All one can say is that the "historian" of this article is biased, clearly shown by his sarcastic comments. True historians don't lead the reader to make a conclusion, but present the facts.
Good historians don't. But history is filled with people who have used histories for didactic purposes. Sometimes, quite evil purposes, and sometimes with the best of intentions.
As far as I'm concerned, the best public examples of living the Gospel fully are:
+ Francis of Assisi.
+ Benedict
Blessed Mother Teresa
But there are huge numbers of others.
IMHO the Gospel isn't philosophical reasoning. It's the good news that Christ came and died and arose to save us. It's living as Christlike as possible, for love of Him. It's shaping one's life as closely as possible to the teaching of the Sermon on the Plain and the Sermon on the Mount.
The people I've seen who do it best were shaped by the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions. But I have seen holy people (defined by me as people who truly and deeply love Jesus and strive hard to live the Gospel) come from other branches as well.
They are all marked not so much by their philosophical fine points, but by the depths and fire of their love for Christ, and their attempts to live his message as fully as they have been taught.
A whole lot of the theologians haven't done so well by this standard...and a whole lot of didactic historians fail the test all together!
BTTT! Great point.