Thank you for the response. I’m usually taken to task by people who are ‘good’ Christians and may also be ‘good’ white folks and actively diverse (using diverse as a conditional verb.) This is an interesting problem. My preference is to agree with your distinction as a defense against divide and conquer.
You may note that I was addressing the known evil of White Christianity. I once would have made the distinction that all the other folks acting on what they perceive to be the correct ideas religiously attributed to Jesus as a symbolic personage. But, there’s the rub. What is the distinction?
My position is that all, extant religious systems have become dangerous. To separate out the good from the bad, as I noted in the article, historically failed. This was maintained through the late peak of Western Christianity but as the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment provided objective (another evolving word) tools that showed the weakness of Christian theology all that remained was the Golden Rule.
This left only the endless and, increasingly abstract, attempt to find some working definition of god to preserve late Iron Age mythology. It was this that left the ruins of Christianity to be occupied by 19th century bigots, anti-intellectuals, and nationalists producing the American aberration that, unfortunately, reinfected other parts of the planet.
Having already digressed into theological history, the point being that there is little salvageable. And this is the divide and conquer that you describe. In the US this was political demand that Christianity must be the official religion and racist, willful ignorance is the only allowed form of spirituality. So people respond as they think they must, as Christian, although few have any knowledge of anything other than mythology and politics.
There are many of us who are working to distinguish spiritual philosophy as distinct from religion and that has been growing for the last two centuries. This is the strength of Buddhist techniques such as mindfulness and why that is about the only aspect of any traditional religious system that is growing in post modernity.
Again, the point is where do you draw the line. Your point, I think, was to be inclusive of the 99% but I don’t think you can go there with what Christianity has become over the last 150 years and definitely in the last 40. Inclusion and diversity, as we know it, are post modern concepts. Those words and their meaning for the majority of the population are from the universe.