In 1568, a young Anabaptist named Dirk Willem escaped from prison. He had been imprisoned for being an "anabaptist". He was a member of a sixteenth century movement which held that the Baptism given in the official, state-sponsored church was invalid, and that in order to receive salvation one must be re-baptised. When he escaped, he was pursued by a prison guard. When the guard pursued him onto a frozen lake, the guard fell through the ice.
Dirk had a choice. The authorities (ordered by the very Catholic ruler of the Netherlands) were executing Anabaptists left and right. To go back and rescue the guard would mean certain capture and probably certain death. On the other hand, Anabaptists held to a strict Bible-inspired moral code, which included pacifism and called him to "love his enemies." Dirk lived up to his code, turned around, saved the guard's life, and allowed himself to be arrested.
In 1569, Dirk Willem was burned to death in the name of Christ for being baptised into the name of Christ. His good deed had bought him an early death. [i]
Which raises a question: who was the "True Christian" in this scenario? Was it the prison guard, acting in support of authority? Or was it Dirk Willem, doing what he thought the Bible told him to do? Or, perhaps, the panel of judges who condemned Dirk to death were the real Christians in this case. Think about this for a second -- who were the real Christians? I think most sensible people will agree that the real Christian in this case was Dirk Willems.
Others will ask why Dirk should be included, but his persecuters should not. The simple answer is that Dirk acted like he was following the teachings of Christ -- and his persecuters did not. So, Dirk is a Christian and his pursuers are not. Not everyone who says "Jesus" is a Christian. In fact, Jesus said as much:
Matthew 7:21
The point of the above is so important that I want to state it explicitly. Pardon me if I am being pedantic. Not everyone who claims or has claimed to be a "Christian" is one. If the definition of "Christian" is broadened to that degree, then the term becomes meaningless and must be replaced with one less broad. To sharpen the point, within my definition I do not have to (and will not) acknowledge Adolf Hitler as a Christian just because he was baptised as an infant and went to the state-sponsored church every now and then for a social function.
From time to time, I debate with people regarding the truth of Christianity. And, often, they dispute Christianity with a littany of horrible things that "Christians" have done. Typically, they reel off items such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Salem Witch Trials and expect me, somehow, to defend them. Obviously, I cannot, and I will not try. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Which leaves me with one reply: "that's not what Christianity is all about. I don't believe in burning witches, Jews, or anyone else. And I don't believe that anyone who does is following Jesus."
If my correspondent has had some training in logic -- or, more likely, has been reading the logic papers at infidels.org -- he responds by telling me that I am engaged in a "No True Scotsman" (NTS) Fallacy. Too often, he thinks that, by somehow attaching a "fallacy" label to my argument, he has proven me wrong. The conversation then degenerates into an endless debate on the topic of informal fallacies, how an argument can exhibit an informal fallacy and still be strong, how my argument does not in fact represent the fallacy claimed, and so forth. It's about as exciting as it sounds, and I try to avoid it.
The NTS fallacy, as defined by the Secular Web (it's not discussed in any of the four texts on logic I consulted, including one specifically devoted to fallacies) goes as follows:
However, it does not actually apply in many cases where it is alleged. The key phrase in the definition quoted above is "ad hoc change." That is, the definition is being changed in mid-stream. Since I have always maintained that not all who claim to be Christians are "True Christians" it is not an NTS fallacy for me to continue to say that some who claim Christ are not Christians. In fact, it is just common sense.
Insofar as anyone tries to hold me accountable to any other definition, he is engaged in a straw man fallacy -- that is, arguing against a position I do not really hold. The straw man is always popular. However, what may be most popular in this kind of argument is a new and relatively untried fallacy -- the "fallacious claim of fallacy" fallacy. But that's another paper.
On a final note, I would like to make an observation. It seems to me that the basis of many people's objection to Christianity is that many "Christians" don't act very Christian. For those in that position, it might be enlightening to examine the principles of Christianity rather than the misdeeds of its practitioners.
[ii]http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html. May 11, 2001.