Props to Andrew, I suppose, for allowing that his favored candidate's canny embrace of faith-based initiatives counts as "Christianism" under Andrew's understanding of the term. In an ideal world, this might prompt a broader reconsideration of the term's usefulness as a tool for political categorization in a nation where religion and politics are as interwoven (on the left and right alike) as they've always been in the United States, but I'm not holding my breath.
« Flexibility and Family | Main | The President's Unconscious »
We Are All Christianists Now
01 Jul 2008 01:53 pm
Comments (26)
That's what makes him fun and readable.
I agree totally.
As long as you swap 'fun and readable' for 'a slimy fucktoad'.
Ah yes. If Barack Obama supports faith-based initiatives that proves the illegitimacy of the term "Christianist."
Because if Barack Obama favors faith-based initiatives then a) all likely Obama voters must necessarily agree and b) any concerns about Christian doctrine determining public policy were misplaced.
I don't even care about faith-based initiatives as such, but this is one stupid post.
Quite right Ross.
I keep hoping against hope that one day Sullivan will sit down to write a more concrete less abstract book about the Christian movement today. For this project his methodology should be a "poll driven attempt at political imagination" which of course will yield a far more nuanced understanding of Christians and Christianity today. Its best to try to get in the shoes of your subject rather standing from the lofty perches of Atlantic magazine projecting your desires or biases on an huge swath of the American electorate, while holding a spread sheet.
Quite right Ross, quite right.
Has Andrew Sullivan's text to quotation ratio always been this low, or has he essentially become a collagist, commenting tersely on other peoples' writing like an undergrad trying to stretch a term paper to minimum page length?
Does he get paid well for this?
Obama, with his plan to vote for the FISA bill, including support of the phone companies, and now the faith-based initiative will probably drive the Move On types to apoplexy. Actually, in David Brooks terms he is merely wearing his Fast Eddie hat in pandering to the right. Probably his idea of a faith- based initiative would be a large grant to some Arab outfit like CAIR.
If you'd like, we could switch to the far more appropriate term "christian terrorist." That is, after all, what anti-American scumbags like Dobson are.
"Has Andrew Sullivan's text to quotation ratio always been this low, or has he essentially become a collagist, commenting tersely on other peoples' writing like an undergrad trying to stretch a term paper to minimum page length?"
You've obviously never read Ambinder.
Petey leavitts: "Probably his idea of a faith- based initiative would be a large grant to some Arab outfit like CAIR."
Meanwhile Petey's idea of a faith-based initiative would be to ask Pope Ratzinger if he could have sloppy seconds on an altar boy.
this might prompt a broader reconsideration of the term's usefulness as a tool for political categorization in a nation where religion and politics are as interwoven (on the left and right alike)
I have absolutely no data and only tepid knowledge of political history and an even shallower understanding of religious history, but this statement strikes me as false.
I think the point I'd make is I'm not sure we've ever had a situation (at least in modern times) where so many many people who's politics are so largely driven by their religious faith have had as much power as they had from 2000-20006, and that this did not work out particularly well. Like letting a monkey drive your car.
I have no idea what distinguishes a Christianist from a Christian. Or what distinguishes an Islamist from a Muslim. It can't be that both Christianists and Islamists want theocracy, as Obama seems to qualify as a Christianist and clearly doesn't want theocracy. I take it that it has something to do with mixing politics and religion, but that's about as precise as I get.
Would someone who favored minarchy because he thought it was the position most consonant with his Christian beliefs be a Christianist? I presume not. So it can't be defined as describing a Christian who favors policies mainly or purely for Christian religious reasons; rather, a Christianist is probably "someone who favors intrusive governmental policies on the basis of doctrines specific to Christianity", or something like that. If that's the case, though, I don't see why that's any worse than any other favoring of intrusive governmental policies, for whatever reason.
Serious question: is Obama a Christian? His long-time church has a black Jesus, anti-white, anti-work, anti-American, back-to-Africa theme.
At best, Obama seems to be a social gospel kind of Christian. Of the most radical kind.
Best advice? Ignore anything Obama says about Christianity.
As I recall Islamists want a state run within Islamic law. An Islamist state would not necessarily be terroristic or even undemocratic (in the sense of not having elections), but by imposing Islamic law it would do various things most in the West would find objectionable. For example non-Muslims could not be in a position of power over Muslims and adultery, if sufficiently proved, would be a death penalty offense.
It's never been clear to me how "Christianist" would work because I'm not certain there's a similar body of "Christian law." There is "canon law", but I'm not sure if this could plausibly make a legal system.
That said there is a group called "The Chalcedon Foundation" that I think would come close to being a Christian parallel to some forms of Islamism. Basically "Christianist", I think, should mean a group that wants Christianity to be the established religion and for the laws to be based on New Testament values. Or more generally "Biblical values."
As it's used by Sullivan it seems to mean more anyone who infuses their politics with ideas from Christianity. Therefore Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Emanuel Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, John Lewis, FDR, Kevin Rudd, and Andrew Young might fit as Christianists to some degree.
I wonder something similar to Strongbow. There are some self-described Christians--John Shelby Spong, Thomas Sheehan, John Dominic Crossan, and (at one time, I don't know if he still self-describes as Christian) Don Cupitt--whom I wouldn't call Christian because they are atheists, materialists, and moral relativists. They tend to think that authentic Christianity is just about practice, and so is perfectly compatible with the most austere of naturalist ontologies, but I think that you need at least the belief that God exists as an ontologically independent reality, that morality relates importantly to him, and that there is some real life after death. Moreover, the figure of Jesus has to be central in some atoning way, thought spelling that out in a way I'm comfortable with is harder. So, by this criterion I'm not sure whether, for example, Marcus Borg or John Hick are Christians (I'm inclined to doubt it, actually, though more of Hick than of Borg).
As for Obama, if he believes something like:
"God exists" means only that we affirm that we have strong moral obligations to all people all over the world, because each person is 'god-like' (where 'god-like' means "is of significant moral worth").
Then I would be inclined to say that he is not a Christian, but rather an atheist who is comfortable with many expressions of the Christian religion.
Questioner writes: "There are some self-described Christians--John Shelby Spong, Thomas Sheehan, John Dominic Crossan, and (at one time, I don't know if he still self-describes as Christian) Don Cupitt--whom I wouldn't call Christian because they are atheists, materialists, and moral relativists."
And: "As for Obama, if he believes something like:
"God exists" means only that we affirm that we have strong moral obligations to all people all over the world, because each person is 'god-like' (where 'god-like' means "is of significant moral worth").
Then I would be inclined to say that he is not a Christian, but rather an atheist who is comfortable with many expressions of the Christian religion. "
I would like to see Questioner give a few examples of current American politicians who are sufficiently "Christian" to be called such. I would also like to know if there are any prominent Christians engaged in public life in the US who are neither materialists or moral relativists.
Strongbow of course is simply an Obama-smearing bigot, as his dismay at a church with a "black Jesus" shows. I suspect all of the blond Jesuses don't bother him at all. Perhaps Questioner is another sort.
I don't know anything about Strongbow, not being a regular reader of this site. So I don't know whether your characterization of him/her is correct or not. As for me, I'm not an Obama-smearing bigot; I'm undecided about whether I'm going to vote for him (my decision is not between him and McCain, by the way). Nonetheless, although I'm likely a bigot to some degree, I haven't passed on any smears of Obama, either in a public forum or in private conversations with others.
As for current American politicians who are Christians, this is somewhat tough; it really depends on what you mean by Christian. As I'm defining it, though, it amounts to accepting certain propositions, such as "God exists" (where God is taken to be an entity whose existence is ontologically independent of what any human person thinks or how any human person acts), "Jesus is God's son", "Jesus put into effect God's plan of atonement", "'judge not lest ye be judged' is correct and to be emulated", the Beatitudes are accepted as correct, etc. Now, I think that someone could accept these things and yet not act on them very much--for example, I accept something close to Peter Singer's conclusion that we have a strong obligation to give much of what we have to the world's poor, but I do very little in terms of carrying out this obligation. So, a politician who acts in an unChristian fashion (as does every Christian, at least occasionally), may still be a Christian, though if he almost never acts according to Christian principles, or if he flouts them again and again, then there may be cause to say that he is not really a Christian. Maybe.
Given all that, I would say that the following politicians may count as Christian: Ron Paul, Ben Nelson, Bob Menendez, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Sam Brownback, John Kerry. I'd have to know more about their beliefs, but I'm fairly confident that they all satisfy my criterion of counting as Christian.
MoeLarryAndJesus wrote "Strongbow of course is simply an Obama-smearing bigot, as his dismay at a church with a "black Jesus" shows. I suspect all of the blond Jesuses don't bother him at all."
Of course. It is good to have such certainty. Can't refute the argument? Attack the man.
I have a similarly grave problem with a blond, Nordic Jesus. Jesus was a first century Semite, but, since God's Son is "from the root of Jesse" he might well have had red hair and blue eyes like his forebear David is reputed to have had.
But the 20th-century mid-America Methodist portrayal of Jesus is not at issue.
Obama's hateful "church" is. It is not bigoted to repeat what is preached at Trinity. Oh, yes, of course -- anyone who attacks St. Barack must be a bigot.
Questioner wrote "a politician who acts in an unChristian fashion (as does every Christian, at least occasionally), may still be a Christian, though if he almost never acts according to Christian principles, or if he flouts them again and again, then there may be cause to say that he is not really a Christian."
Could not agree more. But here's a question for all: if abortion is considered the taking of a human life, and a Catholic politician virtually always favors abortion over life, can he be considered a good Catholic Christian?
Leaving aside arguments about which denominations may not consider abortion to be the killing of a human being, the Roman Catholic church does. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, to cite but two, are lifelong Catholics.
Just asking...
Re: Basically "Christianist", I think, should mean a group that wants Christianity to be the established religion and for the laws to be based on New Testament values. Or more generally "Biblical values."
Thomas R.,
"Christianism" appears to be one of those things that we know it when we see it, but it's hard to define. That's said, I don't know that I would agree with your definition. There are a good number of Catholic and Orthodox countries today in which Christianity is the established religion in the sense that they have religious instruction in the public schools, the state pays for the upkeep of churches and so forth, and the laws of the land give a general deference to "Christian values". This is the case even in some S. American countries where there is technically separation of church and state. There are also countries like Chile or Brazil where church and state are separate but it is expected that broadly Christian values will color the general tenor of social and political life (and there are explicitly "Christian" parties). Clearly none of these states are Christianist as we would understand the term.
You could have a Christian state which bases its laws on literal interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to a Christian state which bases its laws on the Christian understanding of natural law and moral intuition. I would say that the former is objectionable and "Christianist", but the latter is not (necessarily). The whole point about natural law arguments is that while they presuppose healthy and normal personal moral intuitions, they don't presuppose any particular theology.
I've never heard of the Chalcedon Foundation, what are they all about?
Klansman Strongbow, who faints at the thought of a black Jesus, replies: "Obama's hateful "church" is. It is not bigoted to repeat what is preached at Trinity. Oh, yes, of course -- anyone who attacks St. Barack must be a bigot."
There is nothing any more "hateful" about Obama's former church than there is about the Southern Baptist Convention or the Catholic Church.
Re: Kerry and Kennedy as Catholic, pro-choice politicians:
Their unstinting support for a right to have an abortion does, I think, make them bad Catholics; they are still Catholics, though, as evidenced by the fact that the Church has not excommunicated them. Regardless of whether they are Catholics, though, they are probably still Christians.
"I've never heard of the Chalcedon Foundation, what are they all about?" Hector
TR: I can't do links here so I'll just have to describe them.
The Chalcedon Foundation is a Calvinist based organization that believes the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state. Although they emphasize that their vision of a "Christian state" would be decentralized and not necessarily "Christianize" its citizens.
Chalcedon is part of generalized "Christian Reconstructionism" which is the closest thing I can think of to an actual Christian equivalent to constitutional Islamism. (By "constitutional Islamism" I mean Islamism that rejects terrorism in favor of non-violent political or cultural methods that will lead to implementation of Islamic law. Such groups do exist, Tunisia has the main one I'm aware of) Some Christian Reconstructionists have implied, or are believed to imply, that they'd favor implementation of some of Calvin's stricter rules such as the death penalty for sodomy.
In some respects I'd say you, Hector, are a Christianist in the narrow sense I mean. Although of a Left-wing kind rather than the more Right-wing pro-Capitalist "Protestant ethic" Christian Reconstructionism.
On another matter in many nations an established Church is a fairly bland thing, but in this nation it would be different because no one denomination dominates and there is no tradition of it. Also I think the fringe Reconstructionist element that wants "established Christianity" means a good deal more than just having something like UK's Church of England establishment. I think they mean returning school prayer, requiring oaths to be on Christian Bibles, laws against blasphemy, re-criminalizing sodomy, etc.
Thomas R.,
Um, I wouldn't support the death penalty for sodomy, nor any criminal sanctions whatsoever. For exemple I think that the degree of State regulation of personal/sexual morality should be limited to things where the state has a plausible case to intervence- behaviors like abortion, adultery, prostitution, incest, bestiality, pornography, and possibly "scandalous lewdness" or however one wants to describe behaviors like hanging around airport bathrooms for sex. While I do have some admiration for countries which have managed to keep an established religion, I don't think that form of government would really be appropriate for the United States, as you point out. I would just rather that the dominant discourse in the halls of power not have secularist and humanistic presumptions as the assumed norm.
I do think that American politics would be richer and healthier if it more resembled a debate between, say, T.S. Eliot on the right and R.H. Tawney on the left (throw Martin Luther King, Mike Huckabee and Jeremiah Wright into the mix as well.) If that makes me a Christianist then so be it but I don't think it does.
I think you misunderstood me. That form of Christianism is a specifically Calvinist form that I did not think had anything to do with you.
However from what you've said you seem to believe that the state can or should promote Christian virtue. (Something the Reconstructionists apparently think is a bit unlikely possibly because, being Calvinists, they assume people are going to be depraved regardless) You've also showed some sympathy for making witchcraft and adultery crimes, which is not something I even see much even among people who could be deemed "Christian Right."
You mix this with a fairly Left-wing view of economics and US history. To be honest I don't think I've ever seen anyone, in the US, who thinks as you do. (Granted maybe you're not in the US)
Thomas R.,
I don't think adultery should be something that people go to jail for- I think it should be a civil offence, that your wife can sue you for. If your wife doesn't want to sue you then I don't think the state ought to get involved, although I still obviously think that churches and other cultural institutions should make the case that it's wrong even in those cases. Marriage involves the state so the state has a plausible case for intervention, no?
I don't think that I've ever said that witchcraft ought to be a crime, or even that it exists at all in the modern West. I'm agnostic about whether it exists in some parts of Africa and so forth (I think it is a crime in some African nations). If you're talking about Vodoun and New Orleans style love potions and so forth, then I _certainly_ don't think those things ought to be illegal, and in fact I wouldn't agree with calling them witchcraft at all. If we were in a context in which a significant number of people were involved in invoking the devil to try to kill children and so forth then I might start thinking that the state ought to discourage a practice corrosive to the moral health of society. I don't know what I would do if anything. But it's a somewhat silly question since there is no significant number of practicing satanists in the US today.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
You can be a real snarky bitch.
Posted by Douthat the Hack | July 1, 2008 2:02 PM