Thursday, March 5, 2020

Christianism: What It Is and Why It’s Objectionable

Christianism isn’t exactly a household word, but it expresses an important, and troubling, aspect of USAmerican religious and political life. Let’s look at what it is and why it’s objectionable. 
What is Christianism?
The contemporary use of the word Christianism/Christianist seems to have started with Andrew Sullivan. He coined those words in a June 2003 post in his political blog “The Daily Dish,” which he maintained from 2000 to 2015. Sullivan (b. 1963), wrote,
I have a new term for those on the fringes of the religious right who have used the Gospels to perpetuate their own aspirations for power, control and oppression: Christianists. They are as anathema to true Christians as the Islamists are to true Islam.
In a June 2005 blog posting, Sullivan wrote, “Christianism—politicized Christianity—argues for the imposition of one religion’s values over the entire society.”
Sullivan later expanded on his usage of the terms in a May 2006 Time magazine article titled “My Problem with Christianism.”
Mark Shea, another blogger, who like Sullivan is a Catholic, is more contentious in his description of the current meaning of the term(s). He begins his Oct. 2018 Patheos.com article called "I keep getting asked what I mean by ‘Christianism’” with these sharp words:
A Christianist is an adherent of a political [cult] centered on Donald Trump and informed by a magisterium of FOX, right wing talk radio and right wing social media, which uses Christian imagery and jargon in the service of a diabolical antichrist gospel of racism, war, torture apologetics, gun fanaticism, misogyny, mammon worship, cruelty to the least of these and hatred of both science and orthodox Christian belief.

Christianism and Christendom
Politicized Christianity, however, is certainly nothing new. In fact, it can be traced all the way back to Constantine in the 4th century. When Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire, Christendom was established—and it flourished for fifteen centuries until weakened by the historical process of secularization.
In his 2019 book Postcards from Babylon, Brian Zahnd writes negatively about Christendom: “Tying the gospel to the interests of empire had a deeply compromising effect upon the gospel, as seen in the sordid history of the church being mixed up with imperial conquest, colonialism, and military adventurism around the world” (p. 16).
Contemporary Christianism is manifested differently, but is similar in many ways to the ethos of Christendom that goes all the way back to Constantine—and to what we Anabaptists sometimes refer to as the “fall” of the Church.
Christianism and Christian Nationalism
The move toward “Christian nationalism” is one of the main ways Christianism has been apparent in recent years, although many seem to be unaware of that movement. The stealth activities of The Family and Project Blitz, both of which I wrote about last year (see here and here[LS1] ) is a part of the movement toward Christian nationalism.
Last year, the Baptist Joint Committee (BJC), an organization I have supported for decades, started a campaign called Christians Against Christian Nationalism (CACN). This campaign is clearly in opposition to Christianism, even though they don’t use that word.
(To learn more about BJC and CACN, see this important October 2019 article by Frederick Clarkson—or you can read directly about CACN and even sign the statement opposing Christian nationalism, as I did last year, by clicking here.)
Even though much more needs to be said, I close with more from Brian Zahnd, who wrote that “in the American experiment the United States deliberately broke with Christendom practice of claiming to be a Christian nation with a state church. It was America that pioneered the experiment of secular governance.”
And then he asserted:
America is not a Christian nation; it never was and never can be. The only institution that even has the possibility of being Christian is the church. When we confuse the nation with the church, it may not do any particular damage to the nation, but it will do irreparable harm to the church (p. 46).
Yes, Christianism is highly objectionable, for, indeed, it does “irreparable harm” to the work and witness of the faithful followers of Jesus Christ.
* * * * *
Two new books about Christian nationalism have just been published, and I am looking forward to learning more about Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (2/20) by Andrew L. Whitehead and The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism (3/20) by Katherine Stewart.



16 comments:

  1. It's a historical curiosity, Leroy, that evangelical Christianity, albeit a minority in numbers until well into the 20th century, played a fairly dominant role in the history of the USA. Prayers in public schools and school events, distrust of Catholics and others, etc. As long as they had de facto hegemony, they were happy. (The one great divide among them, of course, was over slavery, splitting a number of the denominations.) I even remember the Baptist preachers in Missouri decades ago running off to Jefferson City to lobby against providing public services/funds to religious parochial schools; i.e., predominantly the Catholics, although Lutheran schools might have benefited as well. You know well, too, the history of fundamentalist retreat from political affairs through much of the early half of the 20th century. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th century there were still a few voices and organizations that kept agitating culturally and lobbying politically for imposition of their Christian ideas to be imposed on all. Now, that we have a strong marriage of the Christian right with white-and-right nationalist sentiment, we have something far more diabolical as well as a threat to hard-won liberties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Anton.

      Yes, there were evangelicals throughout most of last century--and still in the present, I guess--who approved of prayers in public schools and school events, etc. But that was mostly on local levels where most people were rather homogeneous. But, especially among Baptists and some other "low-church" denominations, there was a strong emphasis on the separation of church and state. While prayers might have been said in the local schools, the local Christian believers were not in favor of any political power mandating that prayer be required in public schools.

      The difference, as I see it, was when, beginning with Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority in 1979, evangelicals began trying to gain political power and to make and enforce laws for everybody that embodied their religious beliefs. That is when Christianism began to be apparent in USAmerican society--and this was, indeed, a huge difference from the position of fundamentalism in this country during most of the 20th century until 1980.

      As I understand it, Christianism in the U.S. is, indeed, the "marriage of the Christian right with white-and-right nationalist sentiment."

      Delete
    2. -*Imposition of one's personal religious beliefs on others, especially--as a means of gaining political influence is offensive to me personally and I think would be viewed as an insult to our lord. It cannot help but be insulting to those of other religious persuasions because it is unjust, inhumane, and narcissistic. Embracing and nurturing diversity, appreciating the differences and seeking commonalities would be my ideal.

      Delete
    3. I learned from an email from her that the above comments are from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico, and I appreciate her commenting here and then identifying herself.

      It seems to me that a central characteristic of Christianism, known in the past as Christendom and being promoted by some now as Christian nationalism, is, indeed, seeking to impose, often by legislation, what are considered Christian beliefs or practices on those who are not Christians.

      As a firm believer in religious (as well as in other types of) freedom, I am strongly opposed to any attempts by Christians (or people of other religions) to impose their beliefs on other people. I am not a pluralist, so I do not think that "one religion is as good as another" for they are "all seeking the same thing." But I do think that the idea of universal religious freedom means affirming diversity and as members of a shared society seeking commonalities and working together for the common good is a wise course of action.

      Delete
  2. Even though he is now living again in his home country of England, Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton lived for many years in the U.S. and knows this country well. Here are comments he sent about today's posting:

    "Brilliant! Such as succinct and to the point analysis of Christianism and Christendom and why we should reject it.

    "Wonderful quotes, especially by Mark Shea.

    "Perhaps your best blog so far."

    ReplyDelete
  3. I looked up the word to see what a good definition is. "Christianism means particular doctrines of Christianity made into a political system for the pursuit of worldly power, to be distinguished from Christianity in various forms of religious practices of denominations, such as Catholicism, Protestantism, etc." It is not linked to left or right. In my observation over the years, this is much more accurate. The -ism infects all sides, and not just in the United States. The same could be said of the socialist party where I grew up - They would claim Christianity, but would use the pagan practice of cannibalism of albinos to gain spiritual strength over their rivals (and remains a practice to this day). I have tracked the religions of various candidates for President over the years - indeed Christianism is a practice (Bernie, a "non-religious Jew" being a good exception), but in review, it would seem that most are actually devout, practicing Christians - not just for politics (at least Joe Biden claims only to be a "cultural Catholic"). The result is a divided Church which not only splits on theology, but also on preferred politics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here are pertinent comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "A helpful blog, Leroy! I haven’t used the terms 'Christianism' and 'Christianist,' but they apply pretty accurately to evangelical support for Trump. We probably can link the words to Falwell and 'Moral Majority.' They sought a return to theocracy of Puritan days."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Hinson, I think you are correct: while most Christian thinkers such as you have not used the word Christianism, you have seen the movement toward and influence of Christianism since Jerry Falwell started the Moral Majority in 1979. And, yes, even though I did not use that word in my article, Christianism now apparent in the U.S. is seeking to replace democracy with theocracy. That is a major reason they are opposed to secularization.

      Delete
  5. Thinking Friend Rob Carr is the pastor of a Disciples of Christ church in the Northland of Kansas City (and a personal friend). I am pleased to share the comments he sent a few minutes ago:

    "I had not heard the term Christianism or of Sullivan. Interesting piece. I cannot recall the name of the book at present, but folks in my church a few years ago read a book about a form of Christendom which thrived beginning in the early 1900's and as late as the 1970's in this country and symbolized by the construction of the 'Methodist Building' which is within walking distance of the US Capitol Building. Mainline Protestantism was very active in lobbying for progressive lawmaking during this period....working out of the Methodist Building and other locales. It certainly seemed as if we (I count myself a mainliner as you know) were seeking to enact laws which were informed by a progressive theological worldview. I wonder if Sullivan would consider all that as Christianist? I think the Methodist Building is still standing, but occupied now by an assortment of non-profits etc. Not nearly the 'center' of mainline political presence and power in Washington as it was a generation ago."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for informing me (and other readers of this blog) about the Methodist Building, which I had not known anything about. I found what you wrote, and what I found on the Internet (see, for example, https://www.umcjustice.org/who-we-are/the-united-methodist-building) to be of considerable interest.

      My impression, though, is that while the lobbying that took place by those who used the Methodist Building in the past (as well as those there currently) was attempting to influence legislators but was not in any way trying to seize political power.

      Moreover, it seems that the lobbying efforts were mainly related to social justice issues for the sake of those who were suffering in society rather than for expanding the Christian religion and its political power. If that is the case, it seems to me that what they were doing was not an expression of Christianism.

      Delete
  6. Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted is a retired Baptist minister in Springfield, Mo., (and also a personal friend)--and I am also pleased to share his helpful comments:

    "Simply stated the gospel of Jesus Christ is irreparably misshapen by any effort to blend faith and political aspirations. When one compromises the grace and passion of God with hatred, immorality, and a lust for power this is not agape love.

    "Is it possible to rewrite the passion narrative to combine the political / religious establishment's crucifixion of Jesus as God's clever plan to wed church and state? Can darkness and light be combined as one and the same. Caesar as God's minister? Violence as a substitute for grace and the new life Christ makes possible?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. I call Christendom "The Constantinian Captivity of the Church."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ante bellum slave owners in the American south encouraged Christianity among their slaves, for both Jesus and Paul counseled against slave revolts. Of course, as the slaves learned the stories of the Bible, they ended up singing "Go Down Moses." It turned out the Bible had proof-texts for both owners and slaves! This tug-of-war affects most major religions most of the time. We should not be surprised when the ancient struggles reappear from time to time in modern forms. Nor should we blame it all on Constantine. He is a wonderful symbol of exploitation, but he is neither the beginning nor the end of exploitation. Many stories read differently if we look at them from both king and slave perspectives. There is no one right way to read the Bible. Christianism is one trap waiting for those who try to settle on one way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, certainly there was exploitation--and the use of religion for political purposes--by many kings/emperors other than Constantine. But it is a historical fact that the form of Christianism that has often been called Christendom began with Constantine.

      Delete