There is some obscure use of the word "Christist", as evidenced in this essay:

Active Pythagorean schools were in existence until the sixth century. The last, in Alexandria, was suppressed by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the course of a Christist pogrom against philosophy and paganism. The refugees fled East to Persia, where Zoroastrianism continued to flourish until its suppression by Islam between the 8th and 10th centuries.

There is little doubt that from those times forward, science, mathematics and philosophy were dangerous fringe occupations throughout the Christist Empire. It can be argued that Christist intolerance was responsible for a hiatus of nearly 1000 years in the development of human knowledge, aided and abetted by Pythagorean secrecy. For example, it is now generally accepted that the earth is spherical, and that it orbits the sun along with the other planets. It seems certain that the Pythagoreans understood this, both Copernicus and Kepler acknowledge it in their writings, but the development of calculus, as a means of modelling the mechanics of the solar system, had to wait until the 17th century.

Christist intellectual fascism was the main reason for the delay, in my view. Copernicus strikes a distinctly paranoid tone in the introduction to his major work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' (1543), and there is an element of Russian Roulette in the careers of many serious philosophers of that period. Followers of Copernicus, like Galileo, were subjected to the inquisition, and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Rome by Papal order of Clement VIII in 1600, with his tongue in a gag. Newton was fortunate to be working in the more open minded climate of Cambridge.

http://snipurl.com/g5j5

Note: I take issue with the author's use of "followers" in this sentence:

"Followers of Copernicus, like Galileo"

Those who were persuaded by the scientific discoveries or hypotheses of Copernicus and Galileo were not "followers" of these scientists, any more than those who accepted the scientific authority of Newton were "followers" of Newton.

My criticism of this use of the word "followers" is consistent, I suggest, with the fact that Copernicus gave us the word "Copernican", not "Copernicist".

Galileo, who recanted the scientific implications of his astronomical observations, gave us neither "Galileoian" nor "Galileoist".