Talk:Christianism

untitled

"Christianism" is a neologism. I suggested "courageism" a few months back, as an obvious and very meaningful antidote to "terrorism" and was roundly rejected. If "Christianism" is intended to be understood with reference to "Islamism," then every Muslim who believes the government should prohibit publication of the Mohammed cartoons is an "Islamist," by Sullivan's definition, not just a Muslim.

Scott W. Somerville scott@hslda.org

Hi! I reverted your edits of the redirect page because "Christianism" as a philosophy didn't ring a bell for me, and after a quick Google search, I couldn't really come up with any mainstream usages of it as you're defining the term. It seems to be bloggers talking to other bloggers- not that there's anything wrong with that, but you can see how it sort of looks like you're trying to establish a phrase by getting it in Wiki, right? --Puffy jacket 13:44, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note that I'm not the original page creator, but I was looking for a definition and found the redirect. Left as is, but it looks like "Christianism" is becoming the equivalent of "Islamism" (and Christianist the equivalent of Islamist). I would suggest in the future perhaps deleting the redirect, and putting in its place some discussion? KSM

I will redirect this to Christianity. This article is a dictionary definition of a word meant to refer to what "Christianity" ordinarily does. -- Alan McBeth 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

More discuission

Dear Alan,

This is not a dictionary definition. It is a stub article requiring further elaboration which is in progress. It is factually based on documented historical and academic material derived from 15 years of research at http://www.christianism.com and other sites.

I've redirected the article to Christianist because the use of the word is, as stated above, along the lines of Islamist. Christianist has the references to support this.--Alabamaboy 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alabamaboy,

We appreciate your diligence and astuteness in pursuing this issue. At Hong Kong University and University of California (San Diego), we are developing and elaborating a valid definition of this term, from a dual historical and academic standpoint, using a multitude of valid references, ranging back to Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch and others, rather than dipping into contemporary commentators as cited on the superficial Islamist page. We would appreciate it if you allowed scholarship to proceed, or Wiki administrators and editors at HKU and other universities will intervene. Thank you.

That all sounds great. However, since the word is now being used in this political way (as I have referenced) any article here will have to this political version into account. Has your definition been covered in the greater media and/or academic press? If so, provide some references (merely a reference to your own site does not count) and we will add that info into the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alabamaboy,

Thank you for your swift response. We seem to be online in simulcast. I agree with you...perhaps we can include the political aspects of this term in two or three paragraphs as the Christianism page further develops. I would not be opposed to that. In fact, if you wish to compose a few sentences to that effect, adding your contemporary references, perhaps we can blend these two perspectives into one article rather than redirect to the other site emphasizing only one perspective. What do you think?

I'm fine with including both versions of the word. What we must decide upon is which article to be the main article. If you want it to be this one and not Christianist, I will move the info from the other article to here, merge the info together, and make the other article a redirect link. That said, you need to provide more references than just to your own site. Many editors would consider that a vanity link and it is not permitted at Wikipedia.

Hello...Thank you...you seem quite reaosnable, actually. *smile* My colleague in San Diego is just waking up now and I've called him from Hong Kong... We will probably prefer to keep the 'Christianism' page as the main page, with a link to 'Christianist'. My colleague will be able to supply several academic references, as you suggest, and perhaps we can delete the 'vanity' site from External Links, or include it among the academic links. My collegue will take over in this discussion while he's enjoying his morning coffee. Good Night!

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and add the new info and do the redirects and then wait for you to make the other changes. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. This should be a disambiguation page, linking to Christianity and Dominionism. Any relevant information in this page should be merged into those two articles. This is for two reasons: (1) articles should be organized by subject (as in an encyclopedia), not by terms (as in a dictionary); and (2) when possible, each subject should have only one article. I'll leave time for discussion before making the change, due to the recent activity on this article. -- Alan McBeth 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this change b/c Christianism returns almost 200,000 hits on Google and the word is being used to describe a political version of Christianity. If the word wasn't in use, I'd have no problem with a redirect but it is in use and this article should not merely be a redirect to places where the info on the term will be lost/buried inside a much larger article.--Alabamaboy 23:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think that Dominionism and "political Christianism" refer to different subjects? -- Alan McBeth 23:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. As long as the redirect links here have an explanation of what the items are then I'm okay with that.--Alabamaboy 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,

We seem to have a four-way discussion here. Hong Kong, San Diego (my colleague), Alabama and wherever Alan may be. From HK, I've just added three NOTES to the Philosophical Section as Alabamaboy wished, usting HTML coding. I think they do the initial job of documenting Ignatius of Antioch, Tertullian, etc. My colleague at UCSD and I will continue to expand the historico-philosophical section. Any internal links to other pages are certainly OK in my opinion...as long as the Christianism page remains intact and not redirected as a whole to another definition. I agree that all perspectives must be represented here, precisely because Google and Yahoo return hundreds of thousands of hits, as you point out.

Best wishes...let's keep this project afloat under the Christianism heading until the scholarship is completed or expanded under all sections. Thanks!

Three things:

1. It would be helpful if you would sign your edits in the discussion. Four tidles in a row will do it, like this: ~~~~.
2. I don't think that you ever directly addressed my concern. "Christianism" is an term which either refers to what is commonly called "Christianity," or to "Dominionism." Is there a third subject that you mean to address under the term "Christianism"? If so, can you identify it in a few words?
3. Maybe we would better understand what you are trying to accomplish if you explained more precisely the interest that you, your colleague, and your respective universities have in this topic.

-- Alan McBeth 13:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, okay, I thought Alan McBeth was the anonymous editor I'd discussed this with before so yes, please sign all posts. My first preferences is to keep the article here but I could live with a redirect. IF you two can decide what to do I'll go along with it. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous Hong Kong contributor visited this article again yesterday, but made no further comments on the redirect. I'll take that as acquiescence. -- Alan McBeth 13:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alan,

If Wikipedia is predicated on your 'assumptions of acquiescence', I truly pity Wikipedia. I suspect you'll find, and very shortly indeed, that other Wiki authorities will beg to differ with your totally unjustified and transparent high-handedness. *smile*

"Anon HK Contributor"

Dear Alabamaboy,

I am looking over guidelines linked to Alan's Wiki page related to Content Forking and POVs.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking). He seems to be violating his own principles in this instance. My colleague in San Diego and I are working on expansion of the historical and philosophical origins of Christianism, a term which is definitely deserving of its own page on WIKIPEDIA.

As I pointed out above, there seems to be a transparent attempt on Alan's part to paint Christianism as a movement of the Christian Right, which in the last few years it has become in narrowly circumscribed geographical regions of the United States. There is, however, the neutral academic perspective which must, for the sake of scholarly excellence, appear on Wikipedia. My collegaue and I will prepare an article in the next week or two and then submit it for consensus to several internationally-based Wiki Administrators.

In the meanwhile, Alan can enjoy his redirect.

I consulted the page simply to read it yesterday, not having time between teaching classes to respond to his three points. He played his hand prematurely.

Best wishes -- "Anon HK Contributor".

Okay, since there is a difference of opinion I'd suggest discussing it here and seeing if all sides can reach a consensus. Wikipedia definately doesn't have any "assumption of acquiescence" so until consensus is reached I will revert the page to its original form. As I've said, it doesn't matter which way the article goes but until consensus is reached the article should not be changed. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon HK did agree to leave the page as the disambiguation page until he has prepared his article. I think that would be best, since until then this article can be nothing more than a content fork. -- Alan McBeth 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon HK: It will be easier for us to reach consensus if you assume good faith on my part. You say that I want to "paint Christianism as a movement of the Christian Right," but I still don't know what you mean by "Christianism." I expect that you still intend to answer my questions. -- Alan McBeth 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alan,

I'm sorry for my initial hot-headed reply to your disambiguation link. Because there is apparently no real choice available as an alternative to a 'Christianism' query except Dominionism and Christianity, you really had no option but to refer enquiries to those two pages. I erroneously inferred that you were of the Christian Right, which may not necessarily be the case.

My colleague and I are still preparing basically a historico-chronological article that will bring the development of Christianism, as a system of belief, up to the 20th Century by citing articles which refer to it under that specific term ('ism' not 'ity'). There will be no attempt to judge or assess this belief-system. It will be a purely objective exercise in academic research, much like the initial material you can review online now.

You may then retain or expand 'Dominionism' information on the Christianism page, if you wish, and/or include links to Christianity or to any other pages that may have direct or peripheral ties to the concept as you view it.

This approach falls into line with the FORKING and POV information suggested by WIKI as a Guideline. All perspectives will be fairly covered, thus avoiding controversy, blockage or ongoing back-chatter among us.

We should both express appreciation to Alabamaboy for objectively mediating and refereeing, if that's the term, this discussion.

Best WIshes, Anon HK Contributor

No problem. It's a pitfall of asynchronous collaborative editing.

Thanks for explaining your thoughts. Let me clarify my concern about content forking. I'll list some numbered propositions here. You can just refer to them by number to ask me questions about them or tell me if you disagree with any of them.

1. Right now, the Christianism article includes two subjects: (a) what you are working on, and (b) "Dominionism."
2. Expanding the information on "Dominionism" in this article would not fall into line with the guideline on content forking. On the contrary, it would be a case of content forking: the same subject addressed in separate articles (Christianism and Dominionism).
3. Though you didn't say directly whether or not you think "Christianism" and "Christianity" refer to the same system of belief, I take it that you think that the two terms refer to two distinct systems of belief.

(a) If this isn't true, then your contributions to Christianism are a case of content forking. Your material would instead belong in Christianity or History of Christianity, if anywhere.

(b) If it is true, then it isn't a case of content forking. However, there may be a problem with original research. The theory of the two terms referring to two historically distinct systems hasn't been recognized by any mainstream publication, as far as I know.

-- Alan McBeth 18:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alan,

I appreciate your forthrightness and prompt well-reasoned response.

• Point One above is beyond dispute. The page as it exists now consists of the two segments you mentioned. I agree with you that this might not be ideal. In fact, Dominionism is a recently coined term, an apparent off-shoot of Christianism brought about by socio-political events and theological developments extant largely in the United States. If we elect to keep the Christianism page, which I believe is justified for reasons to be enumerated below, then Dominionism can be linked to it using a standard bracketed -- approach within the text of the Christianism article.

• Point Two Since Christianism is clearly not Dominionism (for openers, one word begins with a D and the other with a C...), two pages are required, thus avoinding the content forking phenomenon you cite.

• Christianism and Christianity, ETYMOLOGICALLY, are different (ISM is simply not ITY), thus justifying separate pages purely on a linguistic and historical basis. I concur that the belief-systems are the same. This reasoning obviates the need to perceive the issue as you express it in sub-divisions (a) and (b) above.

Basically, the approach my colleague and I are taking is etymological and historical. Unlike the thinking of Scott Somerville at the top of this page, Christianism is clearly NOT a neologism. This misconception needs to be dispelled, since the term has been around for millennia.

I will be honest with you, however,and must tell you that my colleague in San Diego is beginning to feel that our historical material could be validly inserted into Christianity, if we all feel that this is the best approach. Still, WIKI should have some sort of skeletal Christianism page. It is a major generator of enquiries that should not be shunted exclusively to either Christianity (given the distinct nature of an ISM as opposed to an ITY) or Dominionism, purely a contemporary term.

I'd be quite interested in your reaction to the etymological approach enunciated above.

Thanks for your time.

Best -- Anon HK Contributor

As I understand it, you have two items that you want to contribute. (1) The etymology of the word "Christianism," and (2) historical information about Christianity.

1. The etymology of "Christianism" is unlikely to support a separate article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles are about the subjects that their titles refer to, not the words that their titles consist of. However, Wikipedia has a sister project: Wiktionary. It sounds like you have the information to make an excellent entry on "Christianism" there.
2. Any information you have on the History of Christianity should definitely go in that article. You would also want to check the Christianity article to see if any summary information belongs there, too.

You're right that there should be a Christianism page, due to the number of queries the term likely has. Some of those queries will be to find information on Christianity. Some will be to find information on Dominionism. This is the purpose of a disambiguation page. It would also be appropriate to include a link to the Wiktionary entry on Christianism there.

-- Alan McBeth 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear ALan,

Yes, I agree that there is certainly a place for this information in WIKI's Dictionary if the term etymology were to be taken in its original sense. As you know, however, etymological research is now centered on the connection of both 'meaning' and 'origin of words', thus providing both an historical and systemic overview of the concept being studied. Here is an excerpt from WIKIPEDIA'S own definition of 'Etymology' to guide you in recent trends in this area:

"A little later, in the 19th century, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (a philologist by academic training) used etymological strategies (primarily in On the Genealogy of Morals) in the attempt to show that moral values have origins, using a form of proto-psychology as a foil against which to justify his claims. Although, it must be said, many of Nietzsche's etymologies are wrong, the strategy has gained popularity in the 20th century, with philosophers such as Jacques Derrida using etymologies to indicate former meanings of words with view to decentring the "violent hierarchies" of Western metaphysics."

Given this interpretation, while we may adjust the major headings of the Christianism article as it develops, the historico-etymological foundations of Christianism definitely seem to belong in the Encyclopedia.

Let me work a bit on fleshing out the top section of the existing page. Once completed, we can decide where and how to display it. *smile*

Interestingly, there's an Italian site located at http://www.christianismus.it that you may wish to browse - to grasp the breadth and scope of this topic.

We'll continue our dialogue. I don't oppose the ADVISORY at the top of our page. We can certainly ask other Wikipedians to validate the neutrality of the finished product. They may, on the one hand, find fault with placing 'Dominionism' in such a prominent position, or, on the other hand, may suggest a more purely 'content-oriented or historical' approach to the definition of Christianism.

Sincerely, Anon HK Contributor

Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,

Below is the proposed text of the re-worked Chrstianism article. The headings have been renamed, both sections have been either modified or expanded and new footnotes have been added. They will have to be coded intratextually and renumbered when the article is posted on the Article Page.

HK Contributor 21 May 2006

Christianism

Christianism refers primarily to a system of theory and practice (in this case religious, ecclesiastical, and philosophical) predicated on the name of Jesus Christ, whose actual identity and existence are either challenged by established academicians [1] or readily accepted on the sheer basis of Faith, and, secondarily, to contemporary practitioners of certain minor anti-secular, pro-religious political ideologies, extant largely in the American South and Southwest, derived from fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity. These movements, all of which lie clearly on the periphery of established religious traditions, are alternatively referred to as Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, or Dominionism, and build on a broad spectrum of contradictory beliefs embraced by minoritarian charismatic elements within Roman Catholicism and by similar elements within more than 2,000 sub-divisions of Evangelical Protestantism.

Contents

1 Introduction 2 Historico-Etymological Christianism 3 Fundamentalist Christianism 4 Notes 5 References

Historico-Etymological Christianism

Christianism, ending in the suffix "ism" [1a], forms the name of a system of theory and practice, in this case religious, ecclesiastical, and philosophical, predicated on the name of its purported founder, Jesus Christ. Christianism is generally used in place of, or in counter-distinction to, Christianity, which, by virtue of its suffix, "ity", denotes a quality, state, or degree.

The word "Christianity" (Christianism in Greek and Latin) is not used in the New Testament (written in Greek). It appears, formally, much later in a seventeenth century English dictionary.[2] Interestingly, the dictionary in question, Coles' English Dictionary, 1676, was alleged to depend largely for its material on Edward Phillips' New World of English Words, 1658, which in turn is said to have borrowed from Thomas Blount's Glossographia, 1656, and which was denounced by Thomas Blount as "outright plagiarism of his dictionary".[2a] In any event, the term "Christianiity" has existed for at least three hundred years as evidenced by these dictionaries, with first usages of the term denoting a closed belief system being traced back to Antiquity.

Indeed, the earliest usage of the term Christianism appears in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35 - c. 107 A.D.), who says (in Greek) that the glory of the Christian is "to live according to Christianism".[3] The term, in Greek, appears within this context as Χριστιανισμός (Christianism).

Somewhat later, writing in Latin, c. 198 - c. 208 A.D., Tertullian used the term "Christianismus" [3a] in his text entitled Adversus Marcionem. [4]

From the earliest times, there has been considerable scholarly and societally-based opposition to the sense of exclusivity that the Christian belief-system, as an "ism", claimed and claims to enjoy.

For example, Mr. Glennie, in a pamphlet reprinted from "In the Morning Land," points out the resemblance between "Christianism" and "Osirianism," as he names the religion of Osiris: "'The peculiar character of Osiris,' says Sir Gardner Wilkinson, 'his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind, with the titles of "Manifester of Good" and "Revealer of Truth;" his being put to death by the malice of the Evil One; his burial and resurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead, are the most interesting features of the Egyptian religion." [4a]

In fact, the central doctrine of Osirianism, as Glennie asserts, is so exquisitely matched to that of Christianism, that it is completely analogous to Christianism, thus eliminating the claim of exclusivity of beliefs proffered by adherents of Christianism. [4b]

So obvious was this contention in academic circles that, particularly in the 19th century, and certainly earlier, scholars were decrying the 'myths' perpetuated by Christianism. One example of the vehemence with which this belief-system has been challenged in relatively recent times surfaces in this quotation from a 19th century writer, Robert Taylor [1784 - 1844].

"The great truth is that there was never but one religion in the world! And the great lie is, the pretence to make a distinction where there never was a difference. Paganism, Judaism, Deism, Christianism, and all other 'isms' are but one and the self-same 'ism', being each or any of them, as chance or different degrees of ingenuity have prevailed, either more or less cleverly constructed poems, or tissues of fiction, thrown over the face of universal nature". [4c]

Although the preceding commentaries shed light on the diversity of emotions and positions to which this term gives rise, Christianism, from a purely historico-etymological standpoint, could be paraphrased similarly to the fashion in which Roman Catholics describe their faith-system, namely as an "intercommunion within a common obedience and discipline." [4d]

Fundamentalist Christianism

The political term Christianism seems to have evolved in western media outlets, particularly in online blogs,[5] as a counterpoint to the term "Islamist." As Andrew Sullivan has said, "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."[6]

If "Christianism" is used as a parallel to the more familiar term "Islamism,", and its cognates, "Muslim" and "Islamist", it tends to highlight the degree to which ordinary Christians believe in governmental enforcement of Christianity. A Christian who objects to cartoons of Jesus Christ would be a "Christian" if he or she supports the right to print such cartoons, but would be a "Christianist" if he or she believes the government should prohibit or punish the publication of such pictures.

However, Christian Reconstructionists or Dominionists may or may not agree with this characterization, depending on what is meant by the expressions "wield [Christianity] as a political force" and "conflate state and [church]".

In the sense they believe all areas of life, political as well as social and personal, are to be lived under the rule of God's Law, as they view it, they would affirm that Christianity should be wielded as a political force. Insofar as the government of their nation allows them to actively persue their political ideals, in that measure they should bring Christian ideals (as they understand them) to bear on policy-making and political sanctioning.[7]

Likewise, in the sense they believe that one must render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and one, including Caesar, must render unto God what belongs to God (Matt. 22:21), they would affirm that State and Church are, at least perfunctorily, connected. Though each must operate within its own sphere and domain, without admixture, both must be ultimately subject to God's Law as it variously applies to each.[8]

However, if the expressions are taken to mean "wield Christianity illegally and/or violently to enforce political ideals", and "conflate the functions and spheres of church and state, such that Erastianism or Papalism results", Dominionists, although this seems to contradict their underlying premises, would tend to disagree with such a description of its aims and motives.[9]

Howcome islamist is shown badly, but christianism is shown as good, im getting tired of wikipedia, its full of racism and bigotry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

1 See: Wikipedia article "Jesus Myth", also: http://www.christianism.com/articles/3.html

1a The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, Vol. VIII, 113.

2 Thomas Blount, Glossographia, 1656.

2a Elisha Coles, An English Dictionary, 1676, Scolar Press, 1971.

3 The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, 1979 (1915), Vol. 1, 658.

3a See: http://www.christianismus.it

4 A Latin Dictionary, Freund's Latin Dictionary, Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, Oxford, 1962 (1879), 328.

4a See: [cut spam link]]

4b "Christ and Osiris," pp. 13, 14.

4c Robert Taylor, #3, 82, 421, H. Cutner [1881 - 1969], The Devil's Chaplain Robert Taylor (1784-1844), The Pioneer Press, c. 1950, 67-68

4d Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, 1978, Vol A-E, p. 677.

5 Christianism vs. Christianity, Daily Kos, November 8, 2004, accessed May 9, 2006.

6 "My Problem with Christianism" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, page 2, accessed May 9, 2006.

7 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Covenant Media Press, 2002, 3rd edt.), pp. 361-367.

8 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp. 389-419; R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), pp. 56, 429.

9 Bahnsen, Theonomy, pp. 504-24, Rushdoony, Institutes, pp. 101, 191-193.

References

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, The Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia, Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen S.T.D., J.D. Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: William Cardinal Baum Archibishop of Washington D.C. February 7, 1978, Corpus Publications, 1979, Vol. A-E, 677

My Problem with Christianism: A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda" by Andrew Sullivan, Time.com, accessed May 9, 2006. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism"

Alan, any thoughts from you on this?--Alabamaboy 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've been very busy, and will continue to be for a couple of weeks.

1. The "Historico-Etymological" section does not belong here. (a) It is an essay. Its underlying analysis is original research. (b) The title of an article ought to reflect its subject, which in this case is "Christian exclusivity". (c) Even if it weren't original research, this material wouldn't support treatment in a separate article, but rather would belong in Christianity.
2. The "Fundamentalist Christianism" section is a content fork of Dominionism.

-- Alan McBeth 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alan and Alabama Boy,

I've amended the article's second paragraph (above) under Historico-Etymological Christianity somewhat -- and added a WIKI Reference, plus an internet site to footnote [1]. I realize that we may wish to modify some of this, or further expand it as we work out some of the article's priorities and points of view.

For the moment, we can keep it on the discussion page.

Yours, Anon HK Contributor 23 May 2006

Christian Reconstructionist Response

The last two paragraphs are, in fact, an original research essay promoting the views of Christian Reconstructionism. This tends to off-balance the entire entry. I have attempted to rewrite the graphs to be less POV, but it is a block of text that reflects a tiny militiant POV of the very people the critics say are promoting "Christianism," -- the title of this entry. It is as if the entry on Islamism was primarily an essay by Islamists refuting the criticisms.--Cberlet 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note to "Anon HK Contributor." Please learn some basic rules of writing on this page. It is a simple courtesy. Your use of dashes and equal signs completely screws up the formatting of the page. Stop writing letters with dashes and equal signs.--Cberlet 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet: NPOV dictates that: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better." — note especially "background is provided on who believes what and why". If the section explaining why Reconstructionists believe what they do in light of criticism, is longer or offsets any other section, then I'd suggest beefing up the other section(s) to be of similar quality; i.e., explain the majority position and give an evaluation from other relevant perspectives. Reconstructionism shouldn't be slighted its chance to represent itself because other positions haven't met their own burdens. » MonkeeSage « 09:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you want to write an essay extolling the ideas of Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism, the Internet has many options. Much of the text belongs on either Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism where much of the same material already exists. Much of the text is redundnat and overly detailed for this page--it unbalances the page. Most of the text is an original research essay. Inote that you have described yourself as "I consider myself a Van Tillian presuppositionalist, epistemological realist, ontological representationalist," so you have a partisan POV. So do I. That means we both need to avoid writing original research essays that bulk up entries. At best, there should be a note that some theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists object to how their relationship to political action is criticized--and then links to Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism. The bulk of the text in the Christian Reconstructionist Response section should be moved to Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism. I propose we do that.--Cberlet 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been following the conversations here and, after thinking about this for a while, I believe that this article should be a redirect (such as on this page from the article' history). I also support moving the Christian Reconstructionist Response section to Dominionism or Christian Reconstructionism, as Cberlet suggests. In addition to seeming to be the most logical place for this information, moving the section will also allow other editors with a specialty in this area to comment on the information. --Alabamaboy 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. -- Alan McBeth 15:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cberlet,

I find myself smiling broadly at the above entries posted by all three parties in the last day or so.

Firstly, I apologize if my dashes offended you, but tildes are potentially revealing of one's personal internet data, and hence fundamentally objectionable. While this policy may prove to be proper Wiki etiquette, it discourages perfectly qualified contributors from building Wiki's encyclopedic holdings...which would seem somewhat counter-productive to the intent of Wikipedia as originally intended.

My colleague and I hold perhaps nine University degrees between us in a variety of relevant and irrelevant disciplines, and short of enlisting Elaine Pagels of Princeton to contribute this page to Wikipedia, there may not be another scholarly opportunity in the foreseeable future to assure the public that Wikipedia can, in fact, post a half-decent page on a topic of this nature.

If you re-examine the sequence of events by consulting the History of this Discussion Page you will see that neither I nor my colleague in San Diego ever supported the Christian Reconstructionist/Dominimion inclusion on the Christianism page. It was imposed upon us, doubtless in good faith, by Alan and Monkee Sage, whose intent from the beginning was to shunt all incoming queries over to the highly debated (and hence undermined) Christianity page or to specific minoritarian interest pages such as Dominionism.

The article, as presented above, is deserving of remaining under the heading "Christianism", minus the Christian Reconstructionist section, due to its logical sequential development and potential for further expansion along Historical and Etymological lines. The 'exclusivity' claim, which you feel disqualifies it from appearing under "Christianism", is related to the "ism" nature of the term itself. Any closed belief system is by simple inference claiming to be exclusive, i.e. non-inclusive of other beliefs.

Reconstructionist or Dominionist interests can be best served under those specific article headings, so their adherents need not fear lack of exposure on Wiki.

Cyberlet, Alabama Boy and I seem to feel that Wiki is intrinscally deserving of a Christianism article page, without blind shunting to other titles. I concur, and ask that we post the first two-thirds of the article above, or, alternatively, all of it, under a POV banner if you wish, until the article can be further honed and expanded in directions deemed appropriate by those with expertise in the field. Editing purely by consensus or committee, while democratic, is not necessarily scholarly.

Anon HK Contributor

I appreciate your concerns. However, Wikipedia operates by consensus. I have also stated that I'm ok with this article redirecting to the other pages. That doesn't mean I don't think your work lacks merit but that it appears, after reading all of the discussions here, that the work should be placed into the other article. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, Alabamaboy, then we'll seek another forum for the Christianism article. Please do not use any of the historico-etymological material above on any Wiki site.

Wiki can wait for Princeton to contribute.

Anon HK Contributor

Redirect discussion

Shouldn't this be a redirect to Dominionism, an established term with an article? If Wikipedia needs to cover the neologism, then the article should be clearer on that point and that use of Christianism is mostly rhetorical. -Acjelen 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to change this article back into a redirect. I will do this momentarily.--Alabamaboy 17:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope people here will do to Talk:Dominionism#Christianism and comment there about the addition of the term Christianism to the article. The addition keeps being reverted or partially reverted.--Alabamaboy 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

From Sullivan

• From Sullivan:

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.

A cite would be nice. In the meantime, it is all deleted. Poof. Have a nice day.--Cberlet 01:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my reversion

A pejorative is, by definition, intrinsically contemptuous and/or belittling, and not about mere "disapproval" (as online dictionaries will show). Whether or not the word Christianist is pejorative should be for the reader to decide. Its inclusion is suggestive and weaselly. Because certain individuals personally don't see what's biased about the qualifier is not a good excuse for including it when it could just as soon be left out.

Sullivan is saying that Christianists are Republicans. Not the other way around. It's erroneous to conclude that Sullivan's view of Republicans is based on what would be a fallacy of composition.

That said, I'm not going to revert these same edits twice in a row. If anyone besides me takes exception to them, then that person or one of those people can do it.Adrigon (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think Sullivan does consider the bulk of the Christian right "Christianists." Definitely he generally applies it to the mainstream Christian right rather than the far right. I still don't see what's biased about "pejorative." Readers should know that this is a word used exclusively by opponents of the philosophy it describes. "Pejorative" communicates that fact, but if there's some other way to do that which is less objectionable to you, feel free to put that in the article instead.Prezbo (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants an example Sullivan identifies Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback as "Christianist standard-bearers" here. Not the far right.Prezbo (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I also object to the use of a qualifier like pejorative. I'm concerned about the repeated deletion of sourced material here and at Dominionism. My sense is that both mentioned politicians (while not seen as tea party supporters) sit on the rightward side of the very conservative Republican party here in the US; both come from states regularly portrayed as conservative-leaning. I ask the User:Prezbo to refrain from any more deletions until we muster some consensus. While I'm neutral as to the above opinion of Mr. Sullivan, ideally the page shouldn't over-guided by the opinion of any one user. I suggest we use this talkspace to construct an acceptable lede. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Try adding Category:Far right politics in the United States to Sam Brownback's Wikipedia article and see how far you get. The applicability of that category to this page is what this discussion is about.Prezbo (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try what I suggested, use this talkspace to find a satisfactory lede. Unless I'm misreading, it appears this discussion thread is about disagreement with your edits on this page, not about a category not previously mentioned or inserted. My concern is that your use of the term pejorative seems to signal a sort of personal bias on these subjects. Here's what I'm seeing: willy-nilly deletion of sourced material and citation; a choice to characterize this pagesubject as a negative view, hence pejorative, rather than merely descriptive and distinguishing from "Christian"; a series of edit summaries which seem to mis-characterize issues in this discussion; a tendency in this discussion to steer disagreement onto minutia you introduced. I tend to agree with the points made by User:Adrigon above, and ask you to save your unhelpful edits until after the deletion discussion is complete. If you'd like to support a position at the AfD, that would be good too. To my eyes, it appears as though you'd like to see the article (and any reference to Christianism) deleted from Wikipedia, and you're supporting your view by deleting sourced material here and at the other page. I want to assume good faith, but this discussion is about your edits, not a category. BusterD (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of the article. The category I mentioned above is the reason Adrigon is talking about "Sullivan's view of Republicans" etc. and I'm talking about the far right--that category was in the article, I removed it, Adrigon added it back, now I'm explaining why it shouldn't be there. If you want to be more specific about stuff I removed that you have a problem with then I can respond to that; I've given clear reasons for everything I've deleted, and I don't remember much of it being adequately sourced. Similarly I don't know what's wrong with my edit summaries, what minutiae I'm steering the conversation onto, why my edits are unhelpful, etc. I'm not planning to vote in the afd because I don't really know if this article should be kept or not. I do think it should be kept out of Dominionism absent some citations establishing that there's a clear relationship between the two concepts. As I said in the AfD merging it into Christian right would make more sense, since "Christianism" is used as a description of the Christian right in general, not just of Dominionists. The fact that "Christianist" is a negative label is backed up by Safire, who says that it has a "pejorative connotation" and is used "as an attack word on what used to be called the religious right."Prezbo (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

People here could fin the following article/blog post from the SSSC intriguing: link, a fairly central site for scholars of religion throughout North America. The term 'Christianism' has been slowly gaining parlance parallel to 'Islamism' as indicative of fundamentalist extremists with a particularly political theology. This is different from dominionism because the focus of each is different: domionism refers to a nonviolent political strategy (or at least one that does not take violence as a necessity) while 'Christianism' and Islamism refer to a violent one, ignoring laws. That is, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, etc would be 'Christianist' while Westboro Baptist Church and the 'Burn a Koran' church fall closer to dominionist beliefs. 90.214.249.253 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge instead of Delete

Instead of simply deleting the Christianism article, I suggest redirecting and merging it with the Dominionism article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Christianism, Islamism, Judaism

Hi,

fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.

However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion.

E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people."

And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").

By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."

And "Christianism" as above.

Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to political movements, to avoid confusion.

To be consistent I will also add this discussion to the "Islamism" page.

--Musa Emre (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide how the word should be used, but rather to describe how peopel are using it, and how it has been used in the past, which the article does. Mathiastck (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think we are giving undue weight to the opinion of all these bloggers. The term is not new and even if some uses it in a pejorative way, it's still pretty much a synonymous for Christianity. Is the pejorative usage really that common in the US? Laurent (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly common but it's definitely more common than the older usage of the term as a synonym for "Christianity." If you don't think the pejorative usage deserves this much coverage in Wikipedia (it may not), my suggestion would be AfD because that usage is really the only claim the word has to notability. As a synonym for "Christianity" it would at best deserve a redirect to "Christianity" and an entry in Wiktionary, not an encyclopedia article.Prezbo (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrt your last edit summary--every Wikipedia article is about one definition of the word or phrase that forms its title. When a word has two definitions and both are notable, Wikipedia deals with that by creating two articles differentiated by parentheses in their titles. In this case the older meaning of "Christianism" definitely doesn't deserve its own article or to be treated as the primary topic of this article, as I explained above.Prezbo (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the word has two different definitions - one that has been in use for hundreds of years and one that has been used since 2003 by some bloggers in the US. I think it's misleading to make the article primarily about the latter definition. Also I'm sure that if we want we can expand the article so that it's not just a dictionary definition. There are plenty of sources on Google Books, like this one for instance. Laurent (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice that that book is discussing a third meaning distinct from the Webster's definition or the currently more common pejorative usage. This will be my last response because I'm repeating myself, but one more time: when a word has multiple unrelated meanings Wikipedia's solution is to create separate articles for each meaning that is notable, not to create one article about the word listing all its meanings, whether they're notable or not. See the "Major differences" section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Being in use for hundreds of years doesn't automatically make a word deserving of an encyclopedia article; being covered in the New York Times might, although this article probably should have died at AfD in any case.Prezbo (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the pejorative usage of "christianism" is notable, however my point is that the article misleads the reader into thinking that this is the only usage or the primary usage. What I'm proposing is to add a line or two to make it clear that the pejorative usage is new, and that the term used to mean something else. Also I'd argue that the current article is purely about the usage of the term - how it has been used by various people. So if we only mention some usages and not others, we are breaking NPOV. Look for instance at Islamism where the various usages of the term are described in the lead. Laurent (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Current version does not portray the current usage as the only usage, it seems like a fine way to present previous and current usage. Mathiastck (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition

I deleted the reference to the Merriam Webster definition- "the religious system, tenets, or practices of Christians"- and replaced it with a reference to the Atlantic. The word was coined in an analogy to Islamism, Islam as a political philosophy. The Merriam Webster definition does not distinguish Christianism from Christianity, and contradicts the note "Not to be confused with Christianity". Abigailgem (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Return to the original meaning of the term: "Christianism" redirected to "Christianity"

I have redirected the article "Christianism" to "Christianity", and the latter should report "Christianism" as a variant name of the religion. "Christianism" is the original name of the Christian religion (Gr. Khristianismos, La. Christianismus), pre-dating "Christianity" which originally was a Latinate synonym of "Christendom", referring to the Christian world or Christian community (which at the time of its original usage was the civilization of Medieval Europe). Later "Christianity" became the name of the religion while "Christendom" remained the term referring to the Christian world, while "Christianism" fell out of use. The attempt to mutate the usage of "Christianism" to refer to Christian fundamentalism can be traced back to a few American journalistic articles of the early 21st century — apparently all written by Andrew Sullivan, who is not even a professional journalist —, and such attempt originated as a clumsy imitation of "Islamism". Such attempt is not enough to change the long established meaning of this ancient word, and the article "Christianism" on Wikipedia gave it WP:UNDUE weight, as it has been repeatedly noted in almost all the past discussions on this talk page.--37.161.156.78 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)