A blogger war appears to be brewing with Andrew Sullivan on one side and Hugh Hewitt, most prominently, on the other. Sullivan has taken to using the pejorative "Christianist" a lot on his blog and has introduced the term into the cultural mainstream with an article in Time magazine. By "Christianist" Sullivan means someone who believes that one's politics should be informed by one's faith commitment. Since he differentiates between Christians and "Christianists", presumably Christians are those who know their place at the back of the political bus:
But [the "Christianist"] agenda, whatever else it is, cannot be described as mainstream Christianity. Its extremism, its enmeshment with partisan political power, its contempt for individual liberty, its certainty and arrogance and intolerance, demand that some other name be given to it.
So what is it that the "Christianists" oppose? Abortion on demand, gay marriage, giving the benefit of the doubt to life in the case of comatose people whose preferences are not known, but whose family wants the person to be kept alive, and so on.
This is not to deny that there are people out on the fringe who would support banning contraception and sexual behavior between consenting adults, and Sullivan is right to challenge them. What he is not right to do, though, is to suggest that people who hold to traditional Christian morality are extremist, intolerant, and arrogant, and this he does. In the process he manages to conflate in peoples' minds any Christian who seeks to exert influence in the public square with the nefarious "Christianists" who he believes seek to establish a totalitarian theocracy.
Hugh Hewitt, a "Christianist" himself perhaps, writes a response at World Magazine.