Choosing Christianity’s Fate

There can be no question of saving or restoring Western civilization. It is far too late for that. At the foundation of every culture is the cult, religious practice. The West no longer has a foundation as the Catholic Church no longer plays a central role. The West has left the Church, but at the same time, the Church has left the West. There is no such thing as a secular society, only one that is about to disappear or be replaced. Nietzsche was quite right when he said that God was dead, and even today few recognize the gravity of that. If God is dead then Europe is dead, the West is dead. And it cannot be revived.

The deeply flawed right wing movements of the early twentieth century were the last serious attempts at a revival. Those attempts, with resources and determination far in excess of any so called movements today, failed. There will not be another. The Catholic Church, the only existing institution with the resources to even attempt such a thing today, seems uninterested in that task, if not antagonistic to it.

Attempts to move Westerners out of their apathy and into action by pointing out the dangers to their survival posed by third world immigration, or feminism, or liberalism are futile. Likewise futile are calls for nationalism, or preserving the beauty of (some) white women. Collectively Westerners have no true reason to live, and ultimately wish to die.

The claim that Westerners are apathetic because they are living better and happier lives than their ancestors is ignorance and delusion of a truly extraordinary degree. Material possessions and financial wealth only bring very limited and temporary happiness. With modern technology and resources they have the ability to distract themselves in ways their ancestors could not, but the very existence of these distractions is a sign of misery. For example, the enormous quantities of pornography produced in the United States does not indicate any liberation into a wealth of sexual opportunity but rather extreme deprivation and dissatisfaction. That Playboy magazine came into existence as early as 1953 shows that this is not a new situation.

The apparent strength, morality, and public order of 1950s America was only a paper thin illusion. That society, hollow and meaningless, was doomed to collapse. Removal of third world immigrants, or any other undesired group, would do nothing about this fundamental fact. 1950s America cannot be recreated, nor should it be.

As religion is the foundation of every civilization, Christianity is the foundation of the West. The claim that Christianity destroyed Western Civilization is pure stupidity. Of course, when I say Christianity, I mean Medieval Catholicism. The situation is rather different in the case of Protestantism or other forms of Christianity, including the primitive Christianity of the early Church.

Christianity has assumed many forms in its long history. So many forms that it could be said that there is no such thing as Christianity but rather Christianities. The form that it assumed during Medieval times would likely be unrecognizable to either Jesus or the Apostle Paul (assuming those were historical personalities.)

Reviving or saving Western Civilization would mean first and foremost saving Medieval Catholicism. This is almost certainly impossible. Rather than following the example of the Counter Reformation, the Church largely succumbed to modernism following the Second Vatican Council and likely before. But more importantly, Christianity, including its Medieval variant, has always been an imperfect fit for European peoples. Many people of European descent today, including some of the most intelligent, insightful, and spiritually conscious are deeply suspicious of Christianity, and are unlikely to give it the benefit of the doubt. They sense that Christianity, whatever its strengths, and whatever its form, is alien to Europe, and seems in many ways to be at odds, perhaps even at war with Europe’s history, culture, and true identity.

This rejection of Christianity must not be understood to be due to superficial reasons such as the recent abuse scandals. The outrage expressed at these scandals is in fact very difficult to take seriously as the Unites States has tolerated, encouraged, and profited from the industrial scale sexual abuse of children for generations in the form of circumcision. This one fact alone, the widespread acceptance of this procedure, which has no basis in European or Christian tradition, reveals the shallowness and superficiality of Americans Christian faith, and of course American is the most religious Western nation.

Some would claim that Europe’s past and its only possible future is a pagan one. There are two problems with this claim. First is adequately explaining why Europe became Christian. The second is the reality of currently existing pagan movements. If one rejects materialist explanations of wealth and military power, then the fact that a Germanic man stops worshipping Odin and replaces him with Christ indicates a weakness either of Odin, or of his unfaithful follower. There is no evidence that contemporary pagans, on the whole, are more serious or devoted than their ancient counterparts. The existence of supporters of gay marriage within Asatru, indicates at the very least a need for a considerable ‘house cleaning.’

The Traditionalist School, that is the philosophical ‘movement’ begun by Guenon, generally accepts the orthodoxy of Christianity and its appropriateness for European peoples. However, this same school also generally accepts (in at least some forms) the pagan faiths of India and China as orthodox and appropriate for those peoples and not in need of replacement. This suggests that the pagan faiths of Europe were or at least became inferior in some way. This idea is difficult to accept, though perhaps only for reasons of personal pride. It may be that while the entire world experiences the same dark age of the Kali Yuga at the same time, different regions experience it in different ways, with sub cycles beginning and ending at different times. For example, millennia from now India may be purely monotheist while Europe worships thousands of gods. But this is only speculation.

However, even if the weakness of European paganism in its late stages is acknowledged, this idea must be differentiated from the erroneous thinking of those like C.S. Lewis who accept that while paganism had some value, the full truth was not revealed until the coming of Christ. Lewis and many others today confuse the exoteric for the esoteric. The truth of Christianity in no way depends on the literal bodily resurrection of Christ nor even that a flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth even existed. A better attitude I think is that of the ‘rogue’ Egyptologist John Anthony West who refers to Christianity as ‘remedial Egyptian.’ I believe in fact that adopting this attitude is the only hope for European people.

Western Civilization cannot survive. But that does not mean that the people of Europe, and elements of the cultures of previous inhabitants of Europe cannot survive, in the same way that elements of classical culture survived in Christian Europe. But this new culture of Europe, whatever form it may take, must have religion at its foundation. If the people of Europe do not develop a genuine religious tradition as a replacement for the moribund Christianity, they will either be subsumed into Islam or disappear altogether.

While I personally am extremely sympathetic to calls for Europe to return to its pagan heritage, I also recognize that this is not something that could be achieved by simply rejecting Christianity, which has far from giving birth to a new paganism only led to atheism and nihilism. It is deeply insulting when some Christians refer to the contemporary world as pagan or heathen, as it is nothing of the sort. Unfortunately there are some confused pagans who seem to believe that being pagan means first being anti-Christian rather than anti-modern, and are in favour of many modern trends. Christians and pagans alike gleefully participate in modern degeneracy and bring shame upon their ancestors.

The old ways and the old gods have been forgotten and they are not easily remembered, even by those who wish to. In no way do I oppose efforts to remember and restore the old faith, but at this point I remain unconvinced that paganism in any form could provide the foundation for a new European civilization. Christianity is closer to hand, and it would be most unwise to discard it casually whatever its flaws in modern form or historically.

Retaining Christianity in some form, and using it as foundation to build a new civilization would require addressing the many ways that Christianity is and has been an imperfect fit with Europe, and making changes where necessary. Of course these changes would in no way resemble efforts to restore the ‘true’ Christianity of the early Church. That entire approach to the matter must be utterly rejected. The validity and appropriateness of Christianity for Europe can only be entertained in the first place due to the breakdown of pagan tradition. While there are many areas of potential conflict between Christianity and European tradition, here I will briefly address four that I believe are important: sex, the Bible, the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, and that between faith and culture and nationality.

Christianity has a problem with sex. The prohibition of marriage of priests meant that many intelligent and moral men were not able to continue their family line. This is less of a problem today however, as the quality of the priesthood has declined. This problem with sexuality became particularly acute in Europe during the Victorian era resulting in such things as circumcision and a hysterical anti-youth sex attitude. But this problem has existed since the earliest days of the faith. While it would be naive to suggest that the abuse scandals would not have occurred had the priests involved been allowed to marry, the scandal does reveal the inappropriateness of the required vow of chastity. Sexual desire is something to be transcended by spirituality not repressed by it. This is an important distinction that Christianity has for the most part failed to make. Sexual desire is an essential part of human identity and it cannot be repressed without consequences. The repression of the Victorian era resulted in the decadence, hedonism, and vulgarity of today.

Christianity’s attitude toward sex appears strange when taking into account the fact that the Song of Solomon is part of Scripture. Even if one accepts the highly dubious allegorical interpretation of the book, that it represents God’s love for his people, the contradiction between the book and the attitude of the Church must be recognized. Unlike a Hindu temple, for a Christian Church to have sexual imagery, in paintings, or sculptures, would be considered scandalous. Supposedly marriage is a holy sacrament, but it is not. The Church is far too uncomfortable with sex to treat marriage in that way. If the union of man and woman was truly believed to be holy, absurd regulations regarding prophylactics and the sinfulness of various bodily positions would never even come into consideration.

It is interesting that the Church has favoured monogamy while the Bible itself does not. Polygamy was not part of Greek and Roman tradition and I am undecided if it should be in a future European culture. What I am certain of is that Christianity must be realistic in its treatment of this issue. Ideally, erotic passion would make up an important part of every marriage, but that is not a guarantee, nor is that the primary purpose of marriage. In the future, prostitution must not only be allowed, but become a respected and protected profession, recognized as essential for the proper functioning of society. Christ’s words equating lust with adultery must be understood to refer only to married women.

The role and make-up of the Christian Scriptures needs to be seriously examined. The Christian Bible is not a product of Europe, and is valid for Europe only to the extent that it is modified to match European culture and tradition. It is unsurprising that the Medieval Church had no particular concern about mass illiteracy, as they recognized the conflict between the Bible and the realities of the Church. The Protestant obsession with reading the scriptures rather than the experience of the mass and the tradition of ritual is an attitude that must be rejected. There is no need for the Scripture to be in the vernacular, as there is no need for most people to read it. Religion is not a matter of intellectual assent to propositions. Religion is what you do, not what you believe. And most people are not capable of determining for themselves what the proper actions are in a religious context, nor of properly interpreting religious texts.

Besides returning the Bible to Latin, or its original language, the text itself would have to be changed. Cries of outrage on this point are quite hollow, as the text of the Bible has already been changed. The sloppy addition to the end of the Gospel of Mark is a good example of this. The most important changes would take the form of revising the canon to include non Christian and non Jewish books such as the works of Plato and the Hermetic writings, and other texts that many Christians have recognized as spiritually valuable. Including these works is absolutely necessary to correct the false impression given by the inclusion of the Jewish Scriptures in the Christian Bible. Including the Jewish scriptures, but not the scriptures of any other culture, even those of the people adopting Christianity, implies that the Jews had some special knowledge or relationship with God or truth that others, apparently everyone else, lacked. This is completely unacceptable, as any honest and open minded examination of the situation will reveal that many other ancient cultures were far greater than the Hebrews, including the Egyptians and Babylonians, who are used as symbols of evil in the Bible. The other option is to follow Marcion and remove the Jewish scriptures altogether.

If Christianity is restored as the faith of Europe the relationship between Christianity and Judaism must be resolved more satisfactorily than it has been so far. Christ said that he came to fulfill the Law not abolish it. But why? Why must it be fulfilled? And what law? There are many laws for many peoples, just as there are many gods. European people are not now, nor have they ever been bound by Jewish law. As already mentioned, the belief that the Hebrews, their scriptures, and their god are in some way true while others are false, must be rejected. If so, then why was Christ born in Palestine? Was that merely a historical accident or was it in some way a necessity? Could he have been born in Rome? Who does he mean when he speaks of his Father? Is he speaking of Yahweh or of someone else? These questions will not be easily answered and the contradictions not easily resolved. Extreme alterations in the Scriptures and doctrine of Christianity will be necessary. If Christ’s life and message has any relevance for Europe than it must be seen as a fulfillment not of the will of Yahweh, but of the will of Jupiter, and the will of Odin. Something like this seems to be the attitude that the original Germanic converts took to the new faith. Christ was an addition to their pantheon, not a replacement.

In the Jewish scriptures there is a clear link between people and faith. The two things go together. This is not the case with the Christian scriptures as they were written under different circumstances. If it is true that there is no difference between Jew and Greek, male and female, then Christianity can only be a personal and private matter, not an established institution, part of, or working with the state. And indeed Christianity was originally intended for alienated outcasts who were dissatisfied with the official cults and existing philosophical movements. Many of the teachings of Christ and the apostles seem to be that of a sannyasi, one who has renounced the world for spiritual purposes. It must be understood that while that is an entirely valid path, it is a path only for the few. Many of Christ’s teachings simply cannot be followed by the majority, and they absolutely must not be applied on a societal level. Many of the moral and spiritual teachings of the New Testament apply to individuals only and have nothing to say whatsoever about the behaviour of institutions or nation states.

I do not expect any of the ideas mentioned here to be seriously entertained by those in power in the Church, at least not in the immediate future. But as conditions worsen and desperation grows, the formerly impossible and unthinkable will no longer be so. Leaders will be replaced and new movements begun. In this changing environment, it is possible that paganism will experience a resurrection and the question of the role of Christianity will be deemed irrelevant, but the future is far from clear. If Christianity is to play a major role in the future of Europe, as some insist it must for Europe to survive at all, then those who claim that must address the issues raised here, along with many others. If Christianity is unable or unwilling to address these issues, then it should be rejected.


The House Pagan

4 thoughts on “Choosing Christianity’s Fate

  1. I think this article gives in way to much to modernist thought, possibly without even realising it. Religion-shopping for secular (I.E. nationalist) reasons rather than for metaphysical merit strikes me as wrongheaded. Whether or not Christianity should be followed should be dependent on whether or not Christianity is true, period, not the degree to which it fits x-y-z culture.

  2. “This problem with sexuality became particularly acute in Europe during the Victorian era resulting in such things as … a hysterical anti-youth sex attitude.”

    If you’re going to excise the Jewish elements of Christianity, you’ll be left with more, much more, of the same. Judaism and Islam, both Semitic creeds, view youth sexuality as a force to be regulated via marriage; Polygamous marriage in the case of Islam and ancient Judaism, and Monogamous marriage in the case of modern Judaism. “Abstinence” is discouraged. On the other hand, the White, Germanic (not Hellenic) psyche seeks not to regulate sexuality but to overcome it, hence, puritanism and late-age marriage. Germanics experience sexuality differently from Semites and southern Europeans, and it’s not surprising that Ashkenazi Jews (who are descendants of Israelites and southern Europeans, chiefly Greeks and Italians) have traditionally been considered to be hypersexual, and that modern Jews are more sexually liberal than their White counterparts. If you throw the OT out the window, you’re left with Gnosticism (abnegation from the world of the Demiurge), a bit of Hellenism, and the puritanical spirit of North-Western Europeans. Quite the opposite of what you desire here.

    “absurd regulations regarding prophylactics”

    What is absurd about the proposition that sex should not be sterile, but lead to procreation? The pill/condoms (to say nothing of abortion) are unnatural and evolutionarily counterproductive. A healthy attitude toward sex would be to marry early, as early as sexual maturation begins (which ideally should parallel maturation along other domains — financial, psychological, occupational, etc. — something the corrupt modern world forbids), and then have as much “unprotected” sex with one’s wife as possible. Of course, such marriages have to be arranged; Jews call it shidduch, and it generally works. This is un-European, however; Northwestern-Europeans are puritanical not despite themselves, but because of themselves. It’s a neurological thing. You’ll notice that Jewish Feminism tends to be quite sexually-liberal whereas White Feminism, the original Feminism before promiscuous Jewesses adopted it, is sexually-puritanical. To complain about the Church’s puritanism is to complain about Germanic Whites being Germanic Whites.

    “Polygamy was not part of Greek and Roman tradition and I am undecided if it should be in a future European culture.”

    It shouldn’t. Monogamy guarantees that, roughly speaking, and please forgive my vulgarity, there’s an available vagina for each penis. In a Polygamous society, where every second male is involuntary celibate, if not worse, if you have the expected consequences. Note: “Monogamy” doesn’t mean “no concubines for males”. A society can be Monogamous while maintaining a small number of female concubines to be used by men when the need arises. Christianity doesn’t allow men to “cheat”, but other traditions see it differently; a woman has to be sexually exclusive with her husband, while the husband may engage in sex with women who are no one else’s property – neither their father’s nor some husband’s property. That’s not an argument against Monogamy whatsoever, just against the Christian interpretation of Monogamy that expects men to be just as exclusive as women.

    “Ideally, erotic passion would make up an important part of every marriage, but that is not a guarantee”

    If you have genuine Patriarchy (see: Muslims), then sex is guaranteed, and passion should be cultivated if, for whatever reason, it is lacking in the first place.

    “In the future, prostitution must not only be allowed, but become a respected and protected profession, recognized as essential for the proper functioning of society.”

    Allowed? Yes. Respected and protected? Nope. Prostitutes are basically exploiters; they provide something that can, due to basic demographic reality (society is 49% male and 51% female) be accessible to everyone who needs it. That is, ideally prostitution would be redundant, but because we don’t live in an ideal world, it can be allowed. But there’s nothing honorable about demanding money/resources for sex that you could be giving to a husband. Prostitution is not essential whatsoever if you have solid, old-school, young, parentally-arranged, Monogamous, Patriarchal marriage. Most of the world doesn’t have that, hence why prostitution is so prevalent.

    “Christ’s words equating lust with adultery must be understood to refer only to married women.”

    Here I concur wholeheartedly. An unmarried party-slut belongs to however takes her as concubine/sex-slave. And with such a societal attitude, before long you won’t have any such promiscuous women, as they’ll all be taken as concubines/sex-slaves or refuse the path of the slut and marry instead, which is a positive outcome either way.

    “Including the Jewish scriptures, but not the scriptures of any other culture, even those of the people adopting Christianity, implies that the Jews had some special knowledge or relationship with God or truth that others, apparently everyone else, lacked.”

    This view is corroborated by the NT. The narrative is that the Jews were Chosen, broke their testament with God by rejecting His Messiah, in turn were rejected by God, and therefore we have God’s New Testament with humanity instead of the Old Testament with the Jews alone. If you reject the OT’s account of the Jews’ Chosenness, the ground beneath the NT slips right away. Of course, even if you do a Marcion and throw the OT, you still have dominant echoes of Judaism within the NT, so it’s an exercise in futility altogether.

    “Extreme alterations in the Scriptures and doctrine of Christianity will be necessary.”

    Good luck establishing your own particular heresy as the one heresy to rule them all. I’m only half-sarcastic here: if you actually manage to invent a new viable religion out of a mishmash of Christianity and European thought, then all praise to you. It’s not an easy task, to use an understatement.

  3. I will provide several short, but important points of disagreement:

    1. Religion should not molded to fit perfectly with human nature. Perhaps part of what makes the west great is the struggle to overcome ourselves. There are plenty of criticisms of Christianity that I think are worth considering, but I don’t think rejecting it for being alien to Europe should be the main argument of a worldview. In short, as Senghendrake said, the main question, is “is it true?”

    2. Jesus probably did exist, as Argent has pointed out that we even have Roman sources on this.

    3. I hate to break it to you, but stuff like “Asatru” seems more often than not just constructed modern religion. As far as I can tell, most knowledge about actual ancient European religion has been long since lost.

    4. I don’t think asserting wealth causes apathy is naive. Look at Eastern Europe vs Western Europe, for instance. I am open to an actual refutation of the wealth=apathy idea though.

    An interesting piece, but I don’t really agree with a lot of it.

  4. This approaches religion from a Modernist sociological frame of mind. Religion should not be rejected because you find parts of it are inconvenient ideologically, or appear confusing

    Religion should always be approached from the question of truth. To do otherwise defeats the purpose.

    “Christianity has a problem with sex. The prohibition of marriage of priests meant that many intelligent and moral men were not able to continue their family line.”

    I also have problems with how Christianity has applied Biblical passages (or lack thereof) to issues surrounding sexuality, but this isn’t a big concern. As I think Nick Steves pointed out, celibacy actually had a reverse effect because many monks were orphans of poor families and undesirables. This method stopped those orphans passing on their genes, but instead of doing things like sterilization or eugenics which are questionably immoral, it got the most out of such people and they led very productive lives. This makes up for the problem you cite. The order of monks took a lot of trash out of the gene pool and put it to good use.

    You also fail to mention Orthodox Christianity, which is to varying degrees still adhered to faithfully in half the continent, and certainly has a far higher nominal affiliation than Western Catholicism experiences (Poland is the eastern exception, which is strangely devout).

    All Christian Reactionaries recognize problems with Modern interpretations of Christianity and consider these heresy. We are firmly establishmentarian in our beliefs. I would favor a state church which consisted of two bodies. One body would be an ascetic priestly caste devoted to mediation, ritual, service, doctrine, and preservation. The other half would act partly under auspices of the state as a judicial enforcement body. Clerics would essentially replace our idea of ‘police’ and would enforce religious law (which is essentially all law). This would be a fully weaponized caste of the internal order. Ascension into these professions would be by blood, and I’d make a distinction in the first category between monastic monks and regular priests with regards to marital limitations. Monks should not marry, but should also never really be in the presence of women or children either. They should be geographically secluded.

    As a final note, I want to say that looking at the average Western European and saying that we can’t hope to have these people participate in a Medieval Christianity, they need another religion less alien to them, is almost populist in its critique. Why would we want to save these people from the sword of Islam by pandering to what they think they want, which really is the god of pornography and coca cola? If the people of England for example want to burn in a multicultural hellhole, then let the people east of Warsaw look on and say “they turned away from God and have been punished.”

    Nothing lasts forever. If some nations are doomed to perish (Sweden is the top contender) then perhaps this needs to be solemnly accepted. I am happy to work on the Third Rome if the people of the formerly Catholic West have no desire to save themselves, and one thing I can guarantee is that Asatru isn’t going to save anything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s