Counter-Currents
793 words
It has been a cliché for a long time now that Christianity is fundamentally a religion that seeks to unify mankind and do away with all distinctions between men, and that the inherent logic of Christianity is the abolition of nations and nation-states, and of everything that stands in the way of a common brotherhood of man.
The United Nations and the internationalist movement are in this view fulfilling the moral ideal pronounced by Christianity, although in a secular form. This interpretation has ample support from mainline Protestant churches, as well as from the Catholic Church and its current Pope. Even conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are to a large degree defenseless in the face of the idea that Christianity demands colorblindness of them. Even though they may be uncomfortable with non-white immigration and ethnic diversity, this seldom gets spelled out. All their zeal and fervor are thus directed into futile causes, such as fighting abortion, gay marriage, and of course Islam.
Arguing from Scripture about the exact nature of the Christian teaching on ethnonationalism is futile, in my opinion. Most people who engage in it are in any case convinced of their positions before they seek out Bible passages to prove them. And how are we to judge the seemingly contradictory meanings of the Bible? Does that side win which has the numerical superiority of verses? Not all verses are of equal value, not all sayings and acts of Christ are of equal historical veracity, and so on. This is something for the biblical literalists and the progressives to argue over. For those who are interested in a good biblical argument for ethnonationalism, I recommend an article from the Faith and Heritage Webzine called “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.”[1]
Since the time of the Enlightenment, the position of theological liberalism has been that the nature of Christianity is far more nuanced than some formal doctrine induced from the Bible. Rather, Christianity is what Christians believe and do, and this takes into account what the circumstances are in each time and place. Instead of focusing solely on the Bible, the object of theological study is the historical mind and its relation to and mediation of Scripture, tradition, and its surroundings. This also affects biblical scholarship, which seeks to uncover the historical circumstances of the authors: how their social and political environment affected them and how they used and changed the oral and written sources available to them. Based on this, an attempt is then made to reconstruct their state of mind and thought-processes. Not surprisingly, this view of theology and biblical scholarship is associated with Continental thought, while a kind of empirical legalism is more characteristic of theology in the English-speaking world.
Instead of a biblical argument for ethnonationalism, I want to make an argument based on natural theology, that is, based on observation and common sense. Thus, the theological argument for ethnonationalism only requires the very basic concept of an almighty God, Creator of the universe. Ethnonationalism follows logically from that. The Gospel of John begins thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” If we bring this passage into our scientifically-informed world, those things that have evolved naturally would be of the divine order that came into being through God. The races of mankind, and to a lesser extent the nations, are then separated according to the divine will. This separation is according to nature, while its opposite is a human artifice and a sin against nature and its Creator.
The problem of migration between peoples of the same race does bring some temporary problems and tensions, but these are usually resolved with time. Experience shows us that this is not the case with migration between races. There has always been some migration within the white race, for example, although over time they were assimilated. Thus, small amounts of intraracial migration can even be said to be part of the natural order, whereas interracial migration is not. The former has happened naturally throughout history and is part of the process that formed each nation, whereas the latter is a human design and a rebellion against the divine order.
Since history is a revelation of God’s will, the ascendancy of the white race to world dominance through the centuries is not something of which to be ashamed, but should rather be seen as the work of Divine Providence. If there is any people on Earth that is God’s chosen people, the divine revelation of history witnesses to the fact that it is indeed the white race and no other.
Note
[1] http://faithandheritage.com/2011/01/a-biblical-defense-of-ethno-nationalism/
9 comments
“small amounts of intraracial migration can even be said to be part of the natural order, whereas interracial migration is not”
Funny thing… only yesterday I wrote similar in a comment :
“they want diversity WITHIN the race and they do not want diversity ACROSS the races.”
… but… there´s a more important connection: in my comment, I surmised that
“It´s a glitch in logic, logic is an insufficient instrument to deal with that question”.
Now, I didn´t elaborate on that but it´s actually related, or identical, to the argumentation of this article. This article here argues on the basis of theology, and more precisely, based on the idea of creation. That is actually also the basis of my argumentation: you cannot logically deduce a given entity. The entity is. There is no “reason”, you cannot give a reason for it. The positing of platonic ideas is right this: the assumption of a given entity. And that is why I don´t bother to give “reasons” why interracial diversity is wrong. It´s wrong because it´s wrong. Because things weren´t made that way.
Has it been discussed that arguing with “platonic ideas” is related to arguing with creation?
Here´s how I came to warm up to the idea of “creation”: by the idea that the “world” is the mirroring of my internal affects into the external. That makes me the creator, right?
The science of physics permanently runs into paradoxes, circularities: IMO, the result of the attempt to logically argue for things that have no “cause” but that are created. Logic cannot work there, much rather you would expect logic to fail, which it consequently does.
Now I guess it would be asked a bit much to have racialists argue with creationism; but I guess it´s fair to say that arguing with freedom for self-determination boils down to the same: I want it because I want it. Now that´s an argumentation that works, while a logical deduction of segregation does not.
Conclusion: we need the courage for positing our ideas. We do not need to justify them logically. Because close inspection shows: there IS no logical justification! To think so is a fallacy! And we Westerners, we masters and first proponents of logic, need to be aware of the limits of logic !
Thank you for your thoughts Peter.
I have no good answer for your question and I’d like to hear more about what you’re thinking.
Please check out part 2 of my Schleiermacher essay. He was a theologian and a Plato scholar. The first part under “Schleiermacher’s Philosophy of Mind”, but the whole essay may give you a better picture of Platonism and theology.
https://counter-currents.com/2017/10/friedrich-schleiermacher-part-2/
//Rather, Christianity is what Christians believe and do//
If this is true, then contemporary Christianity IS liberalism, and Christian ethno-nationalist goals are doomed anyways. The author’s conception of what Christianity is appears to make the faith itself, and not merely the manifestation, relative and contextual. It robs Christianity of all transcendent qualities.
I know it’s a hard pill to swallow, but I just don’t think these two things mix.
1. “If this is true, then contemporary Christianity IS liberalism…”
That may be true to a large extent, but not all Christians are liberals, and the current situation can change. There was a time when Paul was Saul of Tarsus, but that wasn’t the end of his story. Contemporary politics is also dominated by liberals, but if we believed that because of what we see, politics IS liberalism, we could just quit right now.
2. “…and Christian ethno-nationalist goals are doomed anyways.”
That’s not entirely obvious. Are their goals any different than the goals of other ethnonationalists? Are all ethnonationalist goals doomed?
3. “The author’s conception of what Christianity is appears to make the faith itself, and not merely the manifestation, relative and contextual. It robs Christianity of all transcendent qualities.”
This needs further clarification. What are those transcendent qualities? And I’d say that the manifestation is contextual, but because history and the circumstances are changing the manifestation has to change accordingly. The divine reality, however, is eternal.
Note that the Christian “utopia” of complete equality among man is premised on this two factors: Firstly it is “in Christ” so that the secularised ideals has outreached the scope. Secondly it will only find complete fulfillment when the the New Jerusalem descends and new heavens and new earth replace the existing fallen Creation. Therefore the ideals of the UNHRC, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or even the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1776 is applicable only in the context of the Christian America and the Christian West…
Interesting article, I’m glad that Counter-Currents published this. We need more Christian nationalist thought, we can’t win without winning over white Christians and (more importantly I think) we cannot take back the West without Christianity. One only needs to look at white birth rates to see the truth of that latter claim: only whites who are practicing Christians have an above-replacement level fertility rate. Christianity is an extremely pro-natal religion, see: “be fruitful and multiply,” “sin of Onan,” and the Quiverfull movement. Neopagan movements simply lack the theological grounding for a similar pro-natal belief system, and thus are an inferior option for our people. Smart nationalists will learn how to harness Christianity instead of fighting against it.
I think it is vitally important to engage Christianity & ethnonationalism. Glad to see this article.
I would like to engage some of the things you wrote and offer thoughts for consideration.
“Rather, Christianity is what Christians believe and do, and this takes into account what the circumstances are in each time and place”
What Christian beliefs are and how Christianity should be practiced are based upon the word of God (Luke 11:28, John 14:15, Matthew 4:4), not dictated by “the circumstances…in each time and place” even though Christians have compromised doctrinally at various points in history in response to the fashions of the day.
“Instead of focusing solely on the Bible, the object of theological study is the historical mind and its relation to and mediation of Scripture, tradition, and its surroundings.”
Theology is the study of God/the nature of God. To study the nature of God requires a revelation of Him, which very revelation is found in the Bible, not in the “historical mind”, etc. Christ Himself is the clearest revelation of God (John 1:14, Hebrews 1:3).
Natural theology is not necessarily theology given that conclusions are reached apart from divine revelation. Many things we see in nature are not the will of God, yet they happen. Genocide, immorality, wars, adultery, etc. are all a part of history yet they are not God’s will. If anything history is a revelation of that which is not God’s will.
“those things that have evolved naturally would be of the divine order that came into being through God. The races of mankind, and to a lesser extent the nations, are then separated according to the divine will.”
Well said.
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Further, when you look at how other races initially ended up in white countries it is largely because they were forced to go there, which could also be viewed as sin. Blacks didn’t end up in America because they built ships and came over.
The basic Christian argument for ethnonationalism is fairly straightforward. The central Christian command is to love your neighbor as yourself. When boiled down that simply means doing what’s best for the other person/party. Given that ethnonationalism is NOT rooted in hatred—it seeks to do what’s best— it does not violate the central commandment.
Christianity is universal in the sense that all people, no matter what race, can become Christians through faith in the gospel (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11). However, that is not a prescription for a nation’s naturalization laws/citizenship requirements, it simply determines of the scope of membership in the spiritual community.
There are some good resources for further exploration along this line.
http://fashthenation.com/2018/06/the-conference-of-catholic-bishops-tower-of-babel/
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm#article3 (Scroll down to “I answer that”)
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/31/saint-thomas-aquinas-opposed-open-borders/
From Viktor Orbán’s 2018 Transylvanian speech:
The upcoming elections are therefore of the utmost importance. In these elections we must demonstrate that there is an alternative to liberal democracy: it is called Christian democracy. And we must show that the liberal elite can be replaced with a Christian democratic elite. Of course in Central Europe there are many misconceptions related to Christianity and politics, and so here I must make an incidental observation. Christian democracy is not about defending religious articles of faith – in this case Christian religious articles of faith. Neither states nor governments have competence on questions of damnation or salvation. Christian democratic politics means that the ways of life springing from Christian culture must be protected. Our duty is not to defend the articles of faith, but the forms of being that have grown from them. These include human dignity, the family and the nation – because Christianity does not seek to attain universality through the abolition of nations, but through the preservation of nations. Other forms which must be protected and strengthened include our faith communities. This – and not the protection of religious articles of faith – is the duty of Christian democracy.
Having got to this point, there is just one trap – a single intellectual trap – which we must avoid. It is part of human nature to be reluctant to step outside one’s comfort zone and engage in disputes; and so we are willing to make concessions to our opponents. But on intellectual issues this does more harm than good. The bait for this trap is hanging right in front of our noses: it is the claim that Christian democracy can also, in fact, be liberal. I suggest we stay calm and avoid being caught on that hook, because if we accept this argument, then the battle, the struggle we have fought so far will lose its meaning, and we will have toiled in vain. Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favour of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.
So well stated by Orban. Thanks for posting.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.