I think the evangelical church was partially reactionary to ‘works’ centered faith, but you can’t have one without the other. I heard someone say recently (I forget where), that actions give authority to our words, and the words give a foundation/context (reason?) for our actions. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

That’s the more ancient answer. The very contemporary one is this: it’s not sufficient to simply believe the Creed in your head. We have to *experience* in our own collective and individual lives the message and power of what the Creed states. This is it’s most important claim to authority, and sometimes I would hold that in this post-modern world (which I would say does not reject but rather redefines what “truth” means), this is it’s only claim to authority. And contrary to the view that this is some airy-fairy, subjective and easily divergent path to God, the reality is that this is what He’s wanted all along: relationship with us, and relationship among us. It is chiefly and/or only in the context of this relationship that the Creed takes its place as truth.

I used to think that particular beliefs were necessary *for* salvation. Although I no longer hold this belief, I do think that it’s important what you believe because that informs how you act and who you become and, in a larger sense, it becomes the story in which you live. This, I think alludes to your point on abandoning the empire to follow Christ. It’s living in the midst of a different story.

They are necessary for entering into a Christian community (the church as it exists). Until you are willing to let go of the individuality that is the myth of the American empire (so to speak), you are part of the American empire. When you let go of that individuality, and embrace Christ, as he died bodily and was dead, and who rose again bodily and is alive. We ourselves bodily die and are dead, and we rise again and are alive as part of the community (as shown originally in the community of the triune God).

It is necessary to shed our false belief in American empire, and to embrace the alternative community of Christ and live the kind of life that Christ lived as best we can in our own context.

Perhaps, to quote Jeff Lebowski, “the dude abides.” We abide in our specific time and in our specific place as Christ abided (not sure of the tense) in his time and place. I can’t think of universal ways to say this because it may be different in different places (esp. cross-culturally).

I don’t know if that helps.

How would you go about teaching that particular way of life? Are there prescriptions or beliefs that give it shape? Is it defined by anything in particular?

This sounds vague, but it is nonetheless important.