By which I mean: does your belief stem from inner conviction, “outside of history,” so to speak? Or is it mainly “historical:” that as a Westerner you are more comfortable with the traditional religion of the West. (And to me, tho not a Christian, there is little doubt that Christianity, however much it may have deviated from the teaching received by the humble folk in ancient Rome-ruled Judea, is indeed the religion of the West.)
The “historical” adherence to Christianity seems in evidence in the writings of some of the well-known nationalists of Europe. An historical Christianity. As in, “I am a European, steeped in Western Culture, practices and ideas, and wish to defend that Culture. And so I will also defend and adhere to its religion.”
I have known Christian nationalists, and Christian anarchists and socialists. I knew the late William Gayley Simpson (and visited him on his farm in New York state)
who had been a socialistic Christian minister (after graduating cum laude form Union Theological Seminary) before coming across Nietzsche and radially changing his beliefs and his life.
(I’d actually read Bill’s book, Which Way Western Man, in manuscript, long before he self-publshed it. I have an orignal signed copy. It was better in manuscript, because later he marred it, IMO, by inserting far too much “conspiratorial” and now dated anti-Communist material)
Simpson felt that the West would have been better served with the old Norse gods installed as the official dieties. I think that’s a misunderstanding as to how religions and cultures evolve - it’s quite possible that the West may not have developed in the dynamic, infinite-loving ( to use an awkward term derived from Spengler!) way it has, lacking the triumph of Christianity on its soil.
I would, on this Christian forum, be interested to know if your religion or your historicity came first.
[ Edited: 10 November 2009 01:11 AM by John Marshall ]
By which I mean: does your belief stem from inner conviction, “outside of history,” so to speak? Or is it mainly “historical:” that as a Westerner you are more comfortable with the traditional religion of the West. (And to me, tho not a Christian, there is little doubt that Christianity, however much it may have deviated from the teaching received by the humble folk in ancient Rome-ruled Judea, is indeed the religion of the West.)
I guess I deviated some by converting to Orthodoxy. From that perspective, the religious history of the West in comparison to the East is marked by theological and institutional chaos. What is there, something like 10,000 Christian sects in the West?
I read Simpson’s book many times. I’m convinced that if he had been a traditional Christian instead of a liberal, do-gooder Christian he wouldn’t have ever felt compelled to reject Christianity. I mean almost anything is better than liberal Christianity. I don’t know how any normal man can belong to a liberal church. Most of them are run by feminists anyway. Heck, a guy probably couldn’t even find a good woman to marry in one of those places. IOW, yes, I can understand why a fellow like Simpson rejected his version of leftist Christianity, but he should have changed to a church that teaches real Christianity instead of leftist baloney.
[ Edited: 09 November 2009 01:05 PM by William Scott ]
I go round and round in my head with this question. I was born in the West of historically western parents, so am inately “western,” so in that sense, my historical foundation was there before a personal conversion. But after, and since conversion, I have become aware of what western historicity means, or implicates.
Simpson attended Union Theological seminary, which in the early years of the last century was something of a hotbed of liberal Christianity. (And may still be, for all I know.) When he graduated, he was offered a remunerative sinecure in a wealthy parish, in New York, I think. Instead, he chose a poor one in northern New Jersey.
It seems to me however, that his religion was never that “social,” but mainly hghly personal, with a strong emphasis on the “mystical experience.” HIs going barefoot in the snow one winter to show solidarity with the European sufferers of the just concluded WW1 was indicative of his apocalytic mysticism, and of his solidarity with his Chrisitan hero, St Francis Assisi. A lot of the info re his relgious crises is in his 1935 book, Toward the Rising Sun. With an intro by Jerone Davis, another Chiristian pastor, I think, who became a member of the US Communist Party.
Given the person he was I doubt that, schooled at Union or not, he would have taken a pastorate at a conventional, established church. He regarded Jesus as an individual visionary, with no interest in organized religion. (His early Letters, from which WWWM ultimately derived, has one titled “Jesus the Anti-Chirst;” ie, Jesus as the foe of organized Christianity. And he thought that Jesus and Nietzsche had much in common.)
Simpson’s journey was a lone one - he would be a model for very few other Christians, as he himself was aware. He eventually came to recongnize the great and inherent differences in individuals, contrary to the usual Christian belief in the equality of souls. And from that came an awareness of the grave separations between the capabilities of races and cultures. And that levelling philosophies of any kind were anti-human. “All is true to me that tends to elevate man,” was a favorite quote of his from N, and in that he concurred with his friiend AM Ludovici, the brilliant English Neitzsche interpreter.
I believe, tho, that he kept old friendships with Christians of his earlier years alive into old age. His speaking tours of the 1930s brought him into contact with many Chrisitans who knew him in earlier years, and while disagreeing with on religion nonetheless respected his “elevation of spirit.”
I had no contact with him the last decade of his life, but from what I’d heard about his late life crankiness (from Pierce) he wasn’t pleasant to be around. And thereby did not take the sage advice of that great creation of the sage of Sils Maria, Zarathustra, to “die at the right time.”
kinswoman,
I posted in reply to WS before I saw your post. Ours must have crossed.
I know where you’re coming from (to use a hackneyed phrase from the greatly overrated ‘60s.) Nothing of permanent worth will be built without age old foundations. And while I understand the pagan impulses and efforts, only the established forms of the West, wrested from the death embrace of the destroyers, can regnerate both the religion and the culture it spawned. And only true believers can make that particular fight, not those of us with only a “philosophical” ringside seat to the contest.
Given the person he was I doubt that, schooled at Union or not, he would have taken a pastorate at a conventional, established church. He regarded Jesus as an individual visionary, with no interest in organized religion. (His early Letters, from which WWWM ultimately derived, has one titled “Jesus the Anti-Chirst;” ie, Jesus as the foe of organized Christianity. And he thought that Jesus and Nietzsche had much in common.)
His impression of Jesus being against organized Christianity probably comes from the anti-historical concept of the “invisible church” which is obviously taught in places like Union Theological Seminary. Jesus, Himself, laid the groundwork for a church structure which was followed through by His apostles. The fact that Nietzsche believed in such a thing should set-off alarm bells in any Christian’s mind. The fact that Simpson found large agreement between the nihilist Nietzsche and anti-nihilist Christ only shows a huge issue of moral confusion, the foundations of which were doubtless created by the teachings of Union Theological.
Simpson’s journey was a lone one - he would be a model for very few other Christians, as he himself was aware. He eventually came to recongnize the great and inherent differences in individuals, contrary to the usual Christian belief in the equality of souls.
Equality of souls and equality of people and their abilities and character are two very different things. But then with the modern practice of churches functioning as democracies where doctrine changes according to popular opinion and majority vote as opposed to traditions to be maintained, no doubt allows people like Simpson to find common ground within the diametrically opposed ideologies of Jesus and Nietzsche. From the beginning, Christian church structure has been hierarchical, NOT democratic. This is why traditional Christians tended to support Holy Spirit-guided monarchies as the idea form of human government whereas modern churches exclusively favor democracy and, in the liberal churches, even a Christianized form of Marxism as an ideal.
I go round and round in my head with this question. I was born in the West of historically western parents, so am inately “western,” so in that sense, my historical foundation was there before a personal conversion. But after, and since conversion, I have become aware of what western historicity means, or implicates.
I was born in the West of historically western parents, so am inately “western,” so in that sense, my historical foundation was there before a personal conversion. But after, and since conversion, I have become aware of what western historicity means, or implicates.
Exactly the same for me also. Thank you for saying it so succinctly.
I’m wondering if anyone has ever written (book or article) about the shaping of Western Culture by the Christian religion?
I’m not talking about tomes with titles like “Christianity and the Rise of Democracy;” Christianity and the Rise of Capitalism;” or the like.
But one that endeavors to trace the manisfestations of the unique Western Culture to the influence of Christian doctrine and practices.
Not simply in the outer forms (the arching cathedrals, the “Western brown” in the art, as Spengler observed, the color of infinity) but an attempt to outline in some detail where the beliefs may have had a direct effect on the forms.
I mentioned Spengler, and he did indeed touch upon some of this shaping. For instance, he relates the practice of religious confession to the development of the Western novel. (A little farfetched, perhaps, but at least it was an attempt!)
Lawrence Brown, in The Might of the West, may have also done so. I vaguely recall some instances he cited, but it’s been so many years since I read Brown’s book that I can’t remember much of it. I do, tho, recall his fascinating portrait of the character of Jesus of Nazareth, as he saw it.
If such a work does not exist it sounds like a worthwhile endeavor for those with the insight and research skills of a superior scholar and a boatload of time and patience.
Chamberlain, right. One author I never got around to reading.
Spengler did not specifically trace the mindset of Christianity to the forms taken by the emerging West. He gives a few instances, as I recall, and discusses the nature of the religious art, but more as examples of the urge to infinity that he states is the prime symbol of the Western people. Not directly related to doctrine, dogma, practice, except in several cases, such as the one I cited. Tho it also has been a long while since I read his masterwork. Which in any case should have laid to rest forever all those still extant ideas that the Western Culture is an extansion of the Classical
No, the Christianity of our forefathers was about honesty, family, patriotism, sacrifice, loyalty, king and country. For over 1,000 years Christianity held our people together and guided us through the centuries. If Christianity had not existed Europe would have been conquered by Islam centuries ago.
Not sure that I’d say the focus of Christianity is about some of the things Nick Griffin cites here; however, it’s interesting that the BNP is making a bow to the historic Christianity of Europe.
Your (Vico) original question sounded like you were taking on the Billy Graham-type premise that “God is my PERSONAL savior” as opposed to the healthy whole-hog “Christianity for all of life” that the Reconstructionists rightly avow and faultily expound.* In a sense I believe you were, which is needed.
Billy Graham always emphasized the word “personal” in inculcating the above mantra in his audiences and I’ve wondered if that was not only to emphasize the fact that God is a person and deeply concerned about every person alive, but to decoy people away from the fact that he’s our national, economic, political, educational, cultural (etc.) savior as well. That would be just like the funnymentalist leaders of the past century or more.
God (or Jesus) is indeed the holistic or global savior (to put it in modern buzzterms) of our whole selves and life. You guessed it—that is what I consider the historical position. My life is an endless quest to liberate people from limitations even many of the “good” preachers have put on them in this vein. Of course all preachers avow that God is God over every particle of all that exists but then so many of them cave when it comes to anything THEY THINK would endanger their preacher’s tax break or their church’s tax exemption. Oh, boy how they cave—without ever seeing the contradiction!
*The fault being of course when they embrace obviously twisted, simpleton positions like “racism is a sin” and “good Christians pay income taxes”. Sure, racism is a sin, but a greater sin is to leave the whole discussion at that, conveniently slamming the door on the fact that whites are its most shocking victims today; sure, Christians should pay all lawful taxes but it so happens that doesn’t include “income taxes” on wages according everything in the Scriptures, that Constitution and even the tax code.
