I've skimmed through Ayaan's essay linked in the post, and, as is always the case with such arguments, found it frustratingly unsatisfying.
She seems to be talking about her political position, her allegiance to a particular tribe, and her antagonism to other tribes. This is perfectly fine; but being a Christian, as I understood the word, means to believe, literally, that two thousand years ago, a divinity, confusingly indistinguishable from the one and only supreme being, was born on Earth, and did and said certain things. If this is not the center of your belief system — and I really struggle to understand how one acquires this belief — then why call yourself a Christian? Why make the language even more confusing?
I think Ayaan's point is that we should recognize God and fight to maintain civilization through our united devotion to God. I'm a staunch agnostic (as follows from epistemic inquiry) but I get where Ayaan is coming from. I think the solution isn't being Christian per se, but rather being committed to the moral values and practices that are historically attributed to Christianity. The distinction is that while abiding by Christianity necessarily involves the actions of proclaimed Christians, we all have beliefs and may become aligned on them. The linked tweet describes it as "it's much more cultural now, and less about belief." I think it's spot on; we're nominally discussing Christianity but should really focus on discussing a culture that we should adopt.
This is an interesting observation worth discussing, however the evidence for this claim seems to be that "the author has noticed that classical liberals are more religious."
There probably needs to be some actual data and polling behind this, or else there's no way to tell whether the author's observations are broadly valid, or only apply to some of the people he knows and observes.
She seems to be talking about her political position, her allegiance to a particular tribe, and her antagonism to other tribes. This is perfectly fine; but being a Christian, as I understood the word, means to believe, literally, that two thousand years ago, a divinity, confusingly indistinguishable from the one and only supreme being, was born on Earth, and did and said certain things. If this is not the center of your belief system — and I really struggle to understand how one acquires this belief — then why call yourself a Christian? Why make the language even more confusing?