This is a fine analysis apart from one oversimplification, I think: Christians aren’t all the same after their Romanization or their gross compromises with secular authorities. There are all kinds of Christians today thanks to the schism, the reformation, and the splintering of Protestantism. Even through the religion’s history there was the split between the official theology of the churches and the underground heresies, some of which carried on more authentic spiritual or existential (Gnostic or perennial) teachings.
In fact, in any large organization that addresses philosophical matters, there’s usually a division between the members with only exoteric, surface understanding, and those with esoteric, more subversive insights into what the organization is about.
I think the basis of your distinction is that the Christians that are typically in the spotlight are the most vocal, obnoxious, compromised, evangelical ones. That inspires my many anti-Christian diatribes too.