pokes: Christians vs. Christianists

Christians vs. Christianists

This afternoon I turned to the back page of this week's Time magazine, to the essay by Andrew Sullivan. He hooked me with his first line: "Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right?" Yes, I am. Most vociferously, I am.

Sullivan wrote, "The term 'people of faith' has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone….So Christ is a conservative Republican?"

Then I loved this line: "'My Kingdom is not of this world,' Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?"

Sullivan then suggested that we coin a new word: Christianism. While Christianity is a religious faith, he proposed Christianism as an ideology, echoing the distinction between Muslim and Islamist. "Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force." He described Christianism as "the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda."

I like that. So Tom Delay and Jerry Falwell are Christianists. My own Congressman, I believe, is "merely" a Christian, which is good.

Sullivan said, "I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no polical party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back."

The thing is, Christianists aren't nearly as visible as they were in the 1980s, during the Moral Majority heydey (which also thrust James Dobson and others, quite willingly, into the political limelight). But the Christianists were naïve (and therefore perhaps considerably more pure) back then, novices to politics. They merely wished to stem the cultural slide, not turn us into a theocracy (well, not all of them did, anyway). But today, the Christianists are highly experienced, meticulously organized, thoroughly plugged in to the power centers. They know the strings to pull, the buttons to push to get their all-knowing way. They have become fully intertwined in the political power scene. And I'm sure Jesus is just tickled pink about it.

Now here's the part of Sullivan's piece I disagreed with. He said that some Christians believe God is unknowable to our limited minds, and that religious faith is often "interwoven with doubt." He said many Christians believe we can't know God's view on such things as Terry Schiavo, contraception, the role of women, or "the love of a gay couple." These are the words of someone whose religion doesn't include a whole lot of Bible study, because the Bible does give us considerable direction regarding social issues. Not always, and not always in line with Republican dogma (like, uh, the poor? ever hear of them, noble Republican?), but Christianity for many of us doesn't require an undue amount of uncertainty.

So I disagreed with Sullivan that we don't know how God feels about a lot of things. But most everything else settled well with me. It made for good reading.

Posted on May 9, 2006 10:29 PM| Permalink

Comments

Steve

Do you think by disagreeing with the writer of the Time article, and believing somethings are know-able, that he would include you in the definition of "Christianist" despite your otherwise being in agreement with his thoughts?

Posted by: MIke Dennis | May 10, 2006 08:26 AM

No, he wouldn't. That was a small, and not essential, part of his piece. The more important issue was pursuing a political agenda as if it is God's agenda. But there are probably issues which I would look at as biblical absolutes, but which he would view as value judgments and matters of tolerance.

Posted by: Steve Dennie | May 10, 2006 08:51 AM

Comments

Post a comment