Proposed solution to the real Christians v. Falwellian Christians problem

[Sapphocrat]

Every time a discussion arises in which someone rips into the sort of "Christian" who is in reality is a radical, fundamentalist, hate-filled jerk who wouldn't recognize Jesus if their Personal Savior himself showed up for the sole purpose of delivering a hard whack on the side of the head, more than a few Christian DUers get very upset by the perception that they are being lumped into the same category as the Falwells, Robertsons, Moores, Phelpses, and every other freak of nature who has perverted the real Christian message into something very warped and evil indeed.

And, frankly -- although I do think some folks have a bit of a hair trigger -- I don't generally blame them.

Now, most of us pretty much agree that there are real Christians, and then there are Falwellians. Me, I don't have to be a Christian of any stripe to recognize and respect a Christian who is not the western equivalent of OBL. I also don't need to be clubbed over the head every single time the issue arises that some "Christians" are bad guys, while the Christians around here are desperate to distance themselves from the jerks who seem to strive to give Christianity a bad name (which is perfectly understandable -- I'd want to put as much distance between them and me as possible too).

It also gets tiresome to see threads branch off into the same old argument ("Not ALL Christians are like that!") -- even though I'm extremely sympathetic to the Christians who feel compelled to make that distinction.

So I've been tossing around ideas for a shorthand means to denote a radical, fundamentalist, evangelical, hard-right-wing, intolerant, gay-hating, liberal-bashing, self-proclaimed "Christian" of the Falwell variety, who resembles a "real" Christian about as much as Cindy Crawford resembles Donald Duck. Something that would make everybody happy -- or at least less testy.

A lot of (real) Christians don't like the shorthand "fundy" because they themselves actually are fundamentalists. And a lot of the rest of us consider it pointless and a waste of time to type out a lengthy description of the in-name-only "Christian" to which we are be referring (and which should seem obvious in context, but apparently isn't).

How about CINO -- Christian In Name Only?

It's short, it's easy to remember, and it makes a clear distinction between the good guys who really, truly try to emulate Jesus Christ, and the wack jobs we all really do wish would secede from the Union.

(I rather like "Falwellian" too, but CINO is short and crisp.)

Comments?

[Supormom]

1. I like Falwellian myself.

Although, CINO is good too.

[DenverDem]

2. Perfect acronym due to the other "INO" uses.

I'm in.

My long form pick is: fundigelicals.

[wryter2000]

3. Whatever you decide

I'm for it. I tried using Xtian to distinguish between CINO/Falwellians and Christians, but that got me in trouble.

I sincerely hope that the real Christians here are spending as much energy on defeating the pseudo-Christians as they are at complaining that we lump all Christians together. I waited for years for Christians to speak up and finally gave up and got a "Jesus is a liberal" bumpersticker even though I'm an admirer and not a believer.

[candy331]

5. This Christian thing has gotten old

anyway. Why spend a lifetime trying to impress another imperfect creature who in the end doesn't have the final say anyway? I think all will have to wait till the one who has the real say speaks and I think he has spoken to a lot but they just closed their ears to the message. Right now as far as Christians are concerned "I take mine rare."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Alas, we aren't as colorful as the CINOs, so

we are ignored. Case in point, a protest by liberal religious groups at the Minnesota state capitol against prisoner abuse.

It's on the inside back page of the B section of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

[Warpy]

4. CINO works for me

I suppose I'll start using it now.

What's really needed is for the mainstream churches to stop dropping the damn ball and take these hateful, nasty, narrow, joyless SOBs on and call them for what they really are, followers of Antichrist.

If there's an Antichrist, you can bet is isn't just one person. It exists in every nasty bigot who uses the OT and Paul to justify things like intolerance, greed, torture, oppression, and every other horrible curse on humanity that these right wing thieves of Christ's name profess as their dogma.

Mainstream churches need to reclaim Christ. The longer they pussyfoot around trying not to offend Rethuglicans, the less relevant to anyone they will become.

[msmcghee]

6. As you all know, I find these threads very interesting.

There's so many ways to look at the Christian problem. So here are a few observations.

I like chino (pronounced cheeno, like the pants) just because it makes a better meme - easy to say and remember. Dino is like short for dinosaur, rino is short for rhinoceros, etc. Not too important, but anyway . .

I think a reason why the liberal Christians do not make much effort to distance themselves from the chinos is because then they'd essentially be doing just what the chinos are doing, that is, claiming that their interpretation of scripture is the right one and the chino's is wrong. And who's to say - other than the big guy Himself, as someone pointed out above.

It's a dilemma. Once you accept the idea that truth and answers come from some book that was written by other people in some ancient set of cultures, then who's to judge between different interpretations of those stories.

I believe liberal Christians naturally want to see some flexibility in the interpretation of the bible. They would rather emphasize the qualities of a Christian worldview that would be exemplified by the beatitudes - than follow literal interpretations of the Old Testament. I have come to the conclusion that the beatitudes express a profoundly liberal worldview and I like 'em - even though I'm an atheist. But that's a soft message - not easily delivered in a fire and brimstone package.

I think a similar dilemma is faced by liberals in general today. The RW has purposely radicalized politics and made it very partisan. In order to compete for the votes of the "sheeple in the middle" liberals are being forced to yell louder and deliver their message in a more forceful way. But that's the opposite of what liberal politics is supposed to be - you know, respect for all opinions, reasoned debate, etc.

Now the good Christians are being forced into a role of being loud, dogmatic and inflexible in order to hold their own in the field of Christian worldview.

And I can't help but believe this is all quite well thought out and executed by our opponents. I'm sure Jerry Fallwell and Karl Rove are both quite aware of how this works to their advantage. And that's why in history, cultural Reformations typically only die out and things return to normal after so many humans have suffered and died that the world exhausts it's fervor for violence.

I hope that's not what we're in for - but the signs are not good. I can't imagine the neo-cons quietly taking their marbles home and shrinking from sight after their defeat come November.