I have got to say, that is one of the more interesting things I have read. I guess this kind of works with what we were discussing, so far as what it means to be a Christian; how one can be a Christian and not adhere to any specific dogma. However, not many Christians seem to possess the open mind that is presented in the referenced article. While you may have some problems with people who are 'on the fence' in their identification as 'agnostic' or 'Christian', I feel that the term presented as 'agnostic Christian' fits a great many people who could otherwise be presumed to be 'religious' Christians. I guess it kind of parallels Buddhism. There are people who identify as Buddhist and go to temple, worship, etc. There are people, too, who identify as Buddhist, but for them it is more of the philosophical identification than of the religion. Philosophical Christians? Naaah...that's not happening...
The differentiating of these different types of Christians let me know who has the open mind, and who is a waste of time
