not just because I'm a Christian,

Curious (honestly). What does it mean to be a "Christian," today? I.e. for those that self-label themselves as "Christian" what is it about one's composition, one's being, that one would hold up as an example of what Christ would say or do?

The Nicene Creed pretty much covers the answer, although there is plenty of legitimate debate over the Filioque. Regarding that topic, what is important to Christian doctrine is recognizing that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity.

So being Christian means you hold that God is God?

Talk about diminished expectations.

From sociologist and professor of religion William Martin:

"It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world..."

BTW, 'the term "Christianist" appears to have first been used by Rémi Brague in his book, Europe. La voie romaine.

He defines Christians as those who believe in Christ, and “Christianists”, as those who exalt and defend Christianity, the Christian civilization …

Greg,
I don't do apologetics, but before I retire from blogging I'm going to write a massive, 20,000-word "Why I am a Christian and My Apology" blog post. But the very, very short version is that I hold to these truths:

(1) I believe in a robust doctrine of Original Sin, which I believe is made up of not just my own individual failings, but also my participation in human society, which is made up of entire networks of oppression, control, and injustice.

(2) I believe in man's inability to perfect himself by himself, I believe utopia is impossible, and I believe all naive idealist efforts to break out of our web of sin inevitably lead to tyranny because we're all complicit in that same sin. (this is also near the heart of why I label myself "conservative," despite the abuse of that label).

(3) Given (1) and (2), I believe deliverance can only come from outside that web, and, if the claims about Jesus Christ in the Bible and the ecumenical creeds are true (and I certainly affirm them), then His sacrificial, atoning death on the cross provides absolute forgiveness for my own complicity in the system and enables me to be an "agent of grace" to those around me.

So to the heart of your question, "what does it mean to be a Christian today?" If I may quote "postmodern Catholic" Jack Whelan on the subject (linked above at "naive idealists"):

But the point is this, the only way you escape the loop is by being thrown a lifeline from a source outside of it. The person caught in the loop, of course, has to chose to use it to climb out. There's no forcing compliance. But it's not even a possibility unless such a lifeline is thrown. The task for the genuine Christian and for every person alive to the possibility of grace is to throw lifelines, not to condemn or to force their will on those who are resistant to it.

That's my understanding of the meaning of original sin. None of us if he lives in the real world is ever free from the influence of evil in it. It's just there; it's not the whole story, but it's in the air like toxic fumes. We are all of us caught in the an all-but closed system, and we would eventually suffocate if something were not offered from outside, a lifeline which does not lift us out, but rather gives us some clean air to breathe and which strengthens us to live more effectively in a world full of toxins. But I do believe that it's possible to create zones within the world that are relatively free from these toxins, both as individuals and in communities, but no one is ever free so long s/he walks the earth. That's why we need to throw them to one another and to be grateful when one is thrown to us.

For me, being a Christian today means having faith in Christ and holding to the traditional teachings about Him, while "throwing lifelines" to those around me, which I interpret as being a good neighbor, assisting those in need where I am capable, supporting social justice in the world, and, if given the opportunity, evangelizing. It's about loving God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself. It's about being other-directed, not self directed.

I certainly don't agree with it 100 percent, but Whelan's series on "Sinning Originally" really hits what I tried to get at in a few sentences above. See especially Part II, Part III, and Part V.

Notice how I didn't say anything about politics, inerrancy, tradition, or evolution.

Edsall makes many good points, but I disagree with his overarching thesis that Guiliani's early polling success indicates a fundamental realigning of the GOP. Rather, I believe that the current threat of radical Islam, combined with the lack so far of any prominent social conservative candidate, is keeping social conservative issues on the sidelines. But it's still very early in the primary campaign.

Without religious conservatives, the GOP would not have emerged in 1994 from 40 years of being the minority party in the House. If the party abandons social conservatives, it will most likely return to minority status. As much as I wish it were not the case, fiscal conservatism alone will not win Congressional majorities and Presidential elections.

"the fearmongering against "Christianists" gets me, not just because I'm a Christian" But this doesn't really make sense -- a Christian, on your understanding of it, should be as opposed to out-of-control Christianism as anyone else. That term could be given more than one meaning, but the operative one in these contexts is Andrew Sullivan's (who is himself, of course, very much a Christian):
"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."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html

Personally, I find the term "Christianist" utterly overwrought. The goals of religious conservatives are hardly comparable to the goals of Islamic radicals. Compare: restricting/eliminating abortion vs. eliminating virtually all women's rights; opposing gay marriage vs. making homosexuality a capital crime; stricter regulations on broadcast television vs. making any "insult" against Islam a crime.

In fact, comparing religious conservatives to Islamic radicals with a term like "Christianist" is on par with an animal rights group referring to modern livestock-raising practices as a "holocaust." It's a ridiculous exaggeration on the one hand and an insulting minimization on the other.

That Christianists are "hardly comparable" to Ismlamists hardly lets them off the hook. They still wield Christianity as a political force to eliminate abortion, discriminate against gays, censor tv broadcasts, and continue to conflate church and state.

Law-and-order and so-called Security Republicans form the third leg of the great domestic policy tripod of the conservative coalition - the other legs being, of course, religious conservatism and libertarianism. It's easy to which which of these does not belong. Economic 'conservatism' (called liberalism in Europe) began as an alliance of libertarians with elements on the right to oppose the policies of the New Deal. In my opinion, it's high time that the libertarians cut their losses and form a coalition with the Democrats, or at least make the conservatives in the Republican Party pay attention to them and not take them for granted. I agree that, with their authoritarian leanings, the law-and-order types are scarier than religious conservatives, but with both willing to increase government power (religious conservatives by enforcing moral norms, authoritarians by increasing the coercive power of the state), they have little common ground with libertarians. Hence the ensuing spectacle of Ron Paul standing up for old fashioned classical liberalism and foreign policy realism-bordering-on-isolationism, and the all other mainstream movement Republican candidates (religious conservatives and security conservatives) scoffing at him. Unfortunately, religious conservatives and security conservatives seem to have become quite comfortable bedfellows.

"Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque"

According to a strict interpretation of the Koran and Hadith, all Muslims have a duty to be Islamists by this definition. There is little evidence of a native tradition of mosque/state separation in the Islamic world. In the Sunni world, the Caliph was the commander of the faithful and the secular ruler. The Hashemite kings trace their lineage back to Mohammed himself. Mohammed was no martyr, and did not instruct his followers to lead by example. He was a triumphant conquerer who began the first raids on caravans and ultimately began the tradition that demanded from conquered peoples either tribute or conversion.

"Christianist" is one of those buzzwords that has more innuendo than concrete meaning.

"Christianist," as Eric and Alan are getting at, is a blunt-force instrument. If Sullivan would stick to the usage outlined in the quote above, I'd have no problem with it. But, as he and others use it, I feel like I'm being smeared with the term every time he does, just because I happen to hold some socially conservative positions. The comparison between Muslim and Islamist is apt, because the distinction between those two is lost on a lot of commentators as well.

Good comments so far, folks. I do think, if the GOP wants to have any success in the immediate future, all three legs of the conservative tripod need to be balanced. While the religious right many have overreached earlier in Bush's term, I really think now we're tetering to the Security side, and Giuliani is Mr. Security par excellence. And some of the hostile reaction we've seen to libertarian Ron Paul is shameful.

DD, I do not know how Andrew Sullivan uses the term, but JohnS' comment above that Christianists "wield Christianity as a political force to eliminate abortion, discriminate against gays, censor tv broadcasts, and continue to conflate church and state" seems to support what you are saying about its application to people who "hold some socially conservative positions" instead of to a narrower group of people who are so religious (and indifferent to freedom) that they would go as far as Islamists would. People who use the term this way are setting a low bar. Unless "discriminate against gays" refers to significantly more than "oppose gay marriage," that is something that Bill Clinton was willing to do ten years ago, and the censorship of broadcast and other content was a project of the Gores in the 1990s. (The fact that the censorship has been supported by Democrats does not make it right, but it does show that the boundaries are not as sharp, and that "Christianists" are not as unusual, as some people say.)

Even when the positions taken by "Christianists" are wrong, as they are on censorship and some of the issues related to homosexuality (depending on which Christianist we're talking about), I do not think that the label (either "Christianism" or "Religious Right," since they are apparently considered to be synonyms) is particularly useful for defining the opposing sides on those issues. It is not unusual for the application of political labels to be unclear or to depend on who defines what the label is labeling, but for Christianism and Religious Right, the boundaries are too amorphous, in my opinion, to be helpful in explaining who is wrong on any set of issues, or why. Even when they are wrong, the fact that Religious Right people/Christianists took positions on issues for religious reasons is not what makes their positions wrong. Most of the positions they are wrong to take can be, and often are, taken for other independent (though improper or inadequate) reasons, or are taken by people who clearly are not "Christianists." However, a bad position is just as bad when it is taken by someone who is not motivated by religion. Also, the entire "Religious Right," as a political alliance, has probably depended as much on cultural factors as independently religious factors for its appeal and influence, though those cultural factors are usually treated as part of the religion of the "Religious Right," and support for its agenda extends or has extended (depending on the issue) well outside of the boundaries of that alliance. Even though the "Religious Right" or "Christianists" have been politically influential on these issues, I think it still makes more sense to recognize the existence of that working alliance but to draw the line between positions people take on each issue, instead of trying to force people cleanly into neat little boxes, so that we know who is a true Christianist and thus who should be feared and hated.

There has definitely been some kind of phenomenon inside the United States called the "Religious Right," but other than noting the few core goals on which all or almost all of its members seem to agree and around which the movement was organized, I do not think that much can be accurately said about the common views, motivations, or zeal of that movement.

Christianism is not about people who "hold some socially conservative positions." It's about people who, as Abraham H. Foxman (National Director of the ADL) says, long to: "'Christianize' all aspects of American life, from the halls of government to the libraries, to the movies, to recording studios, to the playing fields and local rooms of professional collegiate and amateur sport, from the military to SpongeBob SquarePants."

The "Christianist fearmongering" may indeed be overwraught and annoying, but off-point? Christianists have marched from school boards to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. An evangelical Christian president has dismantled federal programs in science while forking millions of federal $$$ over to the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council.

A lot of us have a vested interest in keeping American civic culture secular. It allows us Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and atheists to feel like full members of society rather than tolerated minorities. Only until George W. Bush is out of office, calls for culture wars against godless liberals/Democrats cease, and calls from the GOP base for a “Christian nation” cease, will I believe what David says about liberals not having "much to fear these days from social (or Christian) conservatism."

Maybe no one's checking this thread anymore, but anyway: one aspect of the political dynamic that I fear David is overlooking is the way in which candidates running as 'machismo conservatives' have tremendous incentives to give the zealot wing of the party just about everything they might want. For starters, since ex hypothesi these candidates are fundamentally unprincipled politicians, they have no reason not to promise whatever they need to promise to win the primaries; and, once they win, they'll know they have to 'dance with the one that brung you' in order to avoid a primary challenge the next time around. Moreover, as you noted, the key tactics for these guys is being willing to be 'tough' to liberals and brown people. But the kind of symbolic issues that are so important to the zealot vote are easy to stump on, and are a _very_ convenient way to look like you're willing to stick it to _both_ liberals _and_ one of the more important groups of brown people to be willing to stick it to, i.e., Muslims.

Moreover, because they won't be trusted by the zealots as one of their own, they'll have to go even _further_ in that direction in order to win & keep their loyalty.

They might not be true-believing religious-right types themselves, but these sorts of politicians have all the right (or, rather, wrong) incentives to make the true-believers happy.