The problem here is that you're still casting too wide a net when you talk about Christianity as a single group at this level. And I think you might be mixing levels -- uh, orders of organization, taxonomic divisions? -- as well.
First there's that "affiliated with a group" thing. Christianity-as-a-global-whole is not really a "group" one becomes affiliated to; rather there are a whole lot of groups -- large, small, distinct, vague, autonomous, comprising subgroups -- to which one may or may not be affiliated. But "Christianity" on that scale is too nebulous and too diverse for "affiliation" to really work well as a concept. "Member of" in the sense of being a member of a species or a member of a generation, yes; "affiliated with", not so much.
Now if you want to narrow it down to Catholics, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Orthodox, Lewis-style "mere" Christians, or one of the many other subclasses, sects, or groups-of-sects, then something like your first paragraph makes a little more sense. But from over where I'm standing, I have absolutely no ... connection in any organizational sense, that would give me any power to "alter the group" that includes, say, Catholics. Or dominionists. Or Branch Davidians. We might "connect" over a cup of decaf coffee in the sense of having a shared vocabulary, mythology, and (some) basic moral axioms, but as far as "altering their group", I'm an outsider. I lack even the ant-like power that any individual member of an organization has, except within my own congregation, my own denomination, my own community, or an interfaith group that one of the groups I'm connected to is a part of. (And in that last case, it'll depend on the nature and purpose of the particular interdenominational group.)
Similarly, what does it mean to "leave" a group so nebulous? I guess I could adopt my own new nomenclature, but when it comes down to it, "Christian" still describes me. I could elect to leave -- disaffiliate myself from -- a particular church, a particular sect, a particular group of people, but as long as I believe what I believe, I'm a Christian regardless of my organizational affiliations or lack thereof.
(We're back to that "member of" in the sense of "member of a species" thing again. I can complain about what "humanity" does (in the same sense of ascribing the actions of large groups to the class as a whole that you've done with Christianity), but it's hard for me to "leave" humanity in any meaningful sense.)
Really, the best I can do is stand up and say, "They're not all like that. We're not all like that. There are other groups of us."
Way back in the earliest days of the Church, when you could actually say "the Church", your statement would have made sense. But that was like 1800 years ago (I could be wrong by 150 years either direction; I'm not as up on church history as I ought to be).
I agree with part of this although you are WAY off with 1800 years ago. The Spanish Inquisition was at the time of Columbus. The Jews were slaughtered wholesale in Spain and Portugal by "The Church." The Church were all Catholics until after Martin Luther, remember? I realize that Protestants don't follow the "Holy Father" and see the Pope as the divine ruler of Christianity, as Catholics do. I think 'Protestant' and 'splinter group' should be synonymous, based on their behavior. However, you have to realize that no matter how much you protest, identifying yourself as Christian lumps you in will all the others in the minds of most of the world, like it or not. Personally, I agonize with you. It is beyond me in a way how you can so strongly identify with a group when a large portion of others who similarly self-identify revile you. I know the depth of your feels, so I understand the difficulty. If it were me (and I've had plenty of similar trouble in this realm) I'd stop using the label and go my own way.... Going my own way is pretty much a hallmark of being me :)
Part 1 of 2
First there's that "affiliated with a group" thing. Christianity-as-a-global-whole is not really a "group" one becomes affiliated to; rather there are a whole lot of groups -- large, small, distinct, vague, autonomous, comprising subgroups -- to which one may or may not be affiliated. But "Christianity" on that scale is too nebulous and too diverse for "affiliation" to really work well as a concept. "Member of" in the sense of being a member of a species or a member of a generation, yes; "affiliated with", not so much.
Now if you want to narrow it down to Catholics, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Orthodox, Lewis-style "mere" Christians, or one of the many other subclasses, sects, or groups-of-sects, then something like your first paragraph makes a little more sense. But from over where I'm standing, I have absolutely no ... connection in any organizational sense, that would give me any power to "alter the group" that includes, say, Catholics. Or dominionists. Or Branch Davidians. We might "connect" over a cup of decaf coffee in the sense of having a shared vocabulary, mythology, and (some) basic moral axioms, but as far as "altering their group", I'm an outsider. I lack even the ant-like power that any individual member of an organization has, except within my own congregation, my own denomination, my own community, or an interfaith group that one of the groups I'm connected to is a part of. (And in that last case, it'll depend on the nature and purpose of the particular interdenominational group.)
Similarly, what does it mean to "leave" a group so nebulous? I guess I could adopt my own new nomenclature, but when it comes down to it, "Christian" still describes me. I could elect to leave -- disaffiliate myself from -- a particular church, a particular sect, a particular group of people, but as long as I believe what I believe, I'm a Christian regardless of my organizational affiliations or lack thereof.
(We're back to that "member of" in the sense of "member of a species" thing again. I can complain about what "humanity" does (in the same sense of ascribing the actions of large groups to the class as a whole that you've done with Christianity), but it's hard for me to "leave" humanity in any meaningful sense.)
Really, the best I can do is stand up and say, "They're not all like that. We're not all like that. There are other groups of us."
Way back in the earliest days of the Church, when you could actually say "the Church", your statement would have made sense. But that was like 1800 years ago (I could be wrong by 150 years either direction; I'm not as up on church history as I ought to be).
(continued...)
Re: Part 1 of 2
I think 'Protestant' and 'splinter group' should be synonymous, based on their behavior. However, you have to realize that no matter how much you protest, identifying yourself as Christian lumps you in will all the others in the minds of most of the world, like it or not. Personally, I agonize with you. It is beyond me in a way how you can so strongly identify with a group when a large portion of others who similarly self-identify revile you. I know the depth of your feels, so I understand the difficulty. If it were me (and I've had plenty of similar trouble in this realm) I'd stop using the label and go my own way....
Going my own way is pretty much a hallmark of being me :)
Re: Part 1 of 2
I was baptized Greek Orthodox, remember? There were Christians who weren't Catholics before Luther.
Longer reply when I'm more awake.