All I can really do is suggest that Sheila-ism (a term for self-designed religion from Habits of the Heart) is not the same thing as the Typical American Protestant Layman’s Desire to Not Have to Study Denominational Theology, even if they sometimes do look similar in spirit.

I’d say that you’re underestimating the average American Protestant: they do attend Bible studies, hear sermons, and they do pick up on more theology than you’d think. Their inclination to “cafeteria Christianity” may extend to church-shopping within a basic range of theological similarity (i.e., Unitarianism or Marcus Borg “Christianity” or Mormonism or R. Catholic/ E. Orthodox doctrine in fullare bridges too far), but I think a lot of observers, within and without American evangelicalism, over-estimate this flexibility. And even a lot of the Gene Robinson accepting Episcopalians turn out to be less flexible than you might think on theological matters.

In addition most critiques of Shelia-ism require a host of rigid doctrinal points which are not really scaleable. That is you can still have your 1000 denominations, but most americans who belong to these denominations are not really going to the mat for the supposed doctrinal points that make up the religion. Basically the only folks who argue these are church leaders, and theologians who write and market books for church leaders. So strictly speaking the field baptists/catholic/lutheran et al is more or less restricted to what I might analogize to the Sadducees. Or those who are professionally X denomination.

Of course this has to include the copyright industrial complex that sells books explaining material distinctions among religious faiths.

Or as John Presnal puts it: “Insofar as one is free to make it up without reference to anything other than oneself then it is doubly heretical.” (Yes, Indeed!)

But the great mass of christians are more or less followers of Shelialism. Shelialism is really the common sense non-intellectual (thus scaleable) version of Unitarianism so Jefferson ended up being right.

Also those who criticize Shelialism fail to understand that it points to the truth about human beings, “Just my own little voice”, i.e. a conscience linked to all human beings. So there is a natural law or at least theory of moral sentiment to Shelialism.

The natural american religion of Shelialism is also compatible with Mormonism, and its doctrine of Theosis, and Eternal Progression. So even if Shelialism wanted to aquaint itself with theological doctrines, it would soon come to see that these are either 1) only used to stir up hatred (consolidate the power of the Sadducees) or 2) immaterial to everyday life.

Shelialism certainly doesn’t care if Romney is Mormon. For sociologists to see within Shelialism a disafiliation with communities they are prioritizing the Sadducee power structure over the much more scalable (thus not really sophisticated or marketable as a modicum of originality fixed in a tangeable medium of expression) natural moral sentiment of Conscience.

But it is in no way clear that Shelia-lism undermines communities, because Conscience itself is grounded in communities.

As for Jefferson, the best treatment of his “religion” I know of remains the chapter in Peter Lawler’s Aliens in America, particularly if you read the letters Peter cites therein.