I am definitely what is known as an evangelical Christian. Rather fundamentalist, too. But I long ago rejected the proselytization that too often typifies other evangelical, fundamentalist Christians as basically futile.

While I have no problem educating someone about the truth, I'm very careful with what I do and do not contest. If you stated, for instance, that the bible said that God was a pink blob of goo that would descend on the earth in 2006 and devour the population, I'd have to contest that, not on the basis of your faith, but on the basis that this particular theology was endorsed by the Bible. Disputing opinions presented as fact is one thing, disputing personal theology is quite another entirely.

The truth is, even within the context of those who accept the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God, there still are a LOT of different interpretations. My belief is that none of these interpretations is wholly right (but I must note that few are  wholly wrong in my opinion as well), but that the confusion comes about because we interject our own prejudices into our reading of scripture.

Let's use a novel for comparison. Unless the writer explicitly describes a character's physical characteristics, you make a mental picture based on those prejudices. If you were asked to draw a picture of a particular character, your picture would be based on those preferences. Similarly, motivations for characters are often based on what would motivate YOU in those particular circumstances, to act as they did (or, in the case of a villain, what you perceive would motivate others). There are many factors that shape this opinion, life experience being one of the countless variables.

The contemporary image of Jesus, for instance, is usually one of a kindly hippy because we WANT Jesus to be a kindly hippy. Yet would such a kindly hippy act so violently in the face of the money changers and frighten the local government so much that they sent a large number of soldiers to arrest Jesus? A more likely image of Jesus would be a fairly homely man with an intimidating physical presence. And yet, many doctrines are based on the more usual presentation of Jesus' physical appearance.

But while that's what I hold true, and what I would submit as food for thought, it's not important enough to build a doctrine around. Frankly, I believe that if God WANTED us to know exactly what Jesus looked like, He would be more than capable of doing so. The fact that He did not tells me that it's not as important as we make it.

The heated debates about whether gifts are for today or not, or about the literal or figurative interpretation of this or that verse, drive people AWAY from Christianity, because of the obvious: if WE can't form any sort of agreement, what business do we have teaching THEM?

And so I submit that, while it is important to educate people as to the basis for our faiths, it is useless, and even damaging to our witnesses as Christians to argue them vehemently with other Christians. What matters more to anyone who is even REMOTELY evangelical: the manner in which someone was saved, or the fact that they were?