I don’t believe there’s a singular definition of Christianity, just as there isn’t one for Islam. Both religions have evolved significantly over time, and the versions that existed eight centuries ago bear little resemblance to their modern forms. During the Crusades, both Christianity and Islam were deeply tied to rigid, class-based societies steeped in notions of chivalry. These historical iterations would likely feel alien in today’s interconnected and multipolar world. Interestingly, Christianity and Islam of that era probably had more in common with each other than with their modern descendants.

When we look at nations today, there are successful examples within Muslim-majority countries like Morocco, Malaysia, and Qatar, alongside struggling states like Libya and Somalia. Similarly, there are Christian-majority countries that qualify as failed states, such as Honduras or Guatemala. Religion itself doesn’t appear to be the determining factor. You’re right that secular variants often fare better—for example, Turkey among Muslim-majority nations or Norway among Christian-majority ones.

This pattern holds true for other religions as well. For instance, Buddhist-majority nations like Japan and South Korea thrive, while Myanmar exemplifies third-world instability. It seems that religion, while influential, isn’t the decisive factor in determining a nation’s success or failure.