I wouldn’t be a Christian

[Dr H]

I recently heard an atheist asked whether they’d be a Christian if they woke up one day and believed in Jesus, The Bible, and so on. They said yes they would, because a Christian is someone who believes those things to be true.

I’ve always stated I wouldn’t be a Christian, even if I became convinced that it contained truth. But perhaps this is a contradiction. By the above definition I’d be a Christian, but I would call the whole thing morally corrupt, and I’d want no part of it; just as I wouldn’t vote for the Tories, but I still accept they are real.

I expect this comes up so rarely that there’s not even a particular term for it. I’ve heard of maltheism in general, and that’s rare enough, without a belief that a specific religion is true to rebel against.

What would I be called?

The definition of "Christian" is so subjective that even Christians can't agree on it.  Many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians, Catholics disagree.  A bit rarer but still extant are Catholics who consider Protestants non-Christian heretics.  I had an extended argument with an apologist, an evangelical Protestant, who was willing to accept all Catholics and Protestants as Christian, but not Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses; I've spoken with Mormons and JWs who insisted that they are Christians.  And on, and on.

To me, anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ qualifies as a Christian.   A fuzzier area might be those who follow teachings ascribed to Jesus, but don't necessarily insist on his divinity -- I might term those "secular Christians".

Ultimately, in these days of identity politics, I think that what you choose to identify as, is more or less what you are, at least socially speaking.

So make up something cool-sounding.