Christian vs Christianist

[mondo joe]

Andrew Sullivan has suggested - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html - a new word:

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.

Sullivan - always more a provocateur than an original thinker - was beat to the bunch blogger Tristero by some years - http://tristero.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_tristero_archive.html#200373904 - with the following:

In an analogy to Islamism, I would propose the term "Christianism" to describe a political ideology inspired by Christianity that advocates the replacement of a secular government with one that is profoundly informed by a self-styled "literal" interpretation of the Bible. By this definition, Rudolph is perhaps best described as a radical "Christianist," a man inspired by Christianity to effect social change through violence.

"Christianism" is without a doubt an ugly neologism. However, it is a mistake to describe as "Christian" people and groups like Robertson, Falwell, Christian Identity, and those who are even more radical in their mission to transform the US into an explicitly fundamentalist "christian" state. This confuses Christianity, a religious belief, with a purely secular agenda. Furtheremore, it is highly misleading to ignore the hijacking of Christianity and its symbols by the Rudolphs of the world simply by repressing any reference to their Christian inspirations and calling them "anti-abortion terrorists" or some similar name.


In the face of all the repeated charges that DU is somehow anti Christian, and worse the calls for DU posters to make theological distinctions of who is a "real" Christian, I suggest the use of CHRISTIANIST to describe these villains.

[blondeatlast]

1. Makes a nice distinction. I'll try to remember this. K&R. nt

[Norrin Radd]

2. How about

we call Christians, "Christians," and the religious wrong, "Assholes?"

[mondo joe]

3. I'd prefer not to engage in theological questions of who is or isn't a Christian,

personally. I'd rather leave that to their Jesus.

But whether one is a ChristianIST or not is another question.

[PATRICK]

19. One senses

in the time of the Gospel writers there was an attempt, a vain one in some ways, to divest CINO's of legitimacy by the simple method of practice(social Christian virtues) what is preached. Excommunication was used in in Paul's theory to exclude bad practicing Christians, not doctrinal nuts or deviants. That window of definition closed once the Empire adopted Christianity and the people network got swallowed up beyond close community and idealism. Going beyond the borders of Empire to continue evangelization was continued by a heroic few and the supporting network became the Empire's army and governance.

Yet, in the bedrock Gospels throwing forth the clearest statements of the Founder and in the epistles and early church, an attempt was made to get at the living of the faith and its social consequences as opposed to merely claiming the name of a believer. The paradox in those sincere times was that faith was also up against a pagan culture and majority and getting converts in itself became a self-defeating concern for the human institution of wheat and weeds.

The easy thing now is that the nutjobs, the vengeful non-practitioners of the Beatitudes, have emptied the name of most meaning while gaining power OVER the majority, especially the poor. They have self-isolated themselves into a pinched burnout elitist tyranny, same old same old, protected only by the illusion of media presentation and fraudulent power. meanwhile, the usual, strong, enduring, other Christian minority is doing the right, just and compassionate stuff while the institution muddles humanely, weakly enough through the comfortable homogenization of the bloated pew masses. Whether the evangelicals support Bush or not, and the better Christians among them don't, they are socially exposed and with less life expectancy or endurance than the Gnostics, the Savonarola supporters or any other fanciful enthusiasts adapting real Christianity for contradictory ends. Truth and compassion and works of justice are among the only actual definitions of Christians. Then you can quibble about theological credos if you can spare the time.

[pocoloco]

10. Works for me!

or maybe "piss ignorant assholes"

[dmallind]

4. More thinly veiled no true Scotsmanism

So believers can distance themselves from the horrible acts done in their name by their coreligionists.

No thanks. They don't need any help in selective and retroactive dechristianizing of bad guys from me. Rudolph is a Christian. McVeigh was a Christian. Nichols is a Christian. Hill is a Christian. Furrow is a Christian. No new words so the supposedly majority, but strangely powerless, "kind and gentle" Christians can get themselves even further off the hook! They get fawning and excuses enough from the media when one of their number starts spraying bullets or planting bombs, and are in absolutely no danger of being oppressed or the victim of hate crimes. With this in mind, we should not extend them even the (very little in my mind) cover appropriate for moderate Muslims.

[mondo joe]

5. I think there is a distinction.

Sure, Rudolph is a Christian. He is also a Christianist.

The second is a subset of the first group. That's rather what I like about it.

[dmallind]

7. But it would never be accepted as such

Even if the term did gain some wide currency - and I've seen uses of it a few times before this piece - all it would do is further allow "true" Christians to hide their heads in the sand and be even less pressured (hard though that is to imagine) to confront the nastiness that can come from fundamentalism within their faith. If the word gets widely used I give it five minutes before some smug self-righteous type with a cross avatar says about the next loony clinic bomber "well he's not REALLY a Christian - he's a Christianist and there's a difference". The nigh-universal copout is already the first part of that quote - why make it even easier for them by ceding the second in advance?

[LanternWaste]

12. Because God forbid (no pun intended)...

Because God forbid (no pun intended) I try to distance myself, my actions or my church from Timothy McVeigh. 'Cause that's all I want as a Christian-- to get "even further off the hook...." while tricking you into thinking I'm kind, gentle and powerless (when everyone knows that because I'm a Christian, I'm actually mean, aggressive, and very powerful).

You've found me out. :eyes:

[dmallind]

15. Yes I have

Because you're actually doing that very thing under a guise of rather poor sarcasm. You, collectively, are powerful enough to influence everything that happens in this country. From our vacation schedules to our laws to our tax codes to our shopping habits to vast swathes of the language itself, Christianity has more influence than anything else by a mile. Christianity elects presidents through soil administrators. It shapes our media and our culture. And yet, depite the majority of you supposedly being the kind and gentle kind, this great Christian influence continues to do almost nothing bar a few bleating letters to the editor once every six months to stand up to the hate and bigotry and incitement that comes from its foulest members.

You said it yourself in jest - you want to distance yourself from McVeigh and Nichols. Why did Christianity en masse wait until after they blew up the buildings to do that though? And even then why was the distancing not in the form of outing and reporting to the authorities all of his extreme brethren and the groups that spawn them, and denouncing any preacher who says that your god wants vengeance on us all for living in sin, but in falling over yourselves to call the individuals "not true Christians" to shift the blame? Why is the distancing only protective and reactive not cleansing and proactive. Why isn't every sane and good Christian in the land loudly denouncing at every opportunity the ones who would turn a supposed god of peace and love into one of death and destruction? If I were a "kind and gentle" believer that would be a far greater source of blasphemy and anti-Christianism than anything an atheist could do. All we atheists do is deny there is a god. The Falwells and Robertsons and all their backwoods Baptist, charismatic and whatever else ilk in thousands upon thousands of megachurches and clapboard shacks across the country are not just denying god, they are portraying your loving and benevolent deity as a vicious badtempered hateful genocidal madman.

EVERY single gullible old woman who sends their dollars to such amoral shysters should be bombarded daily by countless of the "kind and gentle" majority Christians showing her that these frothing acolytes do not preach Christianity. Every advertiser and sponsor should lose every dollar of the "true" Christian market who supposedly wants to "distance themselves" from such hate (that is if they really cared to do so until the bombs start going off). Every TV station that gives such monsters an outlet should lose every "true Christian" viewer. Every "church" that spews such bile should be the subject of reports to the IRS and whatever denominational authorities apply and public walkouts and objections from every single "true Christian" who mistakenly wanders in expecting messages of love and peace and tolerance. If you REALLY wanted to distance yourselves (before the bombs go off) that's what would happen.

Instead what do we see? Nothing but a few insipid posts or LTTEs about "they don't speak for me". Synods that spend more time worrying about who their ministers can sleep with than the ones who turn God into a frothing murderous savage, and countless millions of dollars from people who would be just as quick as you to claim "true Christian" status AND to distance themselves from the supposed "Christianists" (but only after the bombs go off) to prop up these nefarious churches.

When we start seeing Liberty and Bob Jones close because no real "true Christian" will go there; when we start to see viewership for the 700 club decline to that for Atheist Talk because no "true Christian" will watch it; when we start to see every gay-bashing, woman-bashing fire and brimstone slaughter the sinners preacher either hauled before their governing body, or the IRS, or simply left jobless because all these majority "kind and gentle" Christians make it known vigorously that they object to such slander of the almighty, then, and only then, will your "distancing" be anything other than a shallow attempt to pretend that you're not in the same club. Just start doing it BEFORE the bombs go off will you?

[LanternWaste]

17. I guess just consider me one of the enemy then...

I guess just consider me one of the enemy then, define me as monolithically as it suits you, and judge me based on the actions of others.

For my part, I simply take people as individuals; regardless of what political affiliation they are, church they belong to (or don't belong to), or club they're a member of. But then, that's just me.

[dmallind]

20. Nice philosophy. Doesn't work, but nice.

Unfortunately many individuals who may be pleasant or good or decent have a nasty habit of being part of groups or organizations which are harmful, and thereby giving those organizations power they otherwise would not have. You are personalizing this too much. Trust me I'm not railing at the top of my voice about all the evil LanternWaste has wrought upon the earth, but I'm not going to stop doing that railing about organized religions holding political and social power just because LanternWaste belongs to one of them either. Are you sure you always take people as individuals? What about Republicans, CEOs of major corporations, defense contractors and so on? Aren't they organizations or groups which are harmful while individual members can still be decent and good folk? Should we not point out the aggregate harm because we fear ruffling the individual feathers? Christianity should bear far more onus than any of these, not only because of its unparalleled power and influence but because it alone exists to separate the world into good/saved (Christian) and bad/unsaved (everyone else). All the apologetics for universal salvation and liberation theology mental gymnastics in the world can't change the overarching message of the gospels, which make that abundantly clear. Not even Republicans are that black and white (albeit coming closer all the while - but then I rail against them too).

[mudesi]

6. Unfortunately, religion creates groupthink

By attacking one, you attack all. That is what organized religion does to the psyche of one who has been conditioned by its emotionally manipulative brainwashing. You can't criticize one who identifies him/herself as "Christian" without offending the rest who also call themselves "Christian". (This holds true for "Muslim", "Jewish", or any other religious indoctrination). For Star Trek fans - It's the Borg.

I doubt that Mr. Sullivan's suggestion will do much to change that.

[bryant69]

8. Dominionist works well too

I will say to clarify that taking on Christinists or Dominionists is the work of DU and anybody who loves freedom. As a Christian those people scare me and should scare all of us.

That said, your solution won't actually work, because some DUers really are anti Christian, not just Anti Christianist.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dmallind]

13. If that's aimed at me

I AM anti-Christian hegemony and anti-Christian victimhood-whining and anti-Christian denial and anti-Christian fecklessness in confronting the hatred coming from their ranks.

You can be Christian all you want and rely on me never to object or support anything that stops you being so. You can believe and pray and worship however you like and I will vigorously defend your right to do that. But when Christians, with a 100% lock on all political and social power and influence in the country, try to force their dogma on the rest of us, or pretend to be victims, or start defining anybody in their ranks who does anything vicious or bigoted or evil in the name of their faith as anything else other than a Christian EVERY time it happens rather than proactively denounce the hatemongering before it causes such outrages, then yeah, I'm anti-that.

[bryant69]

14. I wrote it before i read your posts, but yes, it certainly fits.

You want to be able to piss on Christianity without Christians being able to defend themselves.

That said, when it comes to Dominionists or Creationists trying to legislate religion I assume we will be on the same side.

Bryant

[dmallind]

16. Where

Where is the pissing and denial of defense? Surely this is not Christain victimhood again?

Where have I pissed on Christains who leave the rest of us alone and stand up against their bigoted coreligionists? Don't Christians who do neither deserve pissing on? Why not? I've got a feeling that with 83% of the peolpe and 100% of the political and social influence, they can defend themselves just fine whether I like it or not. Personally I quite enjoy a defense of Christianity itself - just not the mewling and protective retroactive distancing from any Christian who goes nuts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. A neologism? It dates from 1674, as a contemptuous word

From the OED:

Christianism

2. In a depreciatory or contemptuous sense: A Christianity of a sort or form.
1674 R. GODFREY Inj. & Ab. Physic 178 The Heathenish Christianism, and deceit of the Doctors. 1855 I. TAYLOR Restor. Belief 247 The easy, overweening, and egotistic Christianism of Christian people. 1875 Contemp. Rev. XXVI. 987 Poor, thin, maundering - we were going to call it chlorotic Christianism. 1883 W. H. WYNN in Homil. Monthly Aug. 618 Christianism - if I may invent that term - is but making a sun-picture of the love of God.

(usage #1 is just as a synonym for Christianity, and is marked as obsolete)

[Nikki Stone1]

18. Then it is perfect AND has a pedigree.

Case closed.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Personally,

I use Kristian(tm)

[spoony]

21. Sounds like a way for people to

bash the hell out of a group of people then say they were just talking about this made-up subsect thereof. Like a DU version of the "Islamists" that Freepers feel free to say any nasty, hateful thing about, when everyone can plainly see they mean Muslims as a whole.

[thegreatcause2]

22. Machiavelli strait from The Prince

machiavelli stated that a politician should appear to be religious but always be ready to "go the way of evil". the right wing shamefully uses genuinely religious people and via demagoguery, manipulates them into mindlessly supporting political views that work against the average persons own interests.