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.

“The Family” is Frightening

The Netflix five-part miniseries titled “The Family” was released last month, but June and I just finished watching it ten days ago. If you haven’t seen it yet, I encourage you to do so even if you have to watch it on someone else’s Netflix streaming account, as we did. 

What Is The Family?

The five episodes of “The Family” are about 50 minutes each, and they are based on Jeff Sharlet’s books The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (2008) and C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy (2010).

Sharlet (b. 1972) is the primary narrator of the documentary, and “Submersion,” the first episode, is largely about his stay in 2002 at Ivanwald, a house for younger men being groomed for leadership in The Family. (A young actor plays Sharlet in that episode.)

In “Chosen,” the second part of the miniseries, we are further introduced to Doug Coe, a man who in the past was called “the most powerful man in Washington you’ve never heard of.”

From the early 1960s until his death, Coe (1928~2017) was the most influential person in The Family, although he was rarely in the limelight. In 2005 Time magazine included him on their list of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the U.S., referring to him as the “stealth Billy Graham.”

Coe became associated with The Family in 1958, working under Abraham Vereide (1886~1969), who founded the Fellowship Foundation in 1935. Later that organization was called International Christian Leadership and then in recent years just The Family.

Through political influence and private diplomacy, The Family has wielded enormous influence in Washington, D.C.—and in the governments of other countries—for more than a half century now. Their main public events are the National Prayer Breakfasts, which have been attended by every President beginning with Eisenhower.

(My 2/4/17 blog article was about Sharlet and the 2017 Prayer Breakfast.)

Bothered by “The Family”

In several ways I was uncomfortable watching the documentary, especially in the beginning. So much of it sounded good—and much was in keeping with what I have emphasized as a Christian pastor and missionary: total commitment to Jesus Christ.

Further, I was bothered at how some of the politicians I respected the most were friends with Doug Coe, people such as Mark Hatfield, Jimmy Carter, and Hillary Clinton. I don’t think that Coe himself or the politicians he befriended, such as the three just mentioned, harbored evil intentions by their involvement with The Family.

Unfortunately, however, even that which is good and praiseworthy can inexplicably become entangled with evil and produce malevolent results.

How Nefarious is The Family?

My friend Aaron Barnhart wrote an article last month (check it out here) titled “The Family Isn’t As Nefarious as Netflix’s ‘The Family’ Says It is.” I hadn’t known until reading his article that as a young man he was directly involved with The Family, much the same way Sharlet was in 2002.

So I can understand why Aaron, who attends the same church I do, is a bit defensive about the way the miniseries portrays The Family. But he does, correctly I think, suggest that there is something “terribly wrong” with that group.

Aaron writes that “Sharlet is right to call out The [Family’s] willingness to be used by dictators and demagogues.” He also notes that the members of The Family are guilty of “enabling rather than doing bad things.”

Still, I think they must be considered frightening because of the way they have enabled “bad things” to be done, because of their disregard for the separation of church and state, and for their implicit desire to replace democracy (in the U.S. and elsewhere) with theocracy.