Pardon me for protruding, but. . . .

The word "Christian" appears to be sort of a catch-all word that arouses strong emotions, both pro and con. The big mistake that a lot of people make—and forgive me, but a lot of people here keep making—is to assume that the word "Christian" encompasses a single, monolithic group of like-minded people.

That's simply not true.

If that were true, then why are there a couple of different flavors of Catholics, and under the heading "Protestants," we have Lutherans, Episcopalians (who, I understand are similar to Anglicans, but not the same), Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and dozens, if not hundreds, of other denominations? Because often members of a particular denomination may disagree about some item of doctrine strenuously enough that they break off (schism) and form, not just a new church, but a whole new denomination. That happened a lot throughout history, which is why we have so many different denominations now.

But then, some of these differences are not just about points of doctrine. Some of the current major differences are about the nature of Christianity itself, and are perhaps best exemplified by certain fairly well-known individuals. A reasonable person cannot possibly know about Dietrich Bonhoffer (martyred because of his resistance to Hitler), Martin Niemöller, (also a resister of the Nazis and author of the famous "When they came for the Communists. . . ."), someone like Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (later known as Mother Theresa), or pastors such as Barbara Rossing (lecturer and author of many articles and books, including The Rapture Exposed, that refutes the whole idea of Millennialism) and Jim Wallis (editor of Sojourners magazine, lecturer, and author of several books, including God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It) and lump them together with demagogues like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of that arrogant, grim-faced, hellfire-and-brimstone lot.

Even though some of the language these folks use may sound similar, they are two entirely different bodies of religious belief. The former believe in the loving, forgiving God that Jesus described. When they work in the community (as they often do), they are usually involved in programs aimed at aiding the poor and the homeless and in sponsoring such organizations as the Lutheran Peace Fellowship and the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Many of them were deeply involved in the Civil Rights Movement, and they are often to be found in peace marches and vigils.

Judging by their actions and statements of belief, the latter group apparently worships an angry, vengeful God. When they work in the community, they attempt to get books banned from libraries, get creationism (or "intelligent design"—creationism in a lab-coat) taught in the schools, get laws passed that intrude into people's private lives, trying to limit what they can read, watch, and listen to, control what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and enforcing their beliefs and moral codes on all others in the society, no matter what their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) might be. In short, they're after secular power. Tip-off phrase:   "This is a Christian country!"

Contrast, for example the agenda ("mission") of The National Council of Churches (left column on their web page), an organization that includes and represents most of the main-line churches in this country, with Christian fundamentalists, a considerably smaller, but highly vocal group, who embrace a combination of Calvinism and Social Darwinism, along with the belief that the folk tales and mythology in the Bible are literally true and that the events described are historical fact.

I fail to see how people who believe that "moral values" consist solely of such things as believing that a woman who becomes pregnant through rape, then terminates the pregnancy with an abortion, should burn in Hell forever after the hell she's already been through; or that two people of the same gender who love each other are also doomed to Hellfire if they express that love; and that it is pleasing in God's eyes to wage war, ignoring its attendant carnage and destruction, to gain natural resources or geopolitical power. Or who believe that poor people should not be assisted because they wouldn't be poor if God didn't want them to be poor, and to help them is to go against God's will. How they can justify calling themselves "Christians" escapes me when what they believe clashes so violently with the actual core teachings of Christ, which can be found in Matthew 5:3-11 and Matthew 25:35-40.

There are many who would consign my soul to Hell for having said all of the above.

Big deal!

Anyway, it's neither fair nor accurate to condemn all Christians because of the ranting, raving, and attempted power-grabbing of a bunch of shriveled, screwed up little souls who would undoubtedly crucify Jesus all over again if he actually did return.

Don Firth

P. S. Here is an excellent article (speech) by a very well-known Baptist:   Clicky.