Yes, Michael, I saw that comment, but frankly, I don’t see letting that kind of thing upset me too much. They will think I am trying to convert them if I say I am a Christian and they will think I am trying to convert them if I say I am not a Christian? How can I win?

Also, it implies that he (whoever “he” is—the commentator never identifies the speaker) will use such a change in label as proof that “it’s all hooey” anyway, and I am proving it by jumping ship, at least in name, and hiding from the disgrace that Christianity really is.

Again, I don’t know how we can win either way. If I say I am a Christian, I am one of those fools following a dead man; if I say I am not a Christian, but still follow the dead man, it just shows that I realize that following the dead man is silly, so I have decided to follow him anyway. Or something.

In short, the person the commenter seems to be speaking of appears to be the type of person who is dead-set against thinking there is anything worthwhile in following Christ—and I waste no time trying to convince such people. Not that I don’t care about them, but until someone is ready to listen, why talk to them?

But back to bait-and-switch. Yes, if I were operating from a modern evangelical, let’s-make-our-church-so-different-people-will-be-so-refreshed-they
can’t-help-but-be-impressed-and-come-to-Christ stance, I could see that happening. Kind of like going door-to-door saying you are conducting “surveys,” only to use that as a way to “witness” to someone. It’s sneaky and dishonest. But I am not at all operating from that standpoint—the beliefs from which I operate are not new and shiny and WOW! They’re the same old beliefs (really old—older than the name Christian). They are the deeper magic, from before the dawn of time. And since I would tell such a person immediately, if asked, what was going on, I don’t see it being an issue.