'Christianism'

A lot of spluttering is taking place over the possibility certainty that Barack Obama is a ‘Christianist’ of some kind or another: see Rod (II), Daniel, Ross, Andrew (II), Ambinder. Sure enough, Andrew walked right into this one and has smartly admitted it very swiftly. Daniel seems for a minute to have the last word:

The rule seems to be something like this: the less orthodox or traditional the religion or church, the more acceptable its “interference” in political life.

Surely nothing could be more -ismatic than conservative Christians and liberal Christians arguing over who the real Christianists are, and I have a sinking suspicion this is where we’re headed. (Conservative talk radio host: “now, Barack Obama is trying to force his version of Christianity on your children!) But Daniel’s remark is meant to suggest that the ‘rule’ he describes is illegitimate and indefensible. Unfortunately, this is not quite as true as I’d like it to be.

There’s a robust argument to be made that ‘progressive’ or whatever Christianity truly does play a more acceptable, even interfering, role in public political life in a country like ours. I don’t like this argument, and I can fight back against it, too, but it goes something like this:

Our political objectives are good ones, but they don’t and can’t stand on their own. They need the support of moral and even religious principles. They probably even need to derive from shared moral and religious principles. We can cope fairly well politically with a certain amount of diversity of interest among our citizens — even incommensurable interest. But it hinders the healthy functioning of our political order when people with profoundly different faiths, principles, or comprehensive doctrines struggle over which receive public privilege. Regardless of which faith wins out, there’s an inherent good to the dominant, common, popular faith supplying our political regime with the foundational supports it needs to succeed.

That’s the abstract version. You could plug in your favorite religion and feel pretty good about it. But here’s the detailed version:

Our political objectives — the minimization of agony, the rejection of cruelty, the protection of the least among us, the promotion of free equality, and the solidarity of community and government — are good ones, but they don’t and can’t stand on their own. They need the support of moral and even religious principles that explain to us why it’s our duty to God and to one another to want to attain these objectives. Since our political objectives derive from our moral and religious faith, the ends of that faith make of politics a means to their realization. Because we’re a free people we allow politics to meander a bit, but when it produces or reinforces unjust outcomes, our faith prompts us rightly to step in and correct them. We can cope fairly well politically with a certain amount of diversity of interest among our citizens — even incommensurable interest. But it hinders the healthy functioning of our political order when conservative Christians whose strict, traditional mores are being abandoned by increasing numbers of people seek to embed their dying faith in public law. Christianity has developed into a vibrant new vision of loving togetherness that more truly captures the calling of Christ than condemnation and marginalization. But religious truth is not enough. What matters is that this new Christianity is more deeply consonant with our central political objectives and commitments than the old Christianity. And since this is so, there’s an inherent good to including that faith integrally and intimately in the practice of our politics.

Clearly this is something of a chicken-and-egg problem. At its heart is the question of just how much our political objectives ought to, or do, derive from our moral and religious ones. The problem facing liberals is that liberal Christianity all too often is considered just one component of, or pathway to, the liberal humanist conception of social justice. Conservatives rarely, if ever, face that problem. The dilemma facing liberal Christians is whether they are willing to go along with the social justice ride as mere means to a humanist end. The resolution to this dilemma that I see approaching involves steadily transforming Christianity, especially Catholicism, into a mystical love cult of social solidarity and all-embracing nonjudgmentalism — a big mass of equals at the bottom led by a small hierarchy of Knowers at the top. This religious soft despotism will combine nicely with the political soft despotism that liberals long for.

In short, the way liberal Christians can avoid the (accurate) charge of ‘Christianism’ is by transforming their faith into a means serving secular human ends. But exactly this transformation is what makes it most consonant of all with liberal politics, blurring the line between public and private and between faith and policy; under those circumstances, conservatives — religious and political — face real trouble. But the alternative is a protracted round of name-calling, with ‘Christianist’ becoming an all-purpose epithet like ‘Un-American.’

Of course there’s a third alternative, which is to permit a gap between the outcomes we call politically just and the outcomes we call socially or morally good. But can anyone really tolerate this anymore?