Amoral egoistic Christianity is the re-emergence of the Manichean heresy as expressed within cultural Christianity, as a natural response (i.e. not of God) to the heretical gnosticism of modern Churchianity (i.e. liberal Protestantism). AEC is a very evil philosophy which, as a logical consequence of replacing Christian deontological morality with the consequentialist morality of good statecraft, will reproduce the theocratic torture chambers of the Spanish Inquisition (and likely within our lifetimes). It is a necessary step in co-opting Christian iconography for the recreation of antediluvian Zodiacism, which is the religion of the spirit of Antichrist. In my opinion, it is a worse development than Jungian paganism (little ‘p’), which merely subverts culturally Christian low-church atheists, because it is intended to invert the already-subverted church itself to oppose God.
Implicit within the behavior and statements of people leading the New Manicheism are the following tenets:
1. (Amorality) “I don’t owe anything to anyone except Christ.” This is a direct contradiction to the latter of Jesus’ two Great Commandments. See also my post Christianity without love for the brethren:
You may think this is a silly question, but keep in mind this is the version of Christianity that Generation Z is inheriting, absent institutions to transmit the cultural memes. glosoli’s advocacy thus far has been entirely logical, if you start from the premise that self-sacrificial brother-love is not commanded by Jesus. I’ve provided him with three hypothetical scenarios, one of which was over Skype, and in all three he sentenced every single person in all three stories to death. And if you take away the expression of sacrificial love as exemplified by Christ, this is the correct answer! The Law condemns us all to death—its very purpose was to convict.
Christianity without brother-love is the most monstrous ideology ever conceived by humanity, as judged against an impressive pantheon of monstrous ideologies, and will spell the end of the Western church if we don’t stop it (but that’s another post). I want you to imagine a scenario where glosoli, or a group of men who similarly believe that not a single Western congregation deserves to survive, takes power and begins to implement their program. Imagine an entire generation whose capacity for charity has been surgically removed by socialism’s weaponized empathy taking the role of the Accuser, all in the name of Christianity, persecuting the church and believing they’re doing God’s will.
2. (Egoism) “Virtus is identical with moral standing, and is indicated by social status, health and wealth.” This is a natural heuristic which conflates meritocracy with morality, and weakness with Evil. For more on this read Chapter 3 of Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton and this analysis of the theology of works in the book of Job:
Regrettably, Job’s friends are not able to endure the mystery of his suffering, so they jump to conclusions about its source. The first of the three, Eliphaz, acknowledges that Job has been a source of strength to others (Job 4:3-4). But then he turns and puts the blame for Job’s suffering squarely on Job himself. “Think now,” he says, “who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same” (Job 4:7-8). Job’s second friend, Bildad, says much the same. “See, God will not reject a blameless person nor take the hand of evildoers” (Job 8:20). The third friend, Zophar, repeats the refrain. “If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, do not let wickedness reside in your tents. Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be secure, and will not fear.…Your life will be brighter than the noonday” (Job 11:14-15, 17).
Their reasoning is a syllogism. God sends calamities upon wicked people only. You have suffered a calamity. Therefore you must be wicked. Job himself avoids this false syllogism. But it is very commonly accepted by Christians. It is called a theology of divine retribution, and it assumes that God blesses those who are faithful to him and punishes those who sin. It is not entirely without biblical support. There are many cases in which God sends calamity as a punishment, as for example he did at Sodom (Genesis 19:1-29). Often, our experiences do bear out this theological position. In most situations, things turn out better when we follow God’s ways than when we forsake them. However, God does not always work that way. Jesus himself pointed out that disaster is not necessarily a sign of God’s judgment (Luke 13:4). In Job’s case, we know the theology of divine retribution is not true because God says that Job is a righteous man (Job 1:8, 2:3). Job’s friends’ devastating error is to apply a generalization to Job’s situation, without knowing what they’re talking about.
Job and Work
Theology of Work
3. (Pragmatic Christianity) Individually: “I go to church and pretend to believe in it because I want my kids to grow up with a moral framework.” Civic Christianity: “In order for our civilization to be great, we must be good. Therefore, wise men must pretend to be pious in public, as defined within the historical European tradition, so that the masses can act in accordance with their best natures.” This is a pathological reaction to the ennervating epistemological nihilism which paralyzes low-church radical individualists.
Wilsey employs five themes to sort out the differences between open and closed exceptionalism. These themes, indebted largely to America’s Protestant heritage and appropriated from Christian theology, are 1.) chosen nation, 2.) divine commission, 3.) innocence, 4.) sacred land, and 5.) glory. When abused, each of these ideas poses a danger to the nation and to authentic Christianity. All go back to the beginning of American history, all have shown that they cause mischief at home and abroad, and all need to be guarded against or corrected. Some, such as America’s identity as the chosen nation, cannot be salvaged because of how far they intrude on Christian theology and rob the Church of its identity. Likewise, belief in divine commission is “theologically problematic” because only the Church has been entrusted with anything like the Great Commission. The real missionary enterprise does not belong to America.
A more sober, responsible American exceptionalism would resist the delusion of national innocence and instead cultivate habits of self-examination, recognize the nation’s failures to live up to its ideals, and make its peace, in the fashion of Reinhold Niebuhr, with a world of moral ambiguity and irony. Instead of reveling in triumphalist vanity, open exceptionalism would acknowledge the dark moments in America’s past and not long for a “golden age” that never existed. And it would no longer misapply the biblical “dominion mandate” by exploiting the land but instead care for it, as good stewards of God’s creation should.
Civil Religion—Or Christianity?
For an explanation of how this ties into historical European philosophy and the rise of Zodiacism, please see my “Culture War” series of posts.
Alexis de Tocqueville believed that Christianity was the source of the basic principles of liberal democracy, and the only religion capable of maintaining liberty in a democratic era. He was keenly aware of the mutual hatred between Christians and liberals in 19th-century France, rooted in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. In France, Christianity was allied with the Old Regime before 1789 and the reactionary Bourbon Restoration of 1815-30. However he said Christianity was not antagonistic to democracy in the United States, where it was a bulwark against dangerous tendencies toward individualism and materialism, which would lead to atheism and tyranny.