Wednesday, May 10, 2006

My Problem with Christianism

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

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 tooclose 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 thereligious 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.

Visit Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, at time.com

5 comments:

Catherine + said...

I knew thare had to be a name for the people who say they are Christians but are acting in political self-interest. Christianists. It fits, unfortunately. I share the author's opinion. It is time for the quiet majority to reclaim our faith for what it is, the Good News of Jesus Christ, risen indeed for all. The most unpolitical leader of faith that I have ever known, the Son of God.

Jeff Martinhauk said...

There's something that I can't quite put my finger on that I don't agree with in the article.

I think that Jesus was political. I think Christianity is political. I can't separate my religious, spiritual, and political beliefs (note that political is different than partisan).

I do think there is a difference, though, between using government to instill freedom for all and using government to instill the religious dogma of a few.

Government, in my opinion, can and should be used to help the poor, to cure the sick, to help those that are marginalized, and help create peace in the world. I don't differentiate that from the message of Christ. But I also don't see government's role as explicity promoting religion but instead freedom of religion.

I realize it can sound contradictory. I'm not quite sure I can articulate the difference precisely. But I think it is somehow like the difference between a government that imposes restrictions through a federal constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage, or a federal government that uses its power to create freedoms instead of restrict them.

revsusan said...

Yep, Jeff ... me, too.

Here's how my rector, Ed Bacon, sums it up: "Faith in action is called politics. Spirituality without action is fruitless and social action without spirituality is heartless. We are boldly political without being partisan Having a partisan-free place to stand liberates the religious patriot to see clearly, speak courageously, and act daringly."

Nick Cuccia said...

I am happy Andrew Sullivan has discovered that the Religious Wrong has hijacked the Bible and is trying to force its selective interpretation on the rest of us. We need as many people as possible to rattle cages on this.
However, my excitement is tempered. As usual, Sullivan is about 5 to 10 years behind the rest of us, as he was on AIDS, being HIV+, GOP politics, marriage equality and so on. I hope his latest epiphany resonates with his fellow Roman Catholic Republican friends. But these are old ideas for those of us who saw the light years ago and starting acting on that knowledge--while he was defending GOP and RC officialdom. When he comes up with something prophetic, please let me know.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy what Susan and the rest of you have to say ....

jg6544 said...

"I do think there is a difference, though, between using government to instill freedom for all and using government to instill the religious dogma of a few."

Using government to impose religious dogma is unConstitutional, among other things! "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." U.S.Const.Amt.I

I can't disagree with anything Sullivan wrote and I'm glad he wrote it. Maybe his epiphany will carry over to his personal choices of political party and religious denomination. I've always thought he'd make a grand Episcopalian and centrist Democrat!