Time article "My Problem with Christianism"

hairyheretic

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html?promoid=rss_top

A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

Posted Sunday, May 7, 2006
Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They 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. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.

And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.

I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet 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. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?

Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.

What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. 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 political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

Mostly from a US perspective, maybe not as applicable to everyone else.

robindch

Hmm... "christianism" -- a useful word to describe a dangerous thing -- good article!

Puck

robindch wrote:

Hmm... "christianism" -- a useful word to describe a dangerous thing -- good article!

What Robin said.

Scofflaw

Where does that leave atheism and agnosticism? Does it make Dawkins an atheismist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

bmoferrall

Scofflaw wrote:

Does it make Dawkins an atheismist?

An antichrist-ianist

helpfully, BM

staple

First, I strongly disagree with the American right's politics and use of religious rhetoric.

However, this article makes me feel uneasy about my own separation of religion and politics. I think my politics are informed by my religious beliefs but I would never bring religion or faith into a discussion of politics; in political discussion, I assume a secular society. Isn't that hypocritical or at least dishonest?

In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted.

And also give to Caesar that which is Caesar's. But surely Christianity is not just for Sunday, or private prayer. It's not only about your belief but also how you act in this world. If you belief that God created everything, loves everything and speaks to us, then you can't just lay that aside in some situations. It should affect how you drive, how you order coffee, how you manage your staff, how you vote, how you spend your money and free time. We live in a democratic society, so like it or not, you choose to vote or not, and how to vote; you choose to campaign or march for some causes or not. Shouldn't those choices be informed by your Christianity?

I know what atheists are going to say about this, but I'm interested in what Christians think.

johnnysmack

Religion and politics are interwoven. have always been and always will be. from the kings of old to the polticians of today religion is a means to an end. the biggest reason christianity is so widespread today is because when it was in its infancy the romans adopted it as their main religion to avoid any possible uprisings hence the Roman Catholic Church. Religion used for political means.

take the crusades. christianity versus islam. a good excuse to go to war and expand your empire only it worked both ways with islam nearly conquering europe had few things gone differently. as it was they still got as far as central france. its can be quite easily said that the crusades still continue today with the war on terror and in american definition that means the middle east and muslim dominated countries.

another example of religion as political means is the anglican church, it would never have existed if Charles V hadnt more or less control of the papacy forcing Henry in England to declare his own church with him as its head allowing him to divorce. If Charles V did not have control of the papacy then it would probably have granted Henry his divorce as it did for heads of state at the time.

religion and politics. politics abd religion. its inescapable. there will always be some group, be it christians, muslims or whatever god they believe in that use religion to achieve their politic goals.

BrianCalgary

My Christianess pervades everything I do. From the way I do my job, to how I coach soccer. If I was in politics it would influence my view on issues. Just as those who would profess Islam, Hindu, Secular, etc. would have their views affect their positions. It can't be avoided.

I have no problem with any politician standing up a professing a faith, in fact I would love to know where they are coming from. Our current Prime Minister is a professing Christian and makes no bones about it. Our last PM claimed to be a Catholic when it suited him, and therefore was dishonest in his faith and politics.

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

And also give to Caesar that which is Caesar's. But surely Christianity is not just for Sunday, or private prayer. It's not only about your belief but also how you act in this world. If you belief that God created everything, loves everything and speaks to us, then you can't just lay that aside in some situations. It should affect how you drive, how you order coffee, how you manage your staff, how you vote, how you spend your money and free time. We live in a democratic society, so like it or not, you choose to vote or not, and how to vote; you choose to campaign or march for some causes or not. Shouldn't those choices be informed by your Christianity?

I know what atheists are going to say about this, but I'm interested in what Christians think.

What are we going to say?


interested,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Staple, I try to make my political decisions in the light of Jesus' ministry, even to the point of praying about them. On some issues, there is a no-brainer for the Christian- we are at the forefront of advocating fair trade, arms control and debt rationalisation. But it is trickier in the more mundane matters of local politics or Irish tax policy. Here, I think Christians should avoid the Irish temptation to express their faith through moralism.

The Dutch Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper once wrote: “In the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign,does not declare,'That is mine!'” I wholeheartedly agree!

Zombrex

staple wrote:

Shouldn't those choices be informed by your Christianity?

I think people have slightly missed the point of the article.

I don't think the author is saying ignore your Christian morality when it comes to politics. Quite the opposite.

He is saying that the idea of "Christian morality" has been taken over by the fundamentalist Christian Conservatives for their own political ends, and who the author feels do not represent him or his beliefs at all.

So when, as he says, people talk about the "Christian vote" they are not talking about him, when he clearly is Christian and votes. He seems even more annoyed at the media that have gone along with this idea.

The point of the article is that no political group should have a monopoly on deciding what is "Christian" when it comes to politics. It is a personal decision.

As robindch said, good article.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I think people have slightly missed the point of the article.

I don't think the author is saying ignore your Christian morality when it comes to politics. Quite the opposite.

He is saying that the idea of "Christian morality" has been taken over by the fundamentalist Christian Conservatives for their own political ends, and who the author feels do not represent him or his beliefs at all.

So when, as he says, people talk about the "Christian vote" they are not talking about him, when he clearly is Christian and votes. He seems even more annoyed at the media that have gone along with this idea.

The point of the article is that no political group should have a monopoly on deciding what is "Christian" when it comes to politics. It is a personal decision.

As robindch said, good article.

Excellent summation wicknoght. I would add though that the way American marketing works they try very hard to segment every aspect of the population and hone their message to be directed at that particular segment. We like to say they are putting us all in a box. A few elections ago some whiz kid came up with the voting segment of 'soccer moms' and how the soccer moms could turn the tide of an election, this was making an assumption that all soccer moms thought the same and had the same view. At the moment the big segment is the Christian right. The media lumps all Christians together, the marketing and political gurus do as well.

Two elections ago in Canada I found out that I was a redneck Albertan who regularly beat my wife and kids, I went to church, hated gays and wanted nothing better than to keep women in th ekitchen and deny them their rights.

This past election I found out that I was all for having the army in the streets shooting anyone who broke curfew.

Both ideas coming from opponents of the Alliance Part of Canada, which merged to become th econservative party.

staple

johnnysmack wrote:

Religion and politics are interwoven. have always been and always will be. from the kings of old to the polticians of today religion is a means to an end. the biggest reason christianity is so widespread today is because when it was in its infancy the romans adopted it as their main religion to avoid any possible uprisings hence the Roman Catholic Church. Religion used for political means.

take the crusades. christianity versus islam. a good excuse to go to war and expand your empire only it worked both ways with islam nearly conquering europe had few things gone differently. as it was they still got as far as central france. its can be quite easily said that the crusades still continue today with the war on terror and in american definition that means the middle east and muslim dominated countries.

another example of religion as political means is the anglican church, it would never have existed if Charles V hadnt more or less control of the papacy forcing Henry in England to declare his own church with him as its head allowing him to divorce. If Charles V did not have control of the papacy then it would probably have granted Henry his divorce as it did for heads of state at the time.

religion and politics. politics abd religion. its inescapable. there will always be some group, be it christians, muslims or whatever god they believe in that use religion to achieve their politic goals.

Religion is indeed a means to an end, but not a political end.
The events mentioned do not require the cynical explanations offered above.
The Church of England has more substantial differences with Rome than the King's Great Matter.
Crusaders were motivated by a desire to liberate the Holy Land from the infidel (as they saw it)
Romans had better ways of putting down revolt than converting wholesale to that religion (eg massacre).

On the topic of expression of religion and politics, Excelsior and Brian Calgary have suggested what I thought was a problem really isn't: it's okay for politicians to express religious convictions, but not opportunistically. But how do we know the American right are doing this opportunistically? Surely this article calls for expression of religious conviction to be kept out of politics entirely. If you make a decision based on Christian morality, but can't talk about it, attribute it to something else, then that's dishonest.

I understand no group (esp. Bush et al) should have a monopoly on the word Christian, but the solution that we should all pretend not to be Christian is unsatisfactory.

Scofflaw

staple wrote:

I understand no group (esp. Bush et al) should have a monopoly on the word Christian, but the solution that we should all pretend not to be Christian is unsatisfactory.

Is the solution not to recapture the word "Christian" from the relatively small group that have hijacked it as a banner for a conservative agenda?

By the way, you never did tell me what atheists were going to say about this question...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

staple wrote:

Surely this article calls for expression of religious conviction to be kept out of politics entirely.

Not at all, at least the way I read it.

This article is pointing out that the idea of the "Christian" vote ingores the views of a large proportion of American Christians, and focuses on the views of a smaller, more conservative and fundamentalist sub-section of American Christians. The christian demographic has come to mean the conservative christian fundamentalist demographic, and they aren't the same thing.

Its pointing out that the views of a lot of Christians generally are not represented by the far right Christian conservatives. More to the point, it points out that the views of Christians in general cannot be represented by one single group as they are too wide a demographic.

I don't think anyone, including the author, is saying that the far right Christian conservatives shouldn't express their religion through politics.

But they, and the rest of the American media, should realise that they are just a small sub-set of Christians. They do not speak for all Christians in America.

robindch

> a small sub-set of Christians

Ah, but a noisy and aggressive bunch all the same. A longer and much more specific article on christianism (though not referring to it as such) is available here:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2006/05/12/goldberg/index_np.html

(or at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13017.htm, if you've no subscription to Salon).