The concept of the “true believer” is a defense mechanism conjured up by Christians to distance themselves from any negative associations with their religion. The crusades, for example are a huge stain on Christianity’s reputation. The Christian defense of the action is that they were not “True believers” or “True Christians” because their actions were in defiance of the religion. So, even though an act was done in the name of religion, it can’t be representative of the religion simply because the act(s) aren’t in accordance with Christian teachings. By making the label Christian one of convenience, they avoid any accountability.
Another way to look at it is from the perspective of an auto manufacturer. In the auto industry, you get something referred to as a lemon. In case you’re not familiar with the term it simply refers to a vehicle that is faulty, or not up to manufacturer specs. For the purpose of this argument, let’s use Ford, just because I like the sound of its name… Ford. It feels good to say. Anyway, let’s assume that Ford decides it will no longer recognize lemons produced by its company as TRUE Ford’s. When you ask: “Why not?” Ford replies, “Anything that does not follow the guidelines and specifications of the Ford Company and does not act like the ideal vehicle cannot be considered a TRUE Ford.” But if it’s manufactured by the Ford Company, bares the Ford logo, looks and feels like a Ford, then how is it not a Ford? Even a faulty Ford is still a Ford. No matter how much the Ford Company would love to distance themselves from faulty products, it doesn’t change the fact that they still exist and are still considered to be Fords. Not even the most fundamentalist Christian in possession of a lemon would consider it to be anything other than a Ford. It’s not like they’d suddenly be pissed at Lexus. That’s because, even they know, that good or bad, it’s still a Ford.
Below are excerpts taken from exchanges I had while addressing this very issue. Notice how each tries to shift the blame away from the religion itself. For the sake of clarity, assume that each action discussed is done in the name of religion since that’s the context they were chosen from and since logic tells us that acts not done in the name of something can’t be representative of that something:
· If a Christian murders, let's say, an abortionist -he violates a commandment. If he commits adultery, he violates another one. The issue is the caliber of a believer's obedience, not the God the Christian is attempting to serve. And failure in that area is always attributable to the human, not God. A believer is only as obedient as he chooses to be. That's on the believer, not on God.
· There are so called Christians that do terrible things and attempt to rationalize then in the name of the God of Love but it is just as legitimate to suggest they only claimed to believe and were outside what Christianity teaches.
Both suggest that acts done in the name of Christianity, but contrary to its teachings aren’t really acts of Christianity. Just because an act doesn’t represent an ideal, doesn’t mean it should automatically be disqualified. Should an act, done under the very real belief that it is endorsed or sanctioned by god, no matter how atrocious, be written off and not associated with the religion it tried to represent? The answer is no.
Take notice of the second excerpt, how that the author suggests some people do bad acts in the name of Christianity by claiming they believe when they really don’t in order to tarnish its reputation. To suggest that Christians only “claim to believe” when acting outside of Christianity’s teachings is a farce and suggests some sort of conspiracy to defile Christianity’s image. By this “reasoning,” the crusades and inquisition weren’t about spreading the faith, but about a plot to soil Christianity’s reputation by doing evil deeds using its name. This is an interesting variant as it stretches well beyond the bounds of reason into the realm of conspiracy theories.
Christians acting on behalf of their religion should be held accountable no matter the outcome. Choosing the good qualities of something doesn’t paint a very accurate picture. If you take this Christian technique and apply it to Hitler, he suddenly seems like a decent human being when you ignore the atrocities and only focus on his good qualities. It’s time for Christians to grow a pair and accept the good with the bad.
