Christianism
By Callimachus | Related entries in Ideas, ReligionAndrew Sullivan pumps a new word for the old language. And unlike a lot of neologisms, I think this one is not just helpful, it’s necessary:
People who believe in the Gospels of Jesus Christ are Christians. People who use the Gospels of Jesus Christ for political gain, and for a political program of right or left, are Christianists. And Christianism, like many “isms”, is an ideology that will corrupt faith and poison politics. It has already done both, under the auspices of this president and his acolytes. It is long past time that real Christians took their faith back from these political charlatans. One first step is to deny them the name that they have so artfully coopted. It starts with language. It always does.
We usefully distinguish “Judaism” from “Zionism.” We try to draw a line between “Islam” and “Islamism,” though I’m not convinced there is one. And we awkwardly distinguish “Hinduism” from “Hindu nationalism” (as though all Hindus were Indians and all Indians were Hindus). You don’t have to be a Christian (as I am not) to resent the debasing of the language in having a word with a broad and necessary definition hijacked into a narrow political ideology. And since “both sides” are engaged in this linguistic legerdemain, the correction is politically neutral.
Classical Values picks up the riff:
The word “Christian” has more and more become a mainstream media (and Christian political conservative) synonym for a highly politicized version of fundamentalist Christianity. Who gave the left and the right such a monopoly to use that once neutral word?
And adds the necessary disclaimer:
It has to be remembered that even the “Christianists” Sullivan condemns don’t blow themselves up, they don’t throw homos off buildings, they don’t issue fatwas against cartoonists, or beat women, or stone people, or chop off hands and feet. Instead, more than anything else, people like Robertson and Falwell specialize in being annoying, making pretentious claims to political influence beyond what they have, and above all making money at it.
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 9th, 2006 and is filed under Ideas, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
I think one thing that makes it difficult for us non-fundamentalist/Republican foot soldier Christians to take our religion back is that, to do so, we have to confront these Christianists not just in the realm of our faith but in the realm of politics. A lot of us are very uncomfortable with mingling our faith with our politics–and for good reason. Politics corrupts faith.
Nevertheless, I think it’s incumbant on all non-Christianist Christians to make clear that there is a distinction between people like Pat Robertson and the rest of the religion. But it’s not just up to practicing Christians. It’s up to everyone who has the sense to understand that Focus on the Family does not speak for the Christian faith. Too often people will make anti-Christian statements when they mean to make anti-Christianist statements.
This new word is an extremely helpful linguistical tool in making a distinction that absolutely must be made. I sure hope it catches on.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Quoted from Classical Values:
As I (and Andrew Sullivan) have noted in the past, the closest thing to the Islamic supremacist outlook that Christianity has to offer is Christian Reconstructionism. They are a fringe movement even by Christianist standards, but their outlook tends to get projected onto all Christianists and even all Christians. So, Christianity actually has three ideological categories to be separated instead of just two.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
This is a great name – have to remember to use it!
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:43 am
Great terminology. And long overdue.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:04 am
[...] Some people like to point to the rise of the Christian Right (better referred to as Christianists) and of false-issues like the “war on Christmas� as proof that we are living in a time of impending theocracy. But that’s just not the case. The Christian Right and their issues (real and invented) are a reaction to the realization that what we are living in is a time of impending hyper-secularism. And while I and many others (possibly Newt himself) regularly and even deeply disagree with the means and rhetoric of the Christianists, we are not particularly pleased with efforts of groups like the ACLU to wipe America clean of public displays of religion. [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I just discovered the word “Christianist” today, and think it is very useful.