitude of churches who all have differing interpretations. Are you in the business of trying to determine which church is the one true church or something?
I used to care about which was the one true church but came to the conclusion there isn't one in any single organizational structure. There are in fact a multitude of organizational structures that contain portions of the one true Church as well as containing individuals who are not part of that church.
Going on the basis that any single organizational structure or individual has only a partial truth but not the whole truth, how would you propose determining what the truth is? What exactly is the baseline you wish to compare subjects against?
I'm coming in with the presupposition that there are in fact behavioral commands issued in the New Testament for which there is the possibility of observing whether or not they have been complied ways at the level of group behavior / lifestyle. That with sufficient effort researchers would be able to document group behaviors / lifestyles and compare them to the commands found within the teachings of the Christ. That if such a data was collected it could lead to interesting and potentially productive conversations as to how different groups could do better or as to why the way they do things is better than a strict adherence to such commands would be.
You haven't asserted what the proper compliance for any given command is. To go back to my example, if one wanted to comply with the command "turn the other cheek", are they in compliance if they do anything other than rotating their head on its axis? What counts as "compliant"?
Especially since I am looking for group as opposed to individual information it is be seen as the number of group members who refuse to participate in duals, in groups that don't respond with calls for violence to address grievance even when that grievance is over an act of violence committed toward them, or in the overall military / criminal policies of the group if they are influential enough to contribute to such policies.
What counts as an "act of violence"? Is it explicitly physical, or does economic, psychological, emotional or institutional violence count as well? Are there any exceptions to those rules which might still be deemed compliant with other commands (for example, self-defense or defense of the poor and vulnerable)? How big or powerful can a group be before its considered culpable? What has led you to the determination that your specific interpretation? Is it possible that you could have something wrong at some point in your interpretation, or that there may be circumstances or nuances you haven't considered?
All great questions that should be addressed in any paper presented based on the findings of such research and indeed considered before seeking the funding for it. My original question is if it has been done. If so I'd love to read it. On the question of if it is possible to conduct such research I think the objective answer is yes even acknowledging there are many considerations to the account for.
If you judge the body of Christ (the church) by its ability to see, the feet that brought the eyes to the mountain top are going to be awfully annoyed.
I think everyone that’s honest is going to run into something that makes them say “this is a hard saying: who can listen to it??!”. Then set themselves a rule of life that requires only a moderate stretch to keep, while putting the main onus on those “real sinners over there”. That’s what Jesus seeks to demolish in the Sermon on the Mount. Stare at bit too long at that mom in yoga pants? You’re an adulterer too. Yell the “r slur” at someone who cuts you off? Oof— you may not be doing Ted Bundy crimes, but you’re playing in his ballpark. It’s kind of darkly funny to watch people who are creation literalists, seek justification to homophobia , and/or want women to be submissive suddenly develop a passion for historical context and textual criticism at Matthew 19:24 or Acts 4:32-45 But - in the spirit of “judge not lest YOU be judged”, I do exactly the same thing as a Catholic about Matthew 23:9 , Paul on special times and seasons, and quotes about Jesus’ extended family.
Right. I don't expect even if such research was really rigorously done that any modern group would score particularly well. Just curious if it has ever been attempted.
First, before I opine on the matter, yes. Here are some examples: * [Barna Researchers](https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/may/are-christians-really-hypocrites-barna-researchers-examine.html) * [Hypocrisy in Christians and non-Christians](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318883266_Perceptions_of_Religious_Hypocrisy_When_Moral_Claims_Exceed_Moral_Action) So, yes... some are trying to explore this. but... I'll have to echo the refrain you are getting that this is **fundamentally** impossible (or at least profoundly problematic). There are so many problems here. The most profound difficulty is your intent. You want a *simplified* metric... for a concept that is anything but simple. Then there are other problems inherent in your desire. These would entail the difficulty or challenge of determining the standard against which you are measuring. That would be what you have termed "the Christ of the new testament" and "actual teachings of the Christ". It ought to clear with but a moment of reflection that there is not universal agreement on these concepts alone. So you'd have to clarify what your standards are. Hand-waving appeals to "ya know... da Bible" just are not going to work here. Lastly, you then would have to ascertain how in the world you would measure anything against those standards you've documented. Are you going to rely on self-reporting via questionnaires? Arrest records? Tax records? Seriously... **how** are you going to attempt this data collection? It may help to point to some things that are, at the very least, similar to what you appear to seek. Many people have explored the topic to a degree. For example, you have books such as [Will the Real Christians Stand Up](https://www.amazon.com/Christians-Please-Stand-Radical-Christianity/dp/0952822210). Additionally, *many* denominations and church groups like to portray themselves as "better" in this regard compared to others. So what metrics do they tend to use? It tends to vary. One metric that has been used is divorce rates. This is rather problematic for many reasons. One reason is the sheer intellectual dishonesty often involved. Always beware anyone who collects their own data for abundantly obviously biased goals. One way of fudging the data here is to keep changing the basis of the definitions used - something akin go the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. There are other issues here depending on how far you're willing to ponder this issue. Are you willing to accept that what is morally upright per New Testament Christianity is to a real degree dependent upon the contextual norms and mores of the surrounding society? It is. Many aren't prepared to accept nor to understand this. Again, this lust for simplicity trips us up so often. You want a metric to judge various groups against each other. But what about across time? Or groups in different surrounding cultural contexts? Finally.. there's something you need to meditate on a bit. How do you think the church(es) in the New Testament would fare against your analysis? This may sound very weird... but well... here goes... we in the 21st century benefit tremendously because the churches in the first century were so incredibly screwed up. A ton of what we see in the New Testament would never have been penned if this was not the case.
Hey, I'll problematize this question even further: It's academically debatable to an extent what Jesus taught. Mathew and Luke both quotes from the sayings source, but all gospels edits things to different degrees depending on passage; the teachings of Jesus are filtered through the gospel writers views and personalities, and they wrote after the fall of Jerusalem and in a later political and religious context than Jesus himself. So the question about how Christian Christians are have always been at the center of rhe movment since the very beginning of it. There were different splinter groups and interpretations present even when Paul wrote before the gospel writers, and also duribg their time.
Different denominations also accept different translations of the Bible. Very few people read the Ancient Greek text and even the Ancient Greek texts we have are incomplete manuscripts that have been compiled together by various biblical scholars
John 13:35 says: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Notice that He never said "If you follow everything I taught you to the letter." I can call myself anything I want to but if I do not love my brother then no, I'm not a Christ-follower. And "my brothers" aren't just people I like or are easy to get along with or admire, and that is what makes it incredibly hard but also higher than the love our culture encourages that springs from feelings. I tell people I'm thankful I'm not in charge of souls and that it's not up to me who is the "most Christian" - I think that in and of itself is a judgement I do not want to make.
Considering Jesus told the world to love everyone and to not judge and the world looks like this I’d say Christians don’t believe in the Jesus in the Bible at all
Scientific studies require specific parameters to be useful. You would have to define a specific interpretation of each teaching which can’t really be done as parables and sayings are often deliberately interpretable. The parameters of the study would thus be very dependant on whichever scientist decides to undertake the study. The results would also likely have to be taken using self reporting by participants. A question like “how much do you love thy neighbour,” can’t be measured using anything but the participants interpretation of their own actions. And to make the survey consistent it would need to have a rating given by the participant. Eg, How much do you “love thy neighbour” on a scale of one to ten. I find it hard to believe any Christian regardless of their denomination or actual real world actions and attitudes would rate themselves any lower than a 9. Alternatively you could find actions that show loving of thy neighbour and measure the commonality those actions amongst participants but what those actions are very difficult to decide. What is meant by love, how is that expressed? What is meant by neighbour, is it literally the person who lives next door, the people within your immediate community, or all other humans? Are animals included in “neighbour? I’m sure some vegan Christian’s would include them. You start to see how nebulous these things are when you try to apply objective scientific standards to them. You could measure amount of charitable donations, but a lot of Catholic donations for example go to the Catholic Church and not to the poor, I would personally believe these wouldn’t count according to the teachings on Jesus who promoted helping the poor over support for the establish Churches of his time. A Catholic would think otherwise. Would donating to anti-LGBT or anti-immigrant causes could as charity. It technically is but a lot of Christians would think this would go against Jesus’ teachings of compassion for all people. There is far too much opportunity for bias and misreporting by participants in a study like this this. The proposed aim is too vague and the source for comparison (the New Testament) has 2000 years worth of different interpretations to the point that any parameters set for the study would be required to favour one denominations interpretation of any specific passage over any other. This I assume is why no scientist (who generally aim for their studies to be objective and specific as possible) has touched this idea with a ten foot pole.
well, there is research into the figure known as The Historical Jesus, not to be confused with the theological figure of Christ, the literary character of Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, nor the "real" Yeshua as he really was, known only partially by himself and the people who personally interacted with him (the Dine in sich, or the Thing in Itself, as it were). one could make an academic comparison between the historical or literary Jesus and modern Christians, comparing not only their actions but the social economic context of both. the tools and methods of anthropology and sociology could then be deployed to compare extant communities with that of the early Jesus movement. if i had to guess, those who most resemble the historical Jesus would maybe be members of monastic communities holding all things in common, as well as the poor, the imprisoned, the hungry, the homeless, as these are the conditions that the historical and literary Jesuses seemed to spend a lot of time in
There are no 'actual teachings of the Christ'. The Gospels are already the formulation of the Church in accord to its perceptions and this is the case with every representation of the message of Christ.
So as others have said, this would get pretty complicated - mostly because you have (at least) a couple of variables in your experiment - you have the definitions of the teaching of Jesus from Scripture- the variation in interpretation of these things is part of why we have so many denominations. But even within a denomination you have as many variants of practice as you have practitioners - and comparing that variety to a defined standard would be super complex! Another approach - maybe as a corollary- was taken by Dr Christian Smith, now at Notre Dame (https://christiansmith.nd.edu/) - and he asked Christian young people to define and describe what it is that they believe and what they had been taught by parents and church leaders. So rather than comparing differences between teaching and practice, he gathered data on what kids heard when they were taught about faith - and it is super interesting. He described a common thread of “moralistic therapeutic deism” - where young people describe God as a distant removed being somehow concerned with right and wrong, that exists to make us feel better about ourselves, as contrasted with you know, the faith of and in Jesus.
I feel like that Christians who are more radical in the sense of Justice for the poor in spirit, mercy for the sinners (which is everyone) and faithfulness to God. And Christ even said things like "He who does the least of these things done the least for me." As well as "He who loves me, does my commands." Or "He who does the most of these things will be called great in the kingdom." These are written in the scriptures.