Christianism, one believer's problem with it

This is from Time magazine. I really enjoyed the tone and content:

 

Good article. I don't agree with everything he said, but I do agree with nearly all of it. Good find, Harry. Thanks for posting it.

"Christianist". I like that. I may use it in the future.

 

I know its politically charged, but at the heart of it is my problem with religion these days - it really isn't with religion, it's with political co-opting, by politician or terrorist.

 

christians give christianity a bad name. but, the upshot is we aren't blowing people up to get some nookie with 40 virgins on the alter of allah.

 

I would actually hope you wouldn't. I think Sullivan is simply proposing a handy pejorative label to use in dismissing those whose faith leads them to political conclusions he disagrees with. I'm with you in my distaste for Falwell- and Robertson-esque political machinations in the name of Christ, but the application of a custom-made label sounds like a form of McCarthyism. Like "Reds" in the 50s, no doubt there are some folks about who've earned the label, but I would expect application with a broad brush from activists and writers who share Sullivan's perspective.

There are plenty of folks, for instance, whose conservative political views are informed by their Christian faith, but who still "have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices."

Besides, there already are self-applied labels for folks who want to see religious law "imposed" on the whole society. To learn more, try googling "Christian Reconstructionists" or "Theonomists".

 

Wow, I'm impressed! Seriously. Good call.

Or, if you have a few spare bucks laying around, get The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony. It's downright scarifying.

 

Thanks, ecilam. My broader point would be that it's important to engage and debate our opponents ideas, rather than just applying shorthand labels to them. It's too easy to dismiss everything an opponent may say because we disagree with one facet of his political life. For instance, while I'm no fan of Rushdoony and other theonomist authors myself, there are people I respect who lean that way. But it's the mutual respect that allows us to engage each other constructively in those areas of disagreement.

This is, I think, what Andrew Sullivan professes to want from those on the "Christian right" toward folks like himself (though I think he also conflates "respect" with "agreement"). But he seems unwilling to extend the same respect the other way. The term "Christianist" applied from his side is no better than Coulter's "godless" or Limbaugh's "party of death" coming from the right.

 

Very interesting post Fan. It's not the terminology I care about - it's this passage:

You can subsititute any political group for Republican, that just is the group du jour.

I think faith and spirituality are very personal issues and should remain so. To see it used this way turns my stomach.

 

I think part of the problem is the old log in your own eye issue. It's easier to feel religious examining someone else's theology for inconsistencies and shortfallings than examining your own. People feel better crusading against someone who is different than themselves rather than asking how that "other" person may inform their own theology or moral thinking.

It's easier, though lazy and wrong, to crusade rather than critically self-reflect.

Edit: I would add: My interpretation of Christianity centers around self-sacrifice for others. I think many prefer to focus on 'crusading against the heretics' rather than sacrificing of self and possessions for neighbors (both here and abroad). It is one of the most critical theological challenges to the Church in the U.S., IMHO.

 

There is no reason christians should not be involved in political life in a democratic nation. I would say that christian have a duty to stand up for what they believe in.