Christianity

The Cunniferous Clown of Canterbury: The Church of England Confirms Its Death-Wish by Nominating a Female Leader

/9 Comments/in , /by

I prayed, I begged, I wept: “Don’t let them do it, God! Don’t let them put a woman in charge of this great British institution, so respected, so influential, so important in the lives of so many millions for so many years! Deflect the desecration! Avert the abomination! Please, God, please!” My prayers were in vain, of course. Deep down, I had always known they would be and I had tried to prepare myself, to harden my heart against the inevitable.

Core component of Clown World

I thought I had succeeded. But it still hurt badly, I still cried out in anguish when I heard the news: a woman had been officially confirmed as the next Doctor Who. And what about the Church of England and the news that a woman, Dame Sarah Mullally, will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury? Well, that didn’t upset me in the least.[1] It was like hearing that a clown with a big red nose was going to be be replaced by a clown with a slightly bigger red nose. The Church of England is a core component of Clown World’s YooKay franchise, so its head has to be a clown. Sarah Mullally, the current Bishop of London, is not the first clown to be Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible and very likely won’t be the last. She is, however, the clearest signal yet that the Church of England is resolutely determined to commit suicide and hand England over to Islam.

Real rabbi, bogus bishop, indisputable imam: Ephraim Mirvis, Sarah Mullally and Mohammed Mahmoud of the East London Mosque (image from London Evening Standard)

This is because she’s not merely a clown: she’s a cunniferous clown. That adjective is my Latinate neologism for what English might call “quim-carrying.” In short, the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be a woman. And womanhood is a wonderful thing, indeed a worshipful thing, a central and essential part of divine creation. That’s on a Christian understanding of the world. But the Christian understanding must also recognize that womanhood is a complementary thing, both inside and outside the church. Some essential roles are fitted only for women and some only for men. One role utterly unfitted for women is that of bishop. When the Church of England announced that it was to have a cunniferous Clown of Canterbury, it was the loudest blast yet on the horn of a ship steaming straight for a very big and very solid iceberg.

Oxymoronic abominations

But the blast wasn’t needed in 2025. The suicidal course of the Church was made clear in 1992, when its governing body voted to allow women to become priests. “Female priest” has the same ring as “nation of immigrants.” Both phrases are oxymorons, complete contradictions in terms, things devised by enemies of an institution and accepted only by the foolish, self-hating or suicidal within that institution. But I don’t need to quote scripture or deploy theology to prove that female priests are an abomination and will be deadly for any church that accepts them. I merely need to ask whether the Guardian approves of them. And does the atheistic, anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-White Guardian approve of female priests? Of course it does. The Guardian celebrated the abomination of female priests back in 1992 and is celebrating the arch-abomination of Sarah Mullally in 2025:

Decades of secularisation and declining congregations mean that modern Anglican leaders no longer command the kind of influence once enjoyed by a William Temple, or a Geoffrey Fisher. More recently, the abuse scandals that led to the resignation of Justin Welby last year have also gravely diminished the authority of the established church.

Yet at a time of polarisation and disturbing social division, the Church of England still has a vital role to play. As the far right co-opts the symbols of Christianity to promote hostility and intimidation towards perceived outsiders and minorities, Britain’s faith movements have a duty to be standard-bearers for an ethos of tolerance, generosity and inclusion. In that context, the historic nomination of Dame Sarah Mullally as the first female archbishop of Canterbury should be seen as a landmark moment. (“The Guardian view on the first female archbishop of Canterbury: a choice that offers renewal and hope,” The Guardian, 5th October 2025)

How sincere is the Guardian when it smarms that “Britain’s faith movements have a duty to be standard-bearers for an ethos of tolerance, generosity and inclusion”? Not at all sincere, as I’ll show below. And how right is the Guardian to call Mullally’s appointment a “landmark moment”? Well, there’s a much better way of putting it. George Owers noted in the Critic that Mullally’s appointment is really a lanyard moment. Lanyards are the cords that hold an identity badge for a bureaucrat or someone attending a conference. And “lanyard class” has become a shorthand in the YooKay for politically correct authoritarians, for bureaucrats and officials who feel entitled to monitor and control the rest of us out of the pureness of their perfected hearts. As Owers says of Mullally: “She is the pure distilled essence of the hectoring lanyard class, a bureaucrat, a proceduralist and a progressive down to her fingertips. Her entire professional career was spent in the NHS [National Health Service], latterly as Chief Nursing Officer and ‘Director of Patient Experience’; she is on the record as being ‘pro-choice’, pro-gay marriage, on board with the usual check-box list of LGBTQIA+ orthodoxy.”

All that makes her perfect to head the suicidal C of E. As I’ve said before, the central principle of the modern Church of England is not Godliness but Guardianism. And here’s more mulling on Mullally in the Guardian by another cunniferous clown, the Rev Marine Oborne, “chair of Women and the Church (Watch) and vicar of St Michael’s church in Chiswick, London”:

People all over the country will have rejoiced on Friday at the news of the first ever female archbishop of Canterbury. After literally centuries of women seeking to serve as leaders in the church, a woman will now hold the most senior position in the Church of England. And the news was welcomed not simply because Sarah Mullally is a woman, but because she is a wise, intelligent, courageous and compassionate leader.

Of course, some people are unhappy – either because of her sex or because of her support for the blessings of same-sex relationships. […] Recently, I was in a Church of England school teaching a sixth-form class and one young woman said that a boy she knew had told her that the Bible says women need to be under the authority of men. I would have liked to have been able to tell her that this is not what the Church of England believes, full stop. But I could not – as churches are allowed to teach this. In a world with so many problems, so much hatred, misogyny and racism, it would be good for the Church of England to have an authentic voice at its top that calls out the systems of male privilege that drive violence and abuse against women and addresses the institutional misogyny that is currently being ignored. Hopefully, the appointment of our first female archbishop of Canterbury will be a big step towards this. (“The next archbishop of Canterbury has no time to waste in making change – this is what she will be up against,” The Guardian, 5th October 2025)

Providentially, a perfect opportunity soon arrived for “courageous” Sarah Mullally to be “an authentic voice” calling out a “system of male privilege” built firmly on “institutional misogyny.” It was also a perfect opportunity for the Guardian to rebuke a “faith movement” that was failing in its “duty to be a standard-bearer for an ethos of tolerance, generosity and inclusion.” Indeed, the faith movement was not merely failing in its duty: it was acting as an unabashed standard-bearer for intolerance, cruelty and exclusion. Here are the dismaying details reported in the Guardian itself:

The communities secretary has said it was “absolutely unacceptable” for women to be excluded from taking part in a Muslim charity run in London. The event on Sunday, in Victoria Park, Tower Hamlets, was advertised on the Muslim Charity Run website as an “inclusive 5km race” for “runners and supporters of all ages and abilities” – open to “men, boys of all ages and girls under 12”.

Speaking on LBC [London Broadcasting Company] radio, the communities secretary, Steve Reed, said he was “appalled” and that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) would determine whether any laws or regulations had been breached. He added: “I saw these reports … and I was as horrified as anybody else. It’s absolutely unacceptable that women should be blocked from going on a fun run in a public space when the men are allowed to go out there and do that.

“Now, we have an equalities watchdog, I’m sure that they will be aware of this case. It’s getting a lot of publicity, and quite rightly so, and they will determine whether there has been any breach of the law or regulations and then I’m sure sanctions will follow as appropriate. But speaking for myself, I was appalled.”

He added: “We do not want a situation in this country where men are allowed to do things that women are then barred from. We cannot tolerate that.” (“Minister ‘appalled’ at Muslim charity run in London that excluded women,” The Guardian, 14th October 2025)

The leftist minister was posturing, of course. And also evading the obvious fact that one large and growing group in Britain isn’t at all “horrified” or “appalled” by such exclusion of women. The group is officially favored by every organ of the British state and given every assistance to grow in size, power and influence. Who is it? It’s those misogynist meanies called Muslims. But at least the minister made some public criticism of the “charity run.” What about “courageous” Sarah Mullally and the fiercely feminist Guardian? Did they seize the opportunity to defend women, to apply their passionately beloved values of inclusion and tolerance? Did Sarah Mullally and the Guardian speak out in condemnation of the blatant misogyny and exclusion of that charity run?

No real paradox

You will need no guesses. Their response equalled the square root of Bernie Madoff’s integrity times the fifth power of Benji Netanyahu’s conscience. In other words, they said absolutely nothing in condemnation of the charity run. That’s how courageous Sarah Mullally is and that’s how sincere the Guardian is. Now, it might seem paradoxical that progressive leftists like Mullally and the Guardian will never criticize the utterly anti-progressive “faith movement” of Islam, which genuinely oppresses women, homosexuals and other groups ostensibly held sacred by leftists. But there’s no real paradox. The underlying purpose of leftism is not to help those it claims to cherish, like non-Whites and women, but to harm those it certainly hates, like White men and White Christians. Muslims are by definition not Christian and are overwhelmingly not White, so they’re a sacred group for leftists like Mullally.

That’s why the Church of England has said nothing as, decade after decade, Muslim rape-gangs have preyed on White girls all over England. White English Christians belonging to the official Church once went on crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the infidel adherents of Muhammad. Nowadays, White English Christians belonging to the official Church rejoice in an immivasion of Muslims, something that has started with raped, tortured and murdered White girls and will end in England becoming a Muslim country. But only if the Muslimmivasion isn’t reversed, that is. It will be reversed, but the Church of England will be a hindrance rather than a help in that. When the Church accepted female priests, it ceased to be Christian and started to be Satanic. But it had ceased to be a serious institution long before that. The great White writer Evelyn Waugh was born Anglican in 1903 but became Catholic in 1930. He thought he had found the True and Permanent Church, which is why he mocked the C of E through an Anglican vicar called the Reverend Tendril, who had long ago served in India and done nothing to update his sermons after he returned to England:

The vicar preached his usual Christmas sermon. It was one to which his parishioners were greatly attached. “How difficult it is for us,” he began, blandly surveying his congregation, who coughed into their mufflers and chafed their chilblains under their woollen gloves, “to realize that this is indeed Christmas. Instead of the glowing log fire and windows tight shuttered against the drifting snow, we have only the harsh glare of an alien sun; instead of the happy circle of loved faces, of home and family, we have the uncomprehending stares of the subjugated, though no doubt grateful, heathen. Instead of the placid ox and ass of Bethlehem,” said the vicar, slightly losing the thread of his comparisons, “we have for companions the ravening tiger and the exotic camel, the furtive jackal and the ponderous elephant…” And so on, through the pages of faded manuscript. (A Handful of Dust, 1934, Chapter II)

The Church of England was risible in Waugh’s day, but not actively and obnoxiously evil. Like all other official institutions in England, it started to become evil after the Second World War. By the end of the century, it was collaborating enthusiastically – or endiabolistically – with Islam and the Muslimmivasion, as the late great Jewish satirist Peter Simple regularly observed in the Daily Telegraph. And Simple foresaw the advent of Sarah Mullally a quarter-century ago:

WHO will be the first woman bishop of the Church of England? Odds-on favourite in clerical circles (writes “OLD BEADLE”) is the Rev Mantissa Shout, live-in partner of Dr E W T (“Ed”) Spacely-Trellis, go-ahead Bishop of Stretchford, trustee of Tate Modern and chairman of Football Managers for a Multi-Faith Millennium and dozens of other enlightened bodies.

Mantissa first came to notice as a militant feminist deaconess. She fought hard for the ordination of women by non-stop screaming outside Lambeth Palace and staged disruption of church services all over the country.

After being ordained and shacking up with Dr Trellis, she became vicar of Nerdley, where her well-publicised ecumenical services included Aztec sacrifice, Voodoo “alternative WI trance sessions” and Tantric Buddhist ceremonies for the young. But her habit of wearing a smart black “Muslim-type” silk headscarf at services led to a protest by Dr Mahbub Iftikharullah, chief imam of Nerdley, and several days of rioting.

Her plan is evidently to become joint bishop with Dr Trellis and succeed him on his retirement or other method of disposal. Then, who knows? Canterbury already beckons. But it will beckon in vain if the Bishop’s domestic chaplain, the Rev Peter Nordwestdeutscher, has anything to do with it.

In his subtle, incense-ridden, High Church brain, visions of death by slow poisoning, worthy of the worst days of the medieval Papacy, wreathe and coil in intricate patterns of malevolence.[2] (The Daily Telegraph, Peter Simple Column, 23rd June 2000)

Sarah Mullally is Mantissa Shout come to life, an egregious embodiment of what happens when Christianity ceases to be theocentric and becomes thegocentric. That’s another of my neologisms, created to describe those who confuse Theos, God, with their own ego.[3] The thegocentric bring the Church not to Ho Theos, the God, but to another god. He’s called Thanatos, which is Greek for Death. Sarah Mullally is a priestess of Thanatos, not a priest of Theos. By making her Archbishop of Canterbury the Church of England has confirmed its death-wish.

[1]  To be honest, I didn’t care about the female Doctor Who either, but I still think Doctor Who is worth more than the modern Church of England. Consequently, a female Doctor is a worse desecration than a female Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible.

[2]  Note that Peter Nordwestdeutscher is a parody of the progressive Jewish pseudo-Anglican Paul Oestreicher.

[3]  If God doesn’t exist or doesn’t intervene directly in human affairs, then all theistic religions are really thegocentric. But some forms of thegocentrism will still be much worse than others.

Book review – Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the collapse of British patriotism by Andrew Fraser

/15 Comments/in , , /by

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the collapse of British patriotism
Andrew Fraser
Arktos Media Ltd., 2025
Available for $33.00 (paperback) or $45.00 (hardback) from www.arktos.com or from amazon.co.uk

Reviewed by Hugh Perry, Lake Placid, New York in Heritage and Destiny, September-October, 2025; reposted by permission.

Andrew Fraser, long time advocate and thinker on matters pertaining to Europeans worldwide but particularly Anglo Saxons, has given us yet another book reflective of long research and ever deeper probing on the most vexing questions. In his Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus he probes the old question of Christian religion and racial identity.

In the Book of Galatians, Chapter 3, we find the often quoted verses: “26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

These verses and the entire book were written to wean the Galatians of central Turkey off the belief that Christians yet needed to follow the Old Testament ritual laws. Although asserting that group identity is rendered meaningless in Christ, it also classifies believers as “the seed of Abraham.” This confusion is often viewed as the differing perspectives of the Old Testament, given to a specific genetic people, the “children of Israel,” and the New Testament which offers a new form of covenant not limited to one people. In this reading of Testaments, Old and New, many are those who see the seeds of a destructive universalism in the Christian teachings.

Many are the racial nationalists over recent centuries who saw in Christianity, at least, as it developed over the years a teaching virulently threatening to those committed to race, tribe, ethnicity and all forms of group identity beyond the theological. In fact, the ideology of “civic nationalism” is a recent system of seeing ideas, political and economic, as being the core of patriotism. In this world view, Enlightenment politics with its positing of democracy, human rights, equality before the law, free market economics etc, are seen as far more important than ancestry or any cultural reading of group identity.

Some would argue that these universal political dogmas are the result of Christian universalism. They see the current war on all forms of identity as the inevitable flowering of New Testament dogmas and faith in Christ being the only real “brotherhood.”

In an alternative version of this critique, the European (alternatively French) New Right views paganism as – by definition – more tolerant of mankind’s diversity. This position sees all monotheistic faiths, Islam, Judaism and, of course, Christianity as incapable of viewing the Other except through their own dogmas. The Other is only fulfilled if and when he becomes us.

In sum, whether seeing Christianity as a force weakening homogeneous groups via liberal humanism or, as a crusade to obliterate all identities other than its own, it is the Christian faith which has brought us and continues to bring us to the current mortal threat to White peoples around the world.

This critique will, of course, have to explain the ability of racial, ethnic and national awareness to survive in deeply Christian times and places, ranging from Catholic to Protestant to Orthodox cultures. In fact, the argument could well be made that many strains of Eastern Orthodoxy still maintain a Christian orthodoxy but very much in keeping with racial and ethnic identity. Plus, we should not forget that Afrikaner apartheid and American southern segregation were promulgated by two of the most deeply religious Protestant peoples.

The matter remains far from simple. Of one thing we suspect all may well agree – that institutional Christianity has over recent years become an active force committed to the destruction of racial survival. The question lingers: need it have been or be that way?

Into this debate has entered one of the most prolific writers on issues of White racial identity, Andrew Fraser. He is not a thinker who remains frozen in preconceived notions but has constantly delved ever deeper into racial identity and survival. Two caveats need be added. 1) Fraser is primarily concerned with the survival of his, the Anglo-Saxon people; and 2) he is a Christian. Neither of these convictions is less than essential to Fraser’s overall world view.

In addition Fraser is not simply a complainer. Yes, he dissects that which ails us. And, yes, most of his musings focus on the Anglo-Saxon worlds. But, he has also created a system which he views as a possible means to a resurrection of his peoples’ spirit. It will remain to the reader to decide whether this solution is realistic or, at least, workable. Racialists are often long and adept at diagnosing illness but short on the precise form of a possible cure. Fraser’s writings, at least his most recent ones, offer both.

In fact, the trajectory of Fraser’s thinking is long and complex. His books and articles are thoroughly researched and make for serious, never superficial, reading. This reviewer has often wondered why he is not up there with some of the more serious thinkers to emerge in the varied and creative strands of dissident rightist thinkers. The recent extensive work by Joakim Andersen, Rising From the Ruins: The Right of the 21st Century, outlines dissident schools of thought ranging as far afield as Bharatiya Janata in India to thinkers and movements in the Philippines. Yet, Christian-based movements merit only a few pages, only one of which is from the Anglosphere. Indeed as far as England goes the author, otherwise so detailed, gives us just two pages on the English Defence League.

Truth be told English (or British) nationalists have not fared well at all in the post World War II era. Featuring endless splintering and little electoral success, Andersen may be justified in given the “green and pleasant land” short shrift. So Fraser is advocating for two ostensibly long suffering causes, Christianity and Anglo-Saxon identity. Yet if his thinking is truly analyzed his models may well be relevant to white peoples around the globe. And even if limited to those areas for which he prescribes his cure, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and, to some yet lingering extent, America, Fraser offers scholarly research and, at least, a most hopeful unlikely cure.

It is impossible to separate Fraser from his life’s struggles. The fierce opposition which his opinions encountered served to clarify his own world view.

Andrew Fraser was born in Canada at a time (1944) when that nation’s Anglo-Saxon roots and fealty to the Crown were still strong. He holds BA and LLB degrees from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went on to achieve an LLM from Harvard and an MA from the University of North Carolina. He eventually emigrated to Australia, to teach at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. He helped establish the approach of teaching legal theory as part of the history and philosophy of Western legal tradition. He even went so far as to discuss how much the Western legal tradition owed to Christianity.

Eventually his entire department was relegated to second class status at the school. They wished to focus on the career aspects of the law. Finally, in July of 2005 he wrote a letter to the Paramatta Sun questioning Australia’s open immigration policies. The result was quick and furious. By the time the dust had cleared Fraser was suspended from teaching, then accepted an early retirement. This was not the end, for in March of 2006 his letter was branded a breach of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. The sorry story goes on, including Fraser’s persecution at Christian bible schools for whose courses he’d enrolled. For details see his book, Dissident Dispatches (2017: Arktos).

In sum this is a man who not only talks the talk but also walks the walk, suffering for his heretical beliefs on matters racial and much else. He is a tireless writer and profound analyst of the fading fortunes of Anglo-Saxons wherever they may dwell.

In order to understand properly the policies advocated in this Christian Nationalism Versus Global Jesus book we will first look at the conclusion of an earlier book, The Wasp Question (2011: Arktos), which was reviewed in H&D #49 by Ian Freeman. After explaining steady demonization and erosion of Anglo-Saxon identity he suggests three schools of thought upon which a renaissance might be constructed.

They are kinism, preterism and Covenant creationism. Each provides a theology capable of embracing believing Christianity as well loyalty to the people’s identity. Kinists believe that Old Testament prohibitions of mixing species still are obligatory today. They go so far as to view multiracial marriages as a violation of the sin of adultery, seeing the racial, ethnic family as similar to the nuclear family.

Preterism sees history as not a waiting for the Second Coming of Christ. They see no rapture or apocalypse in the future. To them the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD was the end of the Old Covenant. From that point on each distinct nation fulfills its destiny via its unique relationship with Christ. Cosmic creationism takes the above a bit further. It sees the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple as ushering in a new era in which God’s grace will now be imbued into every nation or ethnos of the known world.

By the end of The Wasp Question Fraser advocates for mediating corporate bodies such as families, schools, industries, who will be many carriers of the Christian ethnos of the folk.

But it is in his most recent book that Fraser arrives at the final hope (prayer) for the resurrection of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism.

In Fraser’s view, “the religious, political and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.” This is done, we’d add by bringing millions of other races into the Anglosphere as well as by poisoning, with liberal secularism, the Anglos who previously were its sole citizens.

In place of the oft noted “persistent tension between universalism and particularism”, Fraser posits that Anglo-Protestants desperately need to develop folkish variants of the Christian tradition. He sees the defeat of Germany in 1945 as a serious blow to the folk versions of both Protestant and Catholic Christianity which were encouraged there in the 1933 to 1945 era.

What is required in the future? Fraser sees “an Anglo ethno-religion (as) both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities. Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethno-religious heart of breakaway parallel societies capable of producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families, together with British descended counter elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.”

The book is a serious scholarly attempt to maintain Old Testament ethno-loyalty while embracing the Christian faith. In fact at one point in his argument Fraser asked whether “other singular incarnations for other unique nations or even other worlds have been forever excluded from the realm of possibility by divine decree?” (Shades of the Traditionalist School of Rene Guenon here?)

The book covers many arenas of Anglosphere surrender with several chapters devoted to Fraser’s new home of Australia and its neighbor New Zealand in hundreds of pages (488) of exquisite detail. Fraser would prefer that the Church of England trace its roots back to the Angelcynn (old English for “kin of the Angles”) church of Alfred the Great.

Of more recent vintage Fraser sees the 19th century Broad Church Movement as one which, as he quotes Stewart Brown, “moved beyond clerical narrowness and excessive dogmatism.” Their view was “that the purpose of the national Church was the spiritual and moral cultivation of the nation, the preservation and interpretation of its history and the defining of its highest aspirations . . . for them, Christianity was social and historical relgion, as well as a personal faith; it was about the redemption of nations as as individuals.”

That this form of rebirth might actually occur in history may seem far fetched. Can an Anglosphere flooded with other races and propagandized to hate itself prove capable of a phoenix-like regeneration. But it is less than a century since the Anglosphere viciously turned on its own people. Australia and New Zealand legislated the maintenance of their own racial identities. Even in America it took until 1965 to dismantle the barriers protecting its European communal identity.

Fraser’s final words are a call for the “idea of patriot king” and his civilizing mission. Fraser hopes (prays?) that there may yet be found in the Royal Family someone still loyal to his people and their identity. He readily grants that “the appearance of the patriot prince would be a miracle indeed.”

This reader has followed Andrew Fraser through the many twists and turns of writings and public battle. What the patriot king may yet do in Anglosphere nations already overrun by aliens is hard to imagine. How a public long brainwashed to despise themselves and their religion may yet find its roots and fight for them is hard to picture.

The hope remains in the rapid deterioration of Western Europe, North America and Australasia. Some lost resolve may yet be located to struggle even at this eleventh hour, with vote totals of “dissident right” political parties continuing to climb.

Fraser envisions the coalescing of racial, ethnic traditional and Christian forces to rescue the Anglosphere. The present is surely a time of great flux. Probably, few H&D readers hope for or envision this Christian patriot king and his return.

Yet, as G.K. Chesterton concludes in his very moving poem The Ballad of the White Horse, which he wrote in 1911.

“And the smoke changed and the wind went by, And the King took London Town.”

 

 

Rejecting Forgiveness: Denouncing The Christian Rhetoric of Erika Kirk and Others

/14 Comments/in , /by

AI Review of “Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus”

/in , /by
I have a website at https://mq.academia.edu/AndrewFraser and received an unsolicited review of my book Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus from academia.edu. It’s a pretty good review in both
senses, well-written with a bunch of useful references, and a favourable assessment of my work as well.

Suggested References (and Why They Are Included)

  1. Innes, David Colin. “The Universal and the Particular in Christian Political Life: Secular and Sacred Reflections on Christian Nationalism.” Religions, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121528.
  2. Anderson, Braden P. Chosen Nation: Biblical Theopolitics and the Problem of American Christian Nationalism. 2010, https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=dissertations_mu.
  3. Goldberg, Michelle P. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. 2007, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA78051025.
  4. “Protestantism and National Identity.” Cambridge University Press EBooks, Cambridge University Press, 1998, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511560439.
  5. Mediwaka, H. W. “CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM.” International Review of Mission, Wiley-Blackwell, 1924, doi:10.1111/j.1758-6631.1924.tb03868.x.
  6. Biggar, Nigel. “Honey from the Lion: Christianity and the Ethics of Nationalism.” Scottish Journal of Theology, Cambridge University Press, 2014, doi:10.1017/s0036930614000167.
  7. Jesus and the Rise of Nationalism. 2012, doi:10.5040/9780755624553.
  8. Coupland, Philip M. “Britain, Europe and Christendom in Mid-Twentieth-Century British Christian Thought.” Political Theology, Routledge, 2005, doi:10.1558/poth.6.3.367.66125.
  9. Turner, Bryan S. “Religion and Politics: Nationalism, Globalisation and Empire.” Asian Journal of Social Science, Elsevier BV, 2006, doi:10.1163/156853106777371175.
  10. Omer, Atalia. “Religion and Nationalism.” Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2018, doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0448.

I have included this brief references section near the beginning of the review to situate this work within the broader scholarly conversations about Christian nationalism, religion and nationalism, and the relationship between Christianity, culture, and state power. These sources collectively address historical, theological, and sociopolitical dimensions of Christian identity in the context of nationalistic frameworks, which provides a richer backdrop for discussing “Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus.”

Overview and Scope

“Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus” is an ambitious attempt to engage directly with key tensions at the intersection of Christian theology, Anglo-Protestant identity, and questions of nationalism. The author situates the text in an explicitly Anglo-Identitarian perspective, arguing that “global Jesus” theology—marked by a universalized, ahistorical conception of Christ—undermines the particular “biocultural” heritage of Anglo-Saxon peoples. This work thus asserts a reorientation away from creedal and universal Christianity toward an ethnoreligious foundation meant to unite British-descended populations throughout the Anglosphere.

The monograph is divided into three main parts:
• Part One unpacks the theological and historical roots of “creedal Christianity,” including the role of Greco-Roman contexts and Augustinian cosmology.
• Part Two examines Anglo-Saxon Christendom, drawing analogies with the Hebrew Bible’s “project of peoplehood.”
• Part Three outlines an argument for what the author calls a “neo-Angelcynn” church, intended to preserve and revitalize a distinctly British ethno-cultural heritage in opposition to globalist and universal theologies.

Strengths

  1. Historical Synthesis
    The work showcases an extensive historical sweep from the early Christian church in the Greco-Roman world through the medieval “Angelcynn” period, culminating in modern (particularly British) cultural shifts. Delving into the transformation of Christianity under Anglo-Saxon rule and the Norman Conquest highlights the malleability of Christian expression in different epochs and contexts. This layered approach can help readers appreciate how theology, ethnicity, and politics have often been intertwined.
  2. Focus on Tensions Between Universalism and Particularism
    The author explicitly points to a longstanding tension, recognized by many scholars, between Christianity’s universal claims and the ethnic or cultural particularisms that shape how actual communities experience and practice their faith. By drawing attention to the concept of a “Jewish Messiah” later reimagined as a cosmic Christ, the book emphasizes the fluid evolution of Christian self-understanding and how it relates to specific group identities.
  3. Critical Engagement with Contemporary Debates
    The text engages modern Christian nationalist discourse—especially regarding “global Jesus” versus “national Jesus”—in ways that echo broader scholarly conversations found in works such as Goldberg’s on American Christian nationalism and Biggar’s on the ethics of nationalism within Christianity (see References above). By questioning the universalist stance of Anglo-Protestant churches, the author taps into current controversies over how believers should negotiate identities of faith, nation, and ethnicity.

Points for Further Consideration

  1. Ethnicity and Theological Universality
    While the book aims to establish a historical and theological basis for an Anglo-Saxon–rooted expression of Protestantism, it might be fruitful to engage more robustly with the diverse scriptural and doctrinal positions that caution against rigid ethnic boundaries in Christian identity. For instance, the universally inclusive concepts in the Pauline epistles or the broad scope of Christian mission remain significant. Further elaboration on how these universalist scriptural passages are to be reconciled with a strongly ethnic-based approach would clarify the argument’s relationship to Christian teaching more broadly.
  2. Nuance in Discussing Race and Culture
    The work makes bold pronouncements about “race patriotism.” While it is historical fact that nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxon culture often contained ideologies of racial superiority, contemporary conversation on race is typically more circumspect. Evidencing a deeper awareness of the complexities and critiques of “Anglo” identity—taking into account the multiple migrations, cultural fusions, and changing discourses about race—would strengthen the book’s historical grounding and acknowledge Latin American, African, and Asian Christian voices who have also shaped Protestant thought.
  3. Comparative Nationalisms and Interdisciplinary Perspectives
    This volume focuses primarily on Britain, North America, and the broader Anglosphere. Given its argument for Anglo-ethnoreligious cohesion, incorporating fuller comparative reflections on how other Christian communities have navigated nationalism (e.g., Eastern Orthodox or Latin American contexts) could provide further depth. The suggested references in the field of nationalism, global religion, and empire (for instance, Turner’s work on nationalism and globalization) could expand the discussion to illuminate how these dynamics play out beyond Anglo-Protestant contexts.
  4. Theological Reception and Practical Implementation
    The author advocates transcending “Big Eva” (evangelical mainstream structures) to form parallel societies. Readers may be interested in how concretely such a “neo-Angelcynn” model can be implemented. Contextualizing how local congregations, liturgies, and ecclesiastical structures might adapt to an ethnocentric framework—and whether such adaptations are consistent with recognized denominational governance—would ground the argument in actual ecclesial practice.
  5. Dialogue with Broader Christian Scholarship
    Exploring how modern theology debates continue to grapple with the tension between the universal salvific claims of Christianity and the sociopolitical ramifications of ethnicity and nationalism would further situate the discussion within contemporary academic discourse. This includes engaging scholars who advocate postcolonial or cross-cultural theologies, a domain relevant to analyzing both the benefits and potential pitfalls of localized, culturally bound expressions of the faith.

Conclusion

“Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus” presents a provocative and wide-ranging exploration of the interplay between Anglo-Saxon identity, Protestant theology, and Christian nationalism. By tracing historical patterns and arguing for a reimagined “neo-Angelcynn” vision of church, the work endeavors to reconcile particularist ethnoreligious commitments with the broader storyline of Christian history. The overall analysis raises important questions about how Christian communities navigate between the call to universal fellowship in Christ and the desire to preserve cultural or national distinctives.

Throughout, the text demonstrates a clear passion for reengaging Anglo-Saxon heritage. Readers may come away challenged both by the scope of the author’s project and by the way it insists on grappling with the racial and national dimensions of Christian life. As global debates intensify on the subjects of Christian nationalism and national identities, this monograph stands as a unique contribution to ongoing discussions, urging theological, historical, and social reflection on the shape and future orientation of Anglo-Protestant communities.

https://www.academia.edu/ai_review/124733920

Lost Sheep American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology

/2 Comments/in , /by

From: brittanica.com

My latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Lost Sheep: American Christian Nationalism as a Problem in Geopolitical Theology[1]

Introduction

Christian nationalism has become a hot, and divisive, topic among evangelical Protestants in the USA.  Problems arise for American Christian nationalists and their enemies alike, because the movement subordinates all “nations” (typically defined in civic, as opposed to racial or ethnic, terms) to a divinely ordained mission to procure for themselves both earthly and heavenly goods “in Christ.”  “National” identity is, therefore, not a good in and of itself, grounded in blood and belonging.  Only through the grace bestowed upon it by God, as revealed in Scripture, can a nation be perfected.

The manifest destiny of all nations, in other words, will be realized in history as they embrace the universal truths of the Christian religion.   This doctrine was invoked recently in an article which appeared on two Christian websites, Iron Ink  and Tribal Theocrat.   The immediate point of the piece was to defend the “dissident Christian right” against the charge that Christian nationalism is little more than a “woke right” heresy. The case for the defence, as set out by the pseudonymous author (“jetbrane” or “Enos Powell,” take your pick), rests upon a description of the ontology, epistemology, anthropology, teleology, and axiology of the “dissident Christian right.”  This brief but wide-ranging survey leads the author (whose real name is Bret McAtee, pastor of a small church in Michigan) to the conclusion that every facet of the Christian nationalist “worldview,” is set in radical and permanent opposition to the “hard woke worldview.” The latter position, McAtee declares, “is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite.”

In sharp contrast, for Pastor McAtee, it is axiomatic that the Weltanschauung of the dissident Christian right “advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule” of the Lord Jesus Christ “over every area of life.”  He contends that the accusation that Christian nationalism is just another manifestation of the woke right fails “because the dissident right’s worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who “created all things in six days and all are very good.”  According to the pastor, the dissident Christian right necessarily bows “to God’s determination of reality.”  Its “ultimate value … is the glory of God and His Christ.”  Biblical Christianity, the pastor assures us, is anchored providentially in a universal “history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth” in fulfillment of God’s plan “to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.”

Attending a Christian Nationalist Conference

Now, whatever one makes of McAtee’s defence of the dissident Christian right, there is no denying that he reflects the dominant mindset among Anglo-American Christian nationalists.  I came face-to-face with that reality when I decided to attend the recent Right Response Ministries conference in Texas (devoted to “Defeating Trash World”).  I felt as if I had entered a theological bubble, hermetically sealed within the historical creeds and a biblical hermeneutic impervious to scholarly criticism.

In fact, in the months leading up to the conference, I found it impossible to receive permission (or even acknowledgement of my request) from Joel Webbon—the pastor organizing the event—to set up a table displaying my new book. I even had Amazon.com send him a copy of the book, entitled Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism. Admittedly, such a title suggests strong dissent from the outworn axioms of creedal Christianity.   I had hoped, however, that a display table would spark some interest and provide an opportunity to defend the book in conversation with speakers and attendees at the conference.  When I finally arrived at the conference with a box of books (obtained at half price from Arktos), I asked the pastor’s administrative assistant, if I might be able to set up a small table to display them. After an hour or so, not having received a response, I asked her again whether permission might be forthcoming. She told me flatly that it would not be possible since that facility was available only for conference sponsors. This explanation later seemed a bit misleading since I noticed that at least two tables already laden with books and related material were occupied by podcasters who were unlikely to be “conference sponsors.”

Samizdat Stall. Right Response conference

Making the best of it, I decided to use the ticket my wife had purchased for the conference (which due to health concerns she didn’t use) to claim a chair for my own use as a sort of surreptitious Samizdat Stall to display my own books.  Serendipitously, one person who did notice the stall, with copies of my Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus book in plain view thereupon, was Pastor Joel’s wife.  As we were talking, she pointed to my book, remarking that her husband had received a copy of it at his church a few weeks earlier.  Shortly afterwards, the Pastor himself happened by (rather conspicuously ignoring my samizdat book display) and asked my name. I introduced myself before (much to my satisfaction) his wife drew her husband’s attention to the book, reminding him that he had already received a copy of his own.  Pastor Webbon, however, made no use of the opportunity to acknowledge receipt of said book, much less discuss it, and hastily made his departure.

This rather abrupt brush-off came as no real surprise to me since (even during the period not so long ago when I was studying for a degree in theology) I have always found that orthodox Christian believers seem remarkably reluctant to engage in a dialogue with anyone they perceive as an unbeliever or heretic.  Such intellectual insularity is doubly unfortunate among self-declared “Christian nationalists” who aim to gain political power to re-establish Christianity in the public square.  Not a great strategy, in other words, for a movement that will need to make friends and influence people to achieve its political objectives.

In my own case, as I tried to make clear in my book, I look upon the position taken by Christian nationalists in the culture wars with a great deal of sympathy. Indeed, as a cultural Christian, I want to see all Anglo-Protestants throughout the length and breadth of the Anglosphere unite in a broad church to wage that struggle.  I strongly suspect that Pastor Webbon may have glanced through his copy of my book, only to dismiss it summarily as damnable heresy.  Judging by another Iron Ink article, Pastor McAtee, too, doubts that I am “a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense.”  Pointedly, he adds that it “stands to reason” that Pastor Webbon “wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.”[2]

Christian Identities

Perhaps, if Christian identity turns solely upon fidelity to the creeds, I should be denied entry into the fold.  On the other hand, as the author of a book entitled Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology, am I not entitled to a presumptive claim to be a member of the dissident Christian right?  In any case, Ehud Would, of Faith & Heritage fame, appears to have recognized me as such in his thoughtful and generally favourable review of Dissident Dispatches back in 2017.  Surely, doctrinally rigid, creedal Christians are no more authentically Christian than cultural Christians who dissent from received orthodoxy.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there has always been more than one way to conceive and constitute a Christian nation.  The nation that was created by the Loyalists who fled to Canada was no less “Christian” than the revolutionary republic created by the American rebels who forcibly drove those loyal to the British Crown from their own homes and native land.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  As a consequence, my intellectual development has been greatly influenced by the strange demise of both British Canada and British Australia.

Accordingly, my latest book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  I try to demonstrate that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, as we have just seen, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of contemporary Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

Clearly, avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are now held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism piously declares itself bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.  It remains to be seen, however, whether a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

Christianity as Ethnoreligion?

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism requires a solid ethnoreligious foundation, as did the first-century Jesus movement.  The refusal of hidebound American evangelicals to recognize the unique ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus is the outdated legacy of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus presents persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its long-standing preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.  Ethno-religious ties provide the institutional precondition and moral foundation for socially cohesive communities, be they local (the Amish, for example) or global (such as the Jews).  Anglo-Protestant churches, too, could become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies.  Such communities will be devoted not just to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families; they will also generate British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But, as preterist scholar Don K. Preston often remarks, he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

Conclusion

In short, there is a pressing need for a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the theopolitical imagination of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  American Christian nationalism is a predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement. Like the first-century Jesus movement, it can and should embrace, explicitly, its distinctive ethnoreligious character outside and apart from both the state and creedal Christianity.

Neither Jesus nor Paul aimed to create a new religion.  They sought instead to save the “lost sheep of Israel.” Like everyone else in Greco-Roman antiquity, they took it for granted that ethnicity and religion were synonymous categories.  Paul, for example, became the “apostle to the pagans” because he believed that the descendants of the ten lost tribes who had been absorbed into the pagan world could have their “spiritual DNA” as Israelites reactivated “in Christ.”  Contemporary biblical scholarship often describes Jesus and Paul as historical figures working “within Judaism” or “within Israeliteism.” In other words, their efforts to spark “the resurrection of Israel” were part and parcel of the “project of peoplehood” pioneered by the Hebrew Bible.

Today’s Christian nationalists should recognize WASPs throughout the Anglo-Protestant diaspora as an “invisible race” much like the “lost sheep of Israel.”  Anglo-Americans (along with Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Australians, and Anglo-Kiwis) are, in effect, the “lost sheep of Greater Britain.”  American Christian nationalists should seek salvation, together with their co-ethnics in the former British dominions, in a post-modern “project of peoplehood” seeking to bring the idea of their Patriot King down to earth.

Acting together, faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the spiritual reformation of the entire Anglosphere. Such a religious movement could provide the solution to an existential problem in geopolitical theology.  Anglo-Protestants everywhere need to understand themselves as a tribal network facing extinction if the corporate state apparatus of the global American empire is left unchecked.  Anglo-American Christian nationalists, especially, should grasp the opportunity to embrace an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

A neo-Angelcynn movement grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy will be able to attract nominally secular, cultural Christians alienated from contemporary churches.  While resistant to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, WASPs are typically more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.  Deracinated Anglo-Protestants have long been accustomed to treating moral behaviour merely as a stepping stone towards individual salvation.  A folkish practical theology would instead gather WASPs together in moral communities, resurrecting an ancestral project of peoplehood with its shared history and destiny.  In so doing, neo-Angelcynn churches could bring to fruition the objectives of men such as Sir John Robert Seeley who pioneered the Broad-Church movement  in the nineteenth century Church of England.

In our own time, the need for such a movement has never been more urgent. Young Anglo-Protestants, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a plutocratic corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning. In the medium- to long-term, their rising discontent could find a significant institutional outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement.  Explicitly Anglo-Protestant churches, schools, colleges, even hospitals, could cultivate the British-descended elites necessary to challenge, not just “Big Eva,” the power centre of American evangelical Protestantism, but also—and more importantly—the unapologetically ethnocentric, “market-dominant minorities” now entrenched within every once-proudly Anglo-Saxon country. The revival of such a Greater British, Broad-Church movement will expose the weaknesses of a parochial, American-style Christian nationalism setting the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics, both at home and throughout the Anglosphere.

[1] This is a revised and expanded version of an earlier essay which appeared at: https://counter-currents.com/2025/05/the-problem-with-christian-nationalism-american-style/

[2] https://ironink.org/2025/05/the-difference-between-andrew-frasers-ethnoreligious-vision-mcatees-ethno-christian-vision/

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

/5 Comments/in , /by


Arktos Media, 2025

 

Preface

This book sheds much-needed light on contemporary controversies surrounding the seemingly oxymoronic phenomenon of “Christian nationalism,” past, present, and future, as problem and as solution.

Part One explores the ostensibly biblical foundations of Christian nationalism, the first-century Jesus movement, and the early Christian church in Greco-Roman antiquity.  Part Two examines the extent to which the rise and fall of early medieval Anglo-Saxon Christendom was influenced by the “project of peoplehood” reflected in the Hebrew Bible. In Part Three, the focus shifts to a modern history culminating in the post-Christian collapse of British race patriotism.

Does the contemporary crisis of Anglo-Protestant political theology stem from a failure to recognize in the historical Jesus the mythic model for the miraculous appearance of a Patriot King?  The religious, political, and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones, populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.

Faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the reformation of the entire Anglosphere by labouring to bring the sweet dream of a Patriot King down to earth. Anglo-American evangelical Protestants are, therefore, a primary target for this book’s message. The spiritual reformation of the Anglosphere is a matter of geopolitical theology.  Anglo-American Protestants need to understand themselves as a people standing outside and apart from the state apparatus of the global American empire. In other words, they must mentally nullify the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, embracing instead an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with their co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  My intellectual development has been much influenced by what historian C.P. Champion describes as The Strange Demise of British Canada.  This theme figured largely in my earlier work.

Accordingly, this book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  My hope is that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

 

For centuries, Anglo-Protestant churches have been famous for sterile struggles between doctrinal orthodoxy and damnable heresy.  Nowadays, however, mainline Anglo-Protestantism has become indistinguishable from the revolutionary humanism driving the globalist regimes misgoverning the Anglosphere.

From its origins in Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity was beset by a persistent tension between universalism and particularism.  This was manifested first in an opposition between the neo-platonic image of a cosmic Christ who died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind and the Jewish origins story of a national Messiah come to save “the lost sheep of Israel.”

The deeply rooted pull of particularistic ethnic identities was not easy to escape.  Even the early Christian churches of the ancient Mediterranean world found it difficult to resist the impulse to identify themselves as a particular “third race,” neither Greek nor Jew.

Even so, the orthodox Augustinian worldview eventually achieved doctrinal hegemony.  This dualistic vision posited the existence of an eternal City of God, above and beyond the temporal world inhabited by the mortal City of Man.  That other-worldly cosmology met serious resistance once Christian missionaries encountered the stubborn ethnic particularism of the Germanic tribes in northwestern Europe.

There, the world-rejecting orthodoxy of creedal Christianity was often replaced by orthopraxy (i.e., the adoption of Christian rituals and practices by pagan converts).  Roman Catholic theology’s other-worldly doctrines were a tough sell among Germans and Anglo-Saxons.  By and large, they accepted their world as it was, valuing the warrior virtues of heroism far above Christian humility.

Fast forward to our own postwar world.  Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, even the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

 

One might imagine that the established Church of England would accept Christian nationalism as a matter of course.  But the non-negotiable commitment of the English church to global Anglicanism makes that impossible.  As for the Anglican leadership in the former British dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, they, too, want nothing more than to escape from their traditional but deplorable “Anglo-Saxon captivity.”

 

Avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are themselves held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism is bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.

Still, it remains to be seen how a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.

The theological refusal to reflect on the ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus must be recognized as the outdated product of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

The primary constituency for such a re-Germanized Christian nationalism is to be found among Anglo-Protestants.  Unfortunately, the realized biblical eschatology of the historical Jesus sent to save the “lost sheep” of biblical Israel has been suppressed in most Anglo-Protestant churches. The still-future Second Coming of global Jesus remains the bedrock presupposition of Anglo-Protestant theology, however well-grounded a “full preterist” interpretation of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70  may be in biblical exegesis or historical reality.

This book provides persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

 

Jesus was received by many of his co-ethnics as the Jewish Messiah.  He also became the Hellenic Christ.  Jesus Christ was the King of Israel for Jews such as Paul and later of the “third race” of early Christians.

That was then; this is now.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its historic preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.

Colonial and antebellum New England provided many useful examples of churches as godly little republics as well as clear warnings pointing to the dangers of doctrinaire religion.  Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques offer countless other non-Christian examples of ethnoreligious communities far more productive of in-group solidarity (aka social capital).

An Anglo ethno-religion is both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities.  Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies devoted to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families together with British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

In short, my book offers a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the Anglo-Protestant epicentre of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  My hope is to persuade Christian nationalists that their predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement, like the first-century Jesus movement, can and should embrace, explicitly, its historic, ethnoreligious character outside and apart from the state.

At the same time, a Christian nationalism grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy may attract secular, culturally Christian traditionalists.  While maintaining their resistance to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, such people are more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.

In effect, therefore, the book advocates a return to the nineteenth century Broad Church movement in the Church of England pioneered by men such as Sir John Robert Seeley.  Younger Anglo-Protestants in particular, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning.

Their rising discontent could find its first significant outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement challenging those who currently manage and control evangelical Protestantism in the USA: the power centre that Christian nationalists call “Big Eva”. This book aims to provide such an oppositional movement with intellectual ammunition as well as insight into the weaknesses of a Christian nationalism that places the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics. 

Annotated Table of Contents

Introduction

Our Own Worst Enemy? Anglo-Protestant Theology, British Race Patriotism, and the European Civil War

In the nineteenth century British/Anglo-Saxon race patriotism was a commonplace feature of Anglo-Protestant culture.  We begin by examining why and how the twentieth century “European civil war” led contemporary Anglo-Protestant churches to dismiss the English ancestry and white British ethnicity of most of their communicants as a merely implicit and contingent (if not downright unmentionable) circumstance of no theological significance.

 Part One

Creedal Christianity: Theological Origins of the Present Crisis

  1. Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?)

This review essay discusses The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press,    2022) by Stephen Wolfe.  The author identifies real problems with post-Christian societies.  One wonders, however, why Wolfe takes such pains to deny that he is a “kinist,” much less a “racist.”  Indeed, he seems to find it extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between “Christian nations” and “Christian states.”

  1. Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity: New Perspectives on the Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity

We take a deeper, historical dive into the fundamental presuppositions of Wolfe’s Christian nationalism.  He asserts that “Jesus is Lord” and “Christianity is the true religion.”  In what sense, are those statements “true”?  Were Jesus and Paul really the founders of a new religion?  Was the “resurrection” of Jesus Christ a unique historical event or a mimetic manifestation of a common Greco-Roman literary     trope?

  1. Metanarrative Collapse: Has the Christian Cosmology Crafted by Augustine of Hippo Stood the Test of Time?

Augustine of Hippo rewrote a biblical narrative originally conceived as a Hebrew ethnonational epic.  This chapter examines how Augustine’s Hellenistic hermeneutic laid the cosmological foundation for Western Christendom. We also    consider the efforts of contemporary, neo-Augustinian Radical Orthodoxy to restore that crumbling edifice.

  1. Global Jesus versus National Jesus: The Political Hermeneutics of Resurrection

The ongoing quest for the “true” meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection cannot be separated from the central political conflict of our time: globalism versus nationalism.  Were Jesus and Paul wrong in their expectation that the “resurrection        of the body” would occur in the lifetime of their followers, at the “end of the age”?  How did they conceive the nature of that resurrected “body”?  Was it to appear as the holy spirit breathing life into the dry bones of Old Testament Israel, as lamented in Ezekiel 37:4-7?  Or did they envisage individual, physical (“glorified”?) bodies emerging from their graves in the far distant future everywhere in the world? 

Part Two

Did Anglo-Saxon Christendom Replicate the “Project of Peoplehood” Posited by the Hebrew Bible?

  1. Adam and Eve in Torah: The Lost World of Covenantal Ethnotheology

Despite their differences modern biblical literalists and scholarly literary critics alike abstract Adam and Eve from their place in the particularistic ethnotheology of national Israel according to the flesh.  Both camps view Adam and Eve, whether biologically or mythically, literally or figuratively, as ancestors or representatives of Everyman and Everywoman.  A better interpretation of Genesis 1-3 conceives the pair as characters in the foundation myth of Old Covenant Israel

  1. Exodus 34: Covenantal Ethnotheology and the (Re)Birth of the First Holy Nation

In Exodus 34 God enters into the everyday life of Israel according to the flesh via the channel of grace embodied in Mosaic authority.  Having received the Mosaic law, national Israel is thereby empowered to serve as the spiritual womb of the living God, the one to come in an as-yet far-distant future.  The modern functionalist interpretation of Exodus 34 holds that covenantal ethnotheology merely reflects the primitive, particularistic, and narrowly ethnocentric character of ancient Israelite religion.  This approach downplays the problem in practical theology posed by the story: the national religion lacked a secure cultic foundation.  This has been no less a problem for early medieval Angelcynns and contemporary Anglo-Protestants.  How can we preserve a Christian nation if the Presence of the Lord is no longer with us?

 

  1. Making Angelcynns: How Alfred the Great Responded to the Viking Invasion

This essay highlights the theopolitical significance of the Anglo-Saxon king, Alfred the Great.  His reign (871-899) brought to fruition the project to establish an Anglo-Saxon Christendom begun by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. The British-descended peoples of the modern Anglosphere would do well to reclaim Alfred’s legacy.

  1. Sanctifying the Norman Yoke: William the Conqueror, the Angelcynn Church, and the Papal Revolution

The Norman Conquest brought Anglo-Saxon Christendom to an end.  William the Conqueror was a fellow traveller of the Papal Revolution of the late eleventh         century. Earth-hugging Saxon churches gave way to the spires of Gothic cathedrals pointing to an empty sky. The “Romanization” of Alfred’s Angelcynn church signalled an Age of Disincarnation, thus splitting the secular from the spiritual realm. 

  1. A Choice Not an Echo: Biblical Israel as Mythic Model for Anglo-Saxon Christendom

It seems that the Old English church of the Anglo-Saxon era reflected what scholars describe as “the Germanization of early medieval Christianity.”  It has also been said that the Hebrew Bible was the product of a “project of peoplehood.”  This chapter considers whether the Hebrew Bible served as a model for the creation of the Anglo-Saxon Christendom. 

Part Three

Beyond Creedal Christianity: Neo-Angelcynn Political Theology versus Globalist Churches and the Transnational Corporate State

  1. Who are We Now? Restoring the Ethnoreligious Dimensions of WASP Identity throughout the Anglosphere

The world-rejecting cosmology of the church in the Mediterranean world of the late Roman Empire stood in opposition to the world-accepting character of Germanic Christianity.  Nevertheless, both traditions presupposed the universal reign of Lord Jesus.  Christian nationalism therefore remains, for us, something of an oxymoron.  Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism. 

  1. Was Early New South Wales (1788-1850) a “Christian Community”?

Anglo-Protestant churches in England (both the established Church of England and its dissenting offshoots) aimed to perpetuate themselves by reinforcing cultural ties between the mother country and the British settler colonies in Australia and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, those cultural ties were not always conducive to the creation of a Christian community, either “at home” or in early New South Wales.

 

  1. The White Australia Policy in Retrospect: Racism or Realism?

The White Australia Policy was inaugurated in 1901 at the high-water mark of    British race patriotism. This review essay discusses two books, one on the adoption of the WAP, the other on its repeal.  Both works view the policy from the    perspective of a racial egalitarianism that flies in the face of the intractable reality of racial differences presupposed by the founding fathers of Federation in Australia.

  1. Puritans in Babylon: The Impact of Global Christianity on Sydney Anglicans

In the brave new world of “global Christianity,” the largest Christian communities are now to be found in the overwhelmingly non-white realm of the so-called “global south.”  This chapter deals with the response of the evangelical, low-church Anglican diocese of Sydney to the movements that demand conformity to the manifold manifestations of the progressive Cult of the Other.

  1. Anglo-Republicanism and the Rebirth of British History: Why Virtuous WASPs Must Challenge the Corrupt Globalist Plutocracy Misgoverning the Anglosphere

The rise of a globalist system, presided over by the managerial elites of                 transnational corporate capitalism, has transformed the British-descended citizenry        of once-proudly “Anglo-Saxon countries” into random collections of stateless people.  This chapter explores the relevance of the Anglo-American republican tradition to a neo-Angelcynn reformation of civil society, outside and apart from     the state, throughout the Anglosphere

  1. Monarchs and Miracles: Australia’s Need for a Patriot King

The eighteenth-century Country Party politician, Viscount Bolingbroke, maintained that only the influence of a Patriot King (“the most uncommon of all phenomena in the physical or moral world”) could draw despotic governments and   their corrupted peoples back to the original principles of liberty that had their origins in the ancient British constitution.  The issue here is whether (and how) Bolingbroke’s idea of a Patriot King can be transposed into our own age of woke capital and mass migration to rescue stateless Anglos, now stranded in the (residually) British dominions of the Crown throughout the Anglosphere.

Covenant Theology and God’s Chosen

/4 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Within the alt-right community there is a continual call to advocate traditional, Northern European paganism. Inherent in both the published and online literature is the view that the fall of Europe can be traced to the abandonment of its roots in the Norse religion and that Christianity looted paganism of its intellectual treasures.[1] Though alt-right Christians like me can be found, there seems to be a rising consensus in the alt-right that is critical of Christianity. This is understandable since the New Testament is the prophetic fulfillment of Judaism, which has a history of plundering nations and, especially since the medieval era, has become a morally debased religion practiced by a generally evil people. In this brief article, I hope to reinvigorate interest in the Christian story among the alt-right by providing a theological consideration for why God chose the evillest race in history to be his people in the Old Testament. I’ll begin by proffering covenant theology as the historic alternative to dispensationalism (and its Zionism), as the interpretive lens through which we should understand the biblical meta-narrative. I’ll conclude by examining how the incarnation of Christ and God’s pattern of salvific election can better help us understand the character of God and his choice of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

Abrahamic Blessing and Covenant Theology

The Jews have wreaked havoc on Western civilization. This is one of the first realizations one has when she starts to dive into alt-right literature. Their mode of operation has sometimes been described as parasitic, as they attach themselves to a host nation and destroy that nation from the inside. Yet, many Christians in America believe that the Jews are God’s special and chosen people. Guided by a theology called dispensationalism, they eagerly defend the Jewish people in all internal and foreign affairs: they defend their presence in any nation, they defend the state of Israel and their cause in any conflict, they defend U.S. foreign aid (both financial and military) to Israel, and they support any political policy that lifts up the Jewish people, even to the detriment of another people. Writes one Christian Zionist, “With the world rightly united against the use of nuclear weapons, let us empower Israel—and stand ready ourselves—so that Iran’s regime grasps a simple truth: We will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our allies. True peace hinges on strength, and we must exhibit both in earnest, today and always. And just as strength is not a precursor to war, neither does bombing Iran start a never-ending conflict; in fact, it stops the war that started the day the Islamic Republic was born.”[2]

What could drive a Christian to speak so casually about bombing another nation? It all starts with the covenant promise that God made to Israel. In Genesis 12, God says to Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (2–3). Evangelicals receive this verse as a mandate to support God’s Abrahamic people in the form of modern Israel to whatever violent end and at whatever financial or human cost. However, if the reader of Scripture progresses, he’ll find that the nature of this covenant is framed in conditional terms. Leviticus 26:3-4 uses the if/then grammatical structure of a subjunctive conditional: “If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.”

But Israel did not keep their end of the covenant, and God, in his loving patience, decided to give them chance after chance, renewing their covenant at various points in Scripture. In the book of Joshua, He reaffirms His covenant with Israel and reiterates His warning against disobedience. Joshua says on behalf of Yahweh, “If you abandon the Lord and worship foreign gods, He will turn against you, harm you, and completely destroy you, after He has been good to you” (24:20).

Within the Abrahamic covenant then, there is a two-fold promise: The unconditional promise that through Abraham all nations will be blessed. This is an allusion to the coming of the Messiah whose line will persist through the Jewish people no matter what. Yet there is the conditional promise of general blessings; the material blessings of rain for the harvest, protection from enemies, and God’s provision of Holy Spirit-led guidance and sense of fatherhood over the nation of Israel as his children.[3] In other words, God promised to keep his Messianic promise of blessing to the Jews and that promise was kept through Christ. When Christ the Messiah did finally come, he came through the Jewish people. The gospels of Matthew and Luke even provide a genealogy of Jesus with Matthew going back to Abraham and Luke going all the way back to Adam.

But the Jews have rejected the Messiah. Acts 4:11 says, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” So, God sent his gospel to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and engrafted them into the salvific tree of Israel. The promises that were meant for Israel have now been transferred to the Church. Whoever trusts in Christ for salvation becomes a citizen in God’s chosen spiritual nation — the Church. Circumcision, which in the OT was the sign and seal of the covenant that God made with his people to make them his own has been replaced by baptism. It serves the same purpose as circumcision as it is understood as setting someone apart from the world and bringing them into the covenant family of God’s people which is now the Church, not Israel.

Theologians have long called this observation supersessionism, which is directly informed by covenant theology. Covenant theology is a helpful interpretive guide to the meta narrative of the Bible. The Bible’s story unfolds in “chapters” of covenants. God made a covenant with Noah not to destroy the natural world even though he knew sin would continue to spread among it. He gave Noah the sign of the covenant in the form of a rainbow. He made a covenant with Abraham to bless his offspring materially and spiritually if his people would not follow other gods. The sign and seal of this Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, which is seen as a ceremonial act of cleansing and purification; a way to set the Israelites apart from her neighboring nations. He made a covenant with David that his kingship would be eternal. The sign and seal of this covenant was the throne, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of God the Father. In the New Testament, God made a covenant to anyone through Jesus Christ to be their God, if they abandon their false gods and idols and trust in Him through Christ alone.

The sign and seal of this new covenant is baptism. This is why Christians baptize their babies — It replaces circumcision as the ceremonial rite of induction into God’s covenant community. In this way, covenant theology makes a common-sense observation of the chronology of biblical salvific history. Zionist disagree with this way of viewing the whole Bible, and instead insist the Bible’s narrative unfolds in ages called dispensations. They believe that there are several ages in the salvific story and that we are currently in the “church age.” According to dispensationalists, there is a final coming age of Zion, where Christ will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This theology gives Israel a sort of sacred status as the future center of God’s kingdom. Zionists angrily denounce covenant theology and its subsequent supersessionsim as “replacement theology”[4], because it replaces the idea of the chosenness of Israel with the chosenness of the Church.

It is confusing that Christian Zionists, while believing along with covenant minded Christians that salvation is found only in Christ, could simultaneously believe that the people who have whole heartedly rejected Christ are his chosen people. If they believe on the one hand that people who reject Christ, including Jews, spend eternity in hell, how could they on the other hand believe that an entire race of people who have rejected the only means of salvific blessings could be God’s chosen? If anything, the very opposite is true. St Paul likens Israel to Pharaoh whose heart was hardened by God before the Exodus from Egypt. It’s quite possible that Israel is under a special spiritual curse, as they continue to reject their Messiah who came through their own faith.

A more comprehensive explication of covenant theology than provided here is needed to fully understand its interpretive implication. However, it should suffice to say for now that dispensationalism is rather new in the history of biblical interpretation. The historic tradition of the church is also an important epistemological factor in discerning the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of the Church is passed on from one generation to the next, preserving the sacra doctrina of the apostles. This is what the Church means in the Apostles Creed when we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” As St Vincent of Lerins said, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has always been believed, everywhere, always, by all.”[5] Dispensationalism is as new as the nineteenth century. It does not mean that we don’t see doctrinal developments based on already-evolving truths come in more recent times. But it does mean that the church cannot accept an entire paradigm shift in interpretation. Covenant theology is the historic (traditionally) and commonsense (biblically and logically) method for understanding the whole of God’s Word. So, who are God’s people? The Church. Those who commits themselves to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to God and are a part of his chosen covenant family called the church. There is no room in the biblical meta-narrative for viewing the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group of people for that matter as God’s chosen people. God made a new covenant in Christ. The old covenant has been fulfilled in him and comes with new terms and conditions. Simply being Jewish does not suffice. As St. Paul writes in Romans 9:8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” That promise is fulfilled in Christ.

Why the Jews?

However, this still does not answer why God chose Israel from the many peoples of the world to covenant with in the Old Testament. Here is the answer: God’s loving character and desire to save all people, from the worst of all nations and peoples to the best. Would God be God if He only chose the best of humanity? If He chose for Himself a people whom He, in his divine foreknowledge, knew would be the most obedient of all peoples, what kind of hope would that give to the imprisoned, the poor, and all of us who have sinned egregiously against the Lord (and that’s everyone)? What hope would lesser races have, that they too may be forgiven and saved? God chose the Jews, the very worst of humanity, and became one of them through Jesus Christ, that all of humanity, from the worst of us to the best of us might be saved. By taking on Jewish flesh in the incarnation of Christ, he made possible the redemption of those races and peoples even in the very pits of humanity, reconciling anyone who trusts in him to the Father. Referring to the Jews, God tells Moses in Exodus 32:9, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” But in Christ, God became the lowest form of human, a Jew, so that any one of us may attain salvation in Him and through Him alone. God has made a habit of choosing the worst of us. It is why he chose Paul, a persecutor of Christians to carry the gospel to the gentiles. It is why God chose Peter who denied Christ when asked if he knew him. It is why God chose James though he doubted Christ even while seeing him arisen. God would not be God if only the best had a chance at salvation. He loves the worst of us. But he requires that we repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone.

Conclusion

            Covenant theology is, therefore, the appropriate hermeneutic with which we should approach the biblical narrative. Its merits are easily observed in Scripture. It is believed and practiced in Roman Catholicism, Classical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been the prevailing method of biblical interpretation for the history of the church. The American public peers into Christianity and observes the rather loud dispensational voices commenting on current events and therefore believes that the church catholic (the whole church) thinks this way. Christianity, therefore, to the alt-right might seem off putting, given its claims concerning Israel. But it’s important to know that most of the church affirms a more reasonable interpretive method, one that severs the destiny of Israel from the church. It is my hope that if the alt-right understands that dispensationalism/Zionism is actually a minority view in the grand scheme of church history, and isn’t a view taken seriously by most theologians, perhaps they’ll give Christianity another look.

Nick Craig has a B.Sc. Religion, Liberty University and an M.A. Theological Studies, Houston Christian University

Bibliography

Elwell, Walter A, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

Hedrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors .” Shema, October 5, 2012. https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

Parker, Sandra Hagee. “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran.” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025. https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

Rea, Robert F. Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Svarte, Askr. Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism. Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020.

[1] Askr Svarte, Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism (Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020), Kindle location 221.

[2] Sandra Hagee Parker, “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran,” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025, https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

[3] Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 277.

[4] Gary Hedrick, “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors ,” Shema, October 5, 2012, https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

[5] Robert F Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 36.