It is with some trepidation that I release this post. I am not sure I agree with everything in it, for it perhaps presents too dark a picture of the evangelical church, and may be influenced by my reading too much into what people say. I have learned that for most humans, he who says A does not always say B, no matter how logically connected A and B are. However, the recent ouster of Paige Patterson at the SBC, a key historical ally of Adrian Rogers who orchestrated the liberal purge decades ago, and the public glee of the cucks in getting his scalp*, tends to support the stronger form of my argument. The conservative churches are on borrowed time, and change needs to come sooner rather than later.
*I take no position on the charges against Patterson, other than to say out of Christian charity I assume he’s innocent because many of the people piling on are known snakes enjoying the assistance of the Fake News Media. If true, one’s reaction ought to be a note of tragedy, not victory, that a great man fell.
The following resulted from a dream I had over the Thanksgiving break. My oldest child is 13 and we are beginning to think about college. The dream had me back at my alma mater, a major public university, but I was observing a meeting of a student ministry at a local church. In the room, I saw young couples, older couples, all fellowshipping with college students. Somehow in the room I got the feeling that this was not only a Christian space, but also a space where white guilt was refuted, where white students were not beaten over the head with a gospel-veneered version of Marxism. I felt a great sense of relief that such a ministry would exist for my child, that we wouldn’t have to choose between Christian orthodoxy and suicide as a people group.
Of course, after waking, I realized this feeling of relief was illusory, for no such church exists. The dream, however, awoken in me a vision that such a church should exist. The existing secular Alt Right is too atomized, too lacking in meaning to be a realistic spiritual home for anyone. It is a negative movement based on reaction and alienation, even though the reaction and alienation are based on good instincts. More specifically, none of the individuals in the secular Alt Right are good spousal material for my children. I fear the future, in that I fear I may be forced to choose between my child marrying a Christian and marrying someone who is not racially masochistic. Only a church can produce the kind of young people we need if we are to take back our birthright.
The European peoples and civilization they built stand on a precipice. Our civilizations are being invaded while our morality is being hollowed out from within. In a strange twist of history, our moral institutions, the churches, have for the most part silenced themselves. Even if they espouse traditional views on today’s hot topics like sexuality, they do it in overly apologetic tones, hoping to avoid the attention of the Eye of Soros. Every politically approved degeneracy must be handled with kid gloves, lest their ministries be destroyed by hostile media attention. They are fragile, weak, scared to death of being associated with any principled Christian, like Roy Moore, who dares to take the commands of Scripture seriously and apply them outside of the church walls.
There is one notable exception to this weakness of the churches. All churches in all ages have had blind spots, and even today’s blind spot in the area of sexuality is something that could ultimately be corrected. On the one issue that is truly determinative for the future of our people, the churches will condemn and harass any heretic like it’s the 16th century – that is, anyone accused of “racism,” of having the temerity to assert that the European peoples have a right to homelands and to preserve themselves and their cultures. Functionally, most churches today are Satanic. They are useless and timid on issues where the culture has already overruled them, but attack dogs against the only people standing up to preserve a future for those very churches and the peoples that overwhelmingly populate them. The churches, then, are exhibiting the fundamental feature of liberalism – the deathwish. Having found the demands of modernity too hard, and having surrendered the fight against it long ago, churches today seek release from the burden of continued existence in the destruction of their own host civilizations. They openly hope for sweet release and death for the “white church,” looking to conservatives in the Third World, free of the original sin of whiteness, to eventually vigorously reassert traditional morality, for they are too cowardly to do it themselves.
It’s Only Getting Worse
We know from the history of science that the progress of empirical knowledge is not based on some ideal where old hypotheses die when they fail in experiment. Only a few fields progress like this, because only a few fields, like mathematics, chemistry, or physics, are sufficiently objective that experimental results can only have one interpretation. What tends to happen is that a younger generation of researchers, seeking to make a name for themselves, challenge the old theories with carefully designed experiments that begin to show weaknesses in the old paradigm. Nevertheless, the old guard, who made their name on the old hypotheses, continues to find creative ways to incorporate the new data into their increasingly discredited theory. Only when the old guard literally begins to die off, with the loss of their prestigious positions of influence, does the younger generation begin to show dominance. In a rather short period of time, long after the discrediting experiments have been done, the old paradigm is suddenly washed away and the new paradigm reigns. Even in fields of science with the highest aspirations for objectivity, personnel all too often determines policy.
The church is at a larger disadvantage in its captivity to its leaders. Because theology lacks any regime of falsification (we cannot do experiments, for example, to determine which precise doctrine is correct), the church is pretty much helpless to reform itself from within. Personnel is policy. What can we expect in the future in the evangelical church?
We should remember the origins of the politically engaged, relatively conservative evangelical church we see today. While having distant ties to the Fundamentalist movement, which kept the torch of the Apostle’s Creed alive within rapidly liberalizing early 20th century Protestantism, the birth of the movement – and they are super embarrassed to admit this – lies in protests against integration. All of the major figures of the movement, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers, etc, were initially opposed to racial integration. While Billy Graham insisted on integrated gatherings for his crusades, he nevertheless was red-pilled on the Jewish question, as revealed by White House tapes in which he and Richard Nixon discussed the problems of Jewish disloyalty, and in particular their involvement in pornography.
Whatever we may want to say about these men, they were real men, not the doughy cucks ascendant in the church today. This older guard of manly, distinctly conservative and usually southern evangelical leadership has been dying off. Adrian Rogers, while reconciling himself to the reality of integration, refused until his death to perform interracial marriages. His successor, Boomer cuck Steve Gaines, desperately promotes race hustler black pastors to leadership positions in the SBC. One exception is Franklin Graham, a masculine pastor and a strong Trump supporter who publicly advocates for a nationalist immigration policy. He is an older Boomer (1952) and obviously strongly influenced by his father.
We should not underestimate the residual influence of this passing pre-Boomer generation. The backbone of any local community institution, whether a symphony or the church, often consists of the very elderly. They are very often the ones who write the big checks. Big, successful ministries do not happen spontaneously, but rather require a hustler’s focus on raising money and making things happen. Do not let the “aw shucks” act of any of these prominent pastors fool you into thinking that any of their ministries just happened because they are faithful shepherds whom God just chose to be prominent for some unknown reason*. It is more than likely that as bad as Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and John Piper are now, they really would like to be a lot worse, but can’t, yet, because of elderly donors, elders and other limiters in their circles of influence.
*Note, I am not dismissing hustling as a strategy. Hustling for the right causes is the obligation of every Christian, according to their ability and gifts. One of the major errors of today’s evangelicalism is a sort of fatalistic apathetic passivism – we are “broken” and can’t do anything for ourselves, so we wait for God to do it for us.
In reality, these Boomer cucks secretly hate the older generation. They were good church kids, but they really hated being embarrassed when the church said unpopular stuff the culture didn’t like. Like most Boomers, they are addicted to mainstream entertainment and so have thoroughly imbibed the Hollywood propaganda that pathologized any expression of Southern or Christian manhood. They want to be cool and hip, drinking artisan coffee, wearing designer jeans, and conforming to the androgynous culture in a maximalist way while minimizing any distinction of the Christian community.
We are already at the point where they are telling us what they really believe, especially when a public race cucking opportunity provides them cover. In this article, for example, they call the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention “heretics” and in a demonstration of the lengths to which they will abuse an argument, try to make the case that the Sexual Revolution was somehow a philosophical descendant of southern planters’ supposed embrace of Greek philosophy. Russell Moore rails against the Christian culture of the South, calling its historical faith “fake Christianity” pursued only for social respectability. It sounds cynical, but the most prominent church leaders today seem to be following the same recipe: whatever’s wrong, blame it on white people. The predictive power of that shorthand is astounding.
The danger for red-pilled white Christians is that we may find ourselves marooned in our own churches. And if we wait too long, we will be like the elderly faithful of the mainline denominations, forced to listen to social justice Marxism preached by a lesbian from the pulpit of the churches that, as children, nurtured them in a true faith. Yet, due to age and infirmity, and the natural desire to be around one’s friends in their twilight years, they lack the drive and energy to fight what would now surely be a losing battle to restore their churches. The time they should have fought was 30-50 years ago, when their churches were just beginning to be invaded by Marxists. They found it inconvenient, even embarrassing, to fight, and the changes were just gradual enough that each new insult was tolerable. Because they were unwilling to fight and “make a scene” in their prime middle-age years, they are now captives in their dying denominations.
We deceive ourselves if we think the cucks will do anything but double down on their rhetoric. They have captured the leadership of our denominations and will be much more ruthless in rooting out their remaining enemies than those they displaced ever were in dealing with them.
The treatment of Roy Moore is a case in point. As this is written, in December 2017, we have no idea whether the allegations against him are true. They could ultimately prove to be true but that will not affect what a good Christian’s reaction should be now: loyalty to our friends, and suspicion of our enemies, until proven otherwise, especially when the events happened 40 years ago and just happen to be revealed weeks before an election between Moore and a known anti-Christ, abortion-supporting Democrat. What we do know is that there is not sufficient proof to believe the accusations and that proving a negative is nearly impossible, especially when female false accusers are protected by a culture of feminism. The cucks have piled onto Roy Moore while remaining largely silent about other Republican figures with similar pasts. This is because Moore is a throwback to the older generation of evangelicals. Less intellectual, less sophisticated, but thoroughly orthodox, and most cringe-worthy to the cucks, a Christian who actually put his faith into practice in his role as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore showed what Christians in office should actually do, received actual persecution for it, and the cucks find such intolerable, for it shows how shallow all of their intellectual Calvinist bloviating actually is in the real world.
This time, the liberals in the church have gotten smarter. Having lost a few battles in the old mainline denominations as more conservative churches split and formed new associations, and being totally routed by the efforts of Adrian Rogers in the Southern Baptist Convention, those with liberal leanings now know that they must at least feign orthodoxy if they wish to secure their influence long enough to purge out the remaining conservatives. So in a brilliant maneuver, they use orthodoxy itself to promote Cultural Marxism, and in fact argue that the old orthodoxy, that was anti-Marxist in nature, was itself unorthodox, the barnacles of centuries of heretical white supremacy and colonialism. The real gospel, the real orthodoxy, was actually Marxist all along. This is the essence of the New Calvinism and all other pseudo-intellectual conservative justifications for the tenets of Cultural Marxism, perhaps time shifted 10-20 years behind the secular cultural consensus.
Contrast this Marxist convergence of the nominally “orthodox, conservative” church with parallel developments in the political culture. We are seeing an ascendance, especially among young conservative activists, of “red pill” awareness on race, Jews, sexuality and other cultural issues. At the same time, the ascendant thought leaders of both the orthodox and liberal churches are making their peace with Cultural Marxism, finding ways to more-or-less accommodate everything from homosexual marriage to open borders. Practically, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Russell Moore, Pope Francis, or the local lesbian pastorette at the Episcopal church. Your choices, goy, are either Cultural Marxism or faux-orthodoxy reinterpreted to support Cultural Marxism.
It is important to realize what the cucks want. They want a future in which Muslim men rape white women with impunity; a future where white cops cannot confront black crime; a future where the wealth and comfort of a civilization built by our ancestors is stripped away from our children. They will mock you for isolating yourself from the degenerate culture*, for making sure your daughters are not catechized by Jewish television producers into the tenets of whoredom. As these outcomes become increasingly obvious, there is and will be a growing portion of the white West that will resist. As the cucks double down on their rhetoric, they will turn the churches into a laughingstock, a hollow institution abandoned by anyone who actually loves their children and civilization.
*I have young Millennial, New Calvinist type Christians in my social circles who are always excited by whatever degenerate series Netflix is serving up next, and boy do they have some tortured ways to see “the gospel” in some of this stuff. My wife and I will sometimes start a series after hearing these glowing reviews and then quit in disgust because of the incessant nihilism and explicit nudity/sexuality.
We are at a point where agnostic or atheist Alt-Right reactionaries have a more visceral reaction to disgusting displays of public homosexuality, for example, than mainstream orthodox Christians. Russell Moore famously advised Christians to attend the wedding receptions of their gay friends, while the secular Alt Right calls out degeneracy and mocks a “Clown World” that believes it can escape the designs of nature. Similarly, as the blogger Dalrock has documented, Christian leaders uniformly refuse to confront the evils of feminism, twisting Scripture to undermine patriarchal authority in the home*, while the Alt-Right calls for a return to traditional family structures. What kind of bizarro world are we living in, when the putative intellectual descendants of Nietzsche and Darwin are the ones calling out sin while so-called Christians do their best to paper over any kind of Biblical judgment or standard?
*The evasive reinterpretation of Scripture by the “complementarian” movement is a microcosm of the Church’s larger problem of liberalism mutating its malignant DNA into seeming orthodoxy. They will say things like, yes, women should submit, but any husband who corrects his wife for not submitting is an abuser, with such “emotional abuse” being a legitimate justification for divorce.
To be sure, there will always be a remnant of faithful churches, but unless God, through means perhaps illuminated in this post, brings about some other scenario, these are likely to be small, fundamentalist churches and home churches with little to no cultural influence. They can keep the pilot light going, but they will be waiting for the existing system to catastrophically fail, like during the last days of Rome, rather than exerting a reforming influence that may help avoid total catastrophe. Most tragically, those individuals motivated by the noblest impulses, the Alt Right which seeks, despite its internal contradictions, to save our civilization, will have no spiritual home. Without a spiritual component, their efforts might very well end in failure anyway, or any victories achieved be ephemeral as they save the substance but not the essence of Western peoples. Not all of them may acknowledge this, but the beautiful civilization they seek to save, which commands their great sacrifices and loyalty, consists of two necessary components that are only sufficient when existing together: European peoples and the Christian faith*.
*This is not to say that Christian faith is exclusively European. Christianity is an enhancer of all civilizations. To use a crude analogy, Christianity creates the decent, “Disneyfied” version of a culture, retaining, even glorifying, important distinctions but polishing away the weaknesses of each people it encounters. This is a multi-century process, and only European civilizations have had the benefit of nearly 2,000 years of this collective sanctification – though of course this cultural capital is today rapidly diminishing. An African Christendom would be much different than European Christendom, but both would be improved from their native state on a relative basis. It is unlikely, for example, that Africans would produce such cultural artifacts as our somewhat depressing, but nevertheless comforting to the European soul, Christmas carols with sad melodies in a minor key.
Ecumenicalism is a dirty word for many conservative, orthodox Christians. Whether Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Catholic, if we are serious about our faith that word tends to make us nervous. Historically, its practice has been to rope conservative churchgoers into supporting large organizations controlled by the most liberal groups in each denomination to pursue Marxist goals. Ecumenicalism in the early 20th century was less about “mere Christianity,” unity around essentials, and more about creating an elite twice distilled from their host congregations who then spend other people’s money on social justice projects.
Over the past 50 years, however, we have seen a huge growth in what I will call “Legitimate Christian Unity,” or LCU. LCU has developed over the past 50 years as sincere, conservative Christians have found they have more in common with each other, and common cause in the culture, than they do with liberals within their own denomination. In other words, conservatism across denominations is a more meaningful distinction than the denominations themselves. This is the real “mere Christianity” – when liberals, regardless of denomination, are attacking the foundations of the faith, unity in essentials is more urgent than hashing out secondary issues like baptism or the exact nature of salvation by grace alone. Some conservatives will bristle instinctively as I discuss this, as if I’m about to pull something out of my hat, but stick with me.
How many Protestants would be willing to specifically condemn the great culture warrior Phyllis Schlafly to hell because she was a faithful Catholic? How many serious, conservative Catholics would be willing to say the same about their Protestant allies in the fight against homosexual marriage? We of course will affirm the official positions of our church, because we are conservatives and loyalty to authority is important to us, but few of us would be so bold as to apply these official positions in such a personal way to sincere, earnest allies who happen to have a different denominational allegiance. Let’s be frank, it’s hard to be judgmental of those who at least confess the Apostle’s Creed. Unlike our forebears, we have the Internet, and we can read opposing views on secondary issues, and see that earnest, good Christians can disagree sincerely on issues like baptism. No serious Christian of any denomination supports the highly destructive religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, or the persecution of fellow Christians who have different doctrinal standards.
I argue that, just as orthodoxy vs. non-orthodoxy on the basic doctrines of Christianity was the most important division within churches 50 years ago, today the most significant division within the church is Marxist vs. non-Marxist. It makes little difference whether one gets to an open-borders, pro-Islamic immigration policy via Russell Moore’s twisted serpentine orthodoxy or the simple Marxist heresies of the Unitarian-Universalists. The end result is the same: death and destruction for our people and civilization, and the marginalization of the Christian faith. In fact, this difference extends beyond the church walls. The primary division among all European people today, religious or nonreligious, is their orientation towards survival: who wills to live, who wills to die?
Orthodox Doctrinal Minimalism
We have the opportunity, at this juncture, to gather into a new kind of church all orthodox believers who also understand the existential threat to our people and determine to resist against it. We can adopt a minimalist doctrine of the Apostle’s Creed, combined with specific positions on Cultural Marxist issues.
For example, take the doctrine on salvation by grace through faith alone. Even in Reformed circles, we can’t really define that without playing word games, and this is supposedly the central doctrine of anyone calling themselves Reformed! The John MacArthur camp teaches Lordship salvation, which more or less causes you to doubt your salvation unless every area of your life is surrendered to Christ and free from all but inadvertent, non-premeditated sin. At the other extreme, some 4-point Calvinist Bible Church types preach “Free Grace,” basing their model of salvation on the gospel of John and separating salvation from sanctification entirely, not even requiring “repentance” because John never mentions it! Neither group is, in practice, as extreme as their stated positions. MacArthur is not a Pelagian and what he’s really trying to do is wake up Christians in serious, habitual sin that they need to repent lest their salvation be proven counterfeit. Similarly, the Free Grace guys strongly encourage sanctification, prayer, repentance and discipleship in their flocks, and preach against sin, never coming near the antinomian extreme their position is often parodied to entail. In practice, they agree with each other more than they disagree, and their differences, I argue, mostly come down to word games. So when we say “salvation by grace through faith alone” we ought to be honest enough to admit that there are at least 30 different ideas about what that really means, with people hallucinating it can mean only one thing, which happens to be the word game arrangement they prefer.
If we’re honest, even unity on a central Protestant doctrine like salvation by grace through faith alone is impossible to pin down with any precision such that no good, sincere orthodox Christians would disagree. What we can agree on, across all denominations, are the broad confessions of the Apostle’s Creed, and then the practical implications of Scripture, such as the sinfulness of abortion or homosexuality. The mechanics of salvation and faith are the hardest to define with agreement. The game the cucks play is to take overconfident positions on mechanical issues (such as Calvinism), to portray themselves as great idea men and give them a schtick to promote their middlebrow theology popularizations to laymen in the church. Then, established as a “conservative” on some mechanical issue, they proceed to comment on practical issues, using their egghead orthodoxy to cuck out on some issue like homosexuality, e.g. Russell Moore and the gay wedding reception. Taking overconfident positions on mechanical issues also involves no risk while seeming brave, which is catnip for cucks. The “Eye of Soros” at the New York Times doesn’t give a flip about Christians arguing with each other over limited atonement or the authority of the papacy. They will try to ruin your ministry if you take a nationalist position on immigration.
Now, any new church or network of churches will be necessarily Protestant, but I’m saying we can avoid a lot of the problems of arguing over mechanics by adopting a minimalist doctrinal position combined with maximalist traditionalism on practical issues. Our position on homosexuality, or the husband’s authority in the home, or the right of Christians to hold nationalist political views, would be much more confidently expressed than mechanical topics concerning the nature of salvation*.
*I’ll add here that God could have, if He wanted to, provided a complete systematic theology, like the Westminster Confession, as a supplement to the Bible. That He did not, and good Christians disagree on important secondary doctrines, indicates that doctrine is not all that important to God. The Church is an organic organization on a mission, like an army, and soldiers do not need to know all of the physics behind their weapon, just how to operate it. To clarify, this is not to say that all theological opinions are valid; there is only one true theology, but God has not chosen to make it obvious. Every part of the Bible has one and exactly one valid interpretation, but it is impossible for us to know with certainty what the proper interpretation is on issues where orthodox Christians have historically disagreed. Certainly the Old Testament had certain non-obvious interpretations which were only revealed later.
Take Up Physical Space
Some have proposed something like a “virtual” church for pro-white Christians, given that there are a good many of us but we are spread out geographically. I think this is an interesting idea, but only as a temporary stopgap.
The reality is that people will only deeply commit to a local ministry and community. An average medium size church in a large suburb has a budget exceeding the entire Alt Right movement, secular or non-secular. I have seen missionaries of no particular fundraising talent fill entire rooms to raise $200,000 in one night in a mid-size city, flexing the network of local churches. In short, there is something mighty and powerful about the local church, its ability to raise money and influence those around it.
The budgetary needs of the local church are also, of course, driven by real expenses: rent, or debt service on expensive buildings, and salaries and benefits for staff. Every pastor starts every year in the red, as a church naturally produces no income, but rather is dependent on voluntary giving which must be repeated each and every year to continue its mission. However, churches usually raise this money easily. Why? Well, as any fundraising professional will tell you, the first donation is the hardest. Churches have millennia of ingrained behavior patterns among congregants – giving to the local church is just something you do. People also are much more willing to give to things they can touch and feel and experience, and benefit them personally in terms of the community itself.
Earlier, I must admit, I overstated my case in describing the dire circumstances in the church for pro-white Christians. While what I describe is true, I believe much of it is built on sand and vulnerable to disruption. What we see in the church is the undue influence of a few “thought leaders” like Piper or Keller, which then trickles down to less cutting edge pastors and congregations. It’s sort of a voluntary franchise model, and most pastors are not truly ideologically committed to anything they teach (except perhaps the very basic stuff, like the Apostle’s Creed). They simply follow trends, and if somebody writes a good book, what’s proposed doesn’t seem too risky, and seems to be have great results building a real-world church in an influential place like New York City, your average pastor just wants to follow that trend, for no other base reason than it’s demonstrably (or seems to be) successful.
Now, they will think their commitment to a certain set of ideas are based on principles, but their behavior, in chasing trends, shows otherwise. Their principles just happen to line up with whatever is trendy. This is not to be overly judgmental of them. Most people are not original thinkers and lack the ability to think originally in a meaningful way. If you know you are not that smart, that’s actually the beginning of wisdom, and following trends is one way to avoid making a huge mistake. It’s a good strategy except when the institutional church has been captured by its enemies!
It is said that revolutions become inevitable when about 10% of the population believes in it. I believe this is true because people are not majority followers but rather trend followers, and more specifically, people follow the trend of a trend. When a position experiences exponential growth from say 1% of the population to 10% of the population, to the remaining 90% this looks like an incredible development, and since they are emotionally driven they see the emergence of this trend as inevitable and thus if they want to remain popular and relevant they have to get in early. For better or worse, American evangelicalism is a brutally competitive marketplace, and is only becoming more brutal as the target market shrinks. Insufficient numbers of Millennials are replacing elderly congregants, and Boomers are typically much more niggardly and selfish in their giving than the generation that came before them. Yet, churches have huge legacy overhead in salaries, benefits, buildings, and programs. Because of this, very, very few people adopt positions out of principle, and so the struggle is among the ideological partisans, who make up a very small percentage of the population.
Have you ever wondered why Russell Moore is such a drama queen who throws a hissy fit every time Christians do something of which he disapproves, like making a homosexual feel unloved, or opposing a mosque being built, or voting for Roy Moore? Russell Moore knows on some level his position is weak. He knows his cuck-Christianity must drag people against their will into doing things they do not want to do, and at the first opportunity, if given a plausible exit, many of the parishioners he seeks to delude would abandon all of the positions he has so painstakingly pushed onto the Southern Baptist Convention. From Russell Moore’s perspective, he would say this is because the American church in particular is Satanic – because it was used as part of a racial and sexual power structure, it is fundamentally corrupt and mostly full of fake Christians preaching a fake gospel, its veneer a mile wide and an inch deep. We would say, of course, that Christianity does not require ethnic masochism and the Satanic elements are those polluting the purity of the church to enlist it in seeking to achieve Marxist political ends. Nevertheless, Moore knows he’s weak, and we ought to know it too.
As I mentioned before, your average pastor and congregation is always on the lookout for new trends, and if we can show results, we can win. It ultimately will be results and results only, produced by a relatively small group of people, that will set the domino sequence in motion that will eventually awake the Western church out of its ethnomasochist slumber.
To show results, we must launch a real church in a specific location. The pastor and leaders of that church must be exceptional individuals who can attract others to their message. They must launch highly successful churches that pull from a broad community, believing and hopefully non-believing, and show the real-world results (thousands of parishioners, multimillion dollar budgets, a network of growing associated churches) so critical to showing others that our message will benefit their churches as well.
The pastors must be thought leaders who can publish books and articles providing ideological cover for those that wish to be part of the ethno-normalism church trend, and must publicly combat, in appropriate non-direct Christianese language, the errors of Mohler, Moore, Keller and company. If these leaders are really good at their job, they will show how the development of a pro-white-tolerating church is the next logical progression in church trends, that Mohler, Keller, and Moore, while well-meaning individuals, are simply stuck in the past and lack the vision to be relevant to today’s culture. This approach is postmodern realpolitik, and we will do to them what they did to others. I will not share more specific talking points here, but I believe such a case can be made. I do believe this move must be made quickly, as we are at a unique window, a sort of Indian Summer for American whites, inaugurated by the election of Donald Trump. For the first time in a long time, we are the hot new trend, and that will not last forever.
I have asked this question for years now: who will be the Christian Trump to clean out our stale leaders, our Bushes and Clintons, and bring about a new paradigm?
In the Protestant church today, we have four general aesthetics. The most traditional, that of high church liturgy, vestments, etc, is most associated with the very liberal, social justice oriented theology of the mainline churches. The second aesthetic is that of the televangelist, or the backwoods Bible thumping preacher wearing a suit. The third aesthetic is that of the Boomer cuck, like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, or John Piper, wearing cubicle drone “business casual” clothing, demasculinized, non-threatening, and often ill-fitting and lacking style. The fourth aesthetic is that of the hipster, which while a bit more stylish than the Boomer, still tends towards the androgynous, men wearing skinny jeans and thick-framed glasses to look like effete Jewish intellectuals.
Any new church hoping to provide the Alt Right a spiritual home should most definitely avoid both the aesthetics of the Southern televangelist and the Boomer cuck. Southerners, unfortunately, have been mocked for decades by Hollywood as loathsome dullards, and too many people in the South have been willing to put on a minstrel show, embracing these negative “redneck” stereotypes as a sort of identity. The televangelist in particular caters to the lowest common denominator in the low church culture of the rural South, and in the process I fear has ruined the idea of a preacher wearing a suit. This is too bad, as real southern gentlemen from the upper caste of our region do have a quite elegant, easygoing style. My gut is that the target aesthetic will be “tough guy hipster,” something similar to the style of Mark Driscoll before his fall (more on him later), a style that is both unapologetically masculine- no Woody Allen glasses or turtlenecks- yet also shows an awareness of fashion trends.
Inevitably, the specific aesthetics of this new church will be determined by experiment and experience. I suggest something a bit more formal be tried, to give people what they desire from the traditional liturgy of the Episcopalians and Catholics, but without the legalism (or social liberalism) attached to it. At the most basic level, the aesthetics would be a Christianity that takes itself seriously, the very opposite of the Boomer goofball in a Hawaiian shirt, pathetically attempting to be “cool” and somewhat transgressive in a church culture where there is nothing left to mock or rebel against. We might not be entering the literal presence of Christ’s body, but maybe we ought to have the good sense to act like it, to respect ourselves and our religious practice as something that’s not a stale joke. This is very speculative, however. I think it more than likely that the specific aesthetics, since this will be a Second Reformation when it happens, are impossible to predict. It will be something totally new, not unlike the revolution of Luther. We must remain flexible on this point to optimize for our target demographic. I am very much a traditionalist in worship, but it’s important to recognize the cultural decline in aesthetics affecting all of our people. We may simply not be able to restore a fully reverent, appropriate worship experience in one generation. Also, the entire possibility space for the essence of traditional worship – God-centered instead of man-centered – has not been explored. It’s entirely possible for “traditional” worship to be something completely new if it achieves that objective.
We must also focus on the aesthetics of the congregation. Perhaps it will be the only church where gluttony is addressed from the pulpit! Imagine – a pastor making people uncomfortable talking about self-evident sins of the congregation instead of made-up fake sins like “white privilege.” We must also, among other things, make physical fitness a requirement for being an elder or leader. Obesity, as the manifestation of a lack of self-control, puts an elder outside of the realm of “above reproach.”
The author of this work has had the personal experience of witnessing to secular Alt Right figures. In discussing my faith with such individuals, I get the distinct impression that their rejection of the church has more to do with aesthetics than reason. If people as intellectual as this group rejects the church simply because it is, largely, goofy, ugly, and soft as an institution, over aesthetics, then I think we may be surprised how many secular Alt-Rightists will drop their hostility to Christianity when shown an attractive and viable alternative. I believe they partially reject the church because in their hearts, they hold the church to a higher standard because it represents itself as possessing absolute truth. If the fruit is rotten, in its hostility to whites and Western Civilization, why would anyone not raised as a Christian be attracted to the modern church?
These are are speculative ideas, as the best members to attract to any new church are those who will join and give. The organizational imperative to simply survive, short of unorthodoxy, trumps everything else in most church plants. However, if we want to truly be thought leaders as a congregation, we must appeal to urban professionals. There is simply not an example of a thought leading church or pastor outside of major cities and with congregations consisting of anything other than mostly upper middle class professionals. Our most natural constituency, the secular Alt Right, already checks these boxes. Whether such individuals would be willing to associate, confess faith, and join a pro-white church is yet to be determined. Nevertheless, I think it’s hard to argue that such a church plant should happen outside of a growing, urban area like Austin, Washington, DC or Denver. Such urban and suburban churches naturally attract followers from minor cities and smaller churches.
One thing such a plant will have to contend with is the presence of “crazies” in the real world pro-white movement. This is a movement that attracts two extremes of people, and some who are a mix themselves of the extremes. On the one hand, we attract the most noble individuals, who risk everything personally and professionally because they believe Western civilization and peoples must be preserved, for the good of humanity at large. On the other hand, we tend to attract generally disagreeable or transgressive personalities who are attracted to us primarily because we are hated by the mainstream. Church leadership will need to be prepared to push the crazies out early and often, because they will be a factor and such individuals will do nothing but repel the healthy families we want to attract.
Deliverables: Feminism Mitigation
Beyond leaders who are attractional and aspirational themselves, the church must deliver something of immediate value to its congregants, something sticky and unique in the church “marketplace.” I believe the most attractive deliverable we can offer is the “red pill” understanding of marriage and sex relations. Imagine an uncucked pastor, physically fit, attractive, married to an attractive woman with whom he has beautiful children. Such a family would be inspirational AND aspirational to the young men and women they lead.
For years, Christians wanting teaching on traditional marriage have had poor choices. On the one hand, those claiming to represent traditionalism were in many ways weirdo legalists, like Bill Gothard or Doug Phillips. The cornpone aesthetics of families like the Duggars, and their incessant legalism, seemed joined at the hip with traditional gender relations. Their teachings were often over-spiritualized, like so much of postmodern fundamentalism, relying more on a sort of guilt-driven Biblicist pietism rather than the undeniable biological differences between men and women.
If neo-Little-House “prairie muffin” LARPing wasn’t your thing, your next alternative was the gender relations teaching of mainstream evangelicalism. Dalrock has documented this extensively on his blog, but those teachings have been systematically weakened and compromised over time in response to a shifting culture, and a desire to avoid the Eye of Soros when it comes to combating the “feminist imperative.” The “complementarian” position has been watered down to the point as to become meaningless, assenting to Marxist gender equality theories while somehow managing, for now, to carve out a mysterious exclusion of women from the position of senior pastor and sometimes elder.
Neither group is of practical use in creating a healthy marriage along God’s revealed biological design. Gothard, Phillips, and their crowd were essentially high priests of their own legalist cults – in such marriages, the dictates of the guru replaced the husband’s authority, with the husband, usually a naturally weak Christian cuck sort, role playing a “leader” role usually initiated by his wife’s growing attachment to her particular legalistic guru, the only “real man in the room” to use Dalrock’s parlance. That these “patriarchs” would allow their 16 year old daughters, for decades, to go “intern” with the ministry of a 50-something single man like Bill Gothard speaks to their credulousness. The complementarians more directly undermined husbands, flipping Scripture on its head to where the wife’s emotions became a man’s barometer of his spiritual health.
It is fair to say, from a red pill understanding, that both men and women are deeply unhappy with the existing arrangement. Any church that offered the immediate benefit of improved domestic relations between husband and wife would have an inestimable advantage and could possibly be built to a sustainable size before the Eye of Soros is likely to notice and launch its first attack.
As an example of this deliverable, in a relatively mild but still potent form, consider the “Love & Respect” ministry of Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. While at first glance Eggerichs seems to be cut from the same cloth as other inoffensive Midwestern Boomer pastor gurus (Dobson, Piper, Hybels), he delivers his message with more of a masculine edge, and the content of his message is much more subversive. Google “Emerson Eggerichs abuse” for the shrieking of the blue-haired Christian set over this man who dares to teach a more robust complementarian view*. He is a man with all of the right enemies.
*He is accused of being an apologist for the patriarchy, of being a “body shamer,” among other things.
This new Reformation, while formed to reaffirm the Biblical theology of the nation-state, may find most of its notoriety in running marriage conferences and personal discipleship mentoring where men are taught to lead, and women to follow, by attractive and non-legalistic role models who are fully informed by both Biblical truth and biological reality. The 2014-5 Form 990’s for Eggerichs’ “Love & Respect” ministry shows total revenues of $1.5MM across the two years, with only $160,000 of that being donations, the rest being net income derived from books and conferences. The ministry itself has $3.0MM in assets and pays Eggerichs and his wife over $200,000 a year in salaries. Clearly, there is demand for traditional teaching on marriage.
After all, what is a nation but an extended family? We cannot hope to rebuild a strong nation if the constituents of that nation, individual families, are weakened by the corrosion of feminism. So I believe this task, of teaching men and women what true Biblical/traditional marriage looks like in the modern world, in an attractive way, without resorting to legalism or general fundamentalist goofiness, is the first and most obvious opportunity to take market share from the incumbent churches.
Furthermore, giving men and women the tools to liberate their families from feminism addresses a fundamental problem of the church: its lack of appeal to men. If we can attract men to something, and create a male space within the church, we know from fundamental Red Pill theory that this is inherently attractive to women, even more attractive than a church that specifically caters to them. Women want to join what exciting, non-cucked men are doing more than anything else. Given the extreme gender disparities in the church today, and the pathetic, soft cucks that attractive Christian girls are settling for, a church that can attract men who are both righteous and masculine should attract women from the broader evangelical church as well.
Deliverables: Real Community
Our atomized society is afflicted with a pathological degree of loneliness and alienation. Some of this was inevitable as the automobile and social mobility eroded traditional, local communities. As a result, for many people church is their primary social community, a place where people with similar values can support and love one another. The problem is the church as it currently exists has pathological leadership that assists in the suicide of our civilization while persecuting internal dissenters who have a healthy drive to preserve their nation and people. Further, the secular Alt Right, as it grows, consists of a lot of alienated individuals who may have never experienced true community in a church environment, and who are floundering, post-red-pill, to find a place where they can truly belong and be accepted for their new-found convictions.
Contra Starbucks, a church is the true “third place” for community outside of home and work. Already, we have ad-hoc networks of Alt Right individuals sprouting in local communities, but none of them have reached any kind of institutional status. There is a huge difference between a voluntary, informal network and an institution, which I define as a group with a piece of real estate (a fixed location) and at least one full-time staffer. An institution takes up space in the real world and has at least one person dedicated to its growth and improvement as his primary vocation. It gives a sense of legitimacy and inevitability, and removes a decent amount of the inherent “shame” of being a marginalized group. If we have a real-world institution, however small, we have crossed an objective barrier of legitimacy in the minds of many “normies.”
Defining the Boundaries of the Church Community
I believe it is important to be something bigger and more inclusive than simply an “Alt Right” church for white people only. Segregated churches are, arguably, a side effect of proper national organization rather than a goal to be directly pursued. The church’s message is universal, and if it loses this it ceases to be an institution that speaks to people’s deepest questions – the nature of morality, what happens after death, etc. As such, pro-Western church plants should be open to people of all backgrounds who otherwise can fit in to the community (notably, including being tolerant of those with pro-white beliefs).
However, I think such a church can take on a spirited defense of Western Civilization as such, as an application of universalist ethnonationalist principles. In other words, if Christian ethnonationalism is the only realistic universalistic moral system for man as he is actually created (with definite ties to tribe and family, not a generic universal man simply differing in melanin levels), then the assault on the ethnic integrity of the West, which is the home of Christianity, is the primary application of such principles in the world today. It is made all the more urgent because Christianity is based largely in the West, and has not sufficiently percolated into other parts of the world. As such it would be a reasonable assumption that the continued integrity of the West is part of the God-ordained means for the gospel to continue reaching new people groups, and sanctifying old ones only recently exposed to Christian theology.
For the church (and the Alt Right broadly) to defend the West in a universalist, internally consistent way, we must not argue for ethnic purity as such but rather for “ethnic sustainability.” Perhaps there is a better phrasing for this, but what I’m going for is the idea that there is both a natural right to occupy a geography based on historical tenancy, and that there is a statute of limitations of sorts on changes in tenancy. For example, Native Americans, having been defeated for 150 years, cannot assert a moral right to have all their land back, as too much time has passed. This is also why it is urgent to assert such rights, as after a generation or two they become moot. Many peoples have disappeared from history.
This would mean, for example, acknowledging the fact that African-Americans, having been in our country for 400 years, now represent a distinct people group from their West African contemporaries. As such, they have natural rights to occupy space in America. Politically, it is probably sustainable if America could achieve its historic mix of 85/15 or 90/10 white/black ratio, with a smattering of Native Americans* and historic Mexican-Americans (mostly concentrated in south Texas and New Mexico; we have too many Mexicans to achieve historical ethnic sustainability and so recent immigrants will need to go back, or else be granted some sort of self-sovereignty, maybe a Puerto Rico like dependency occupying parts of the southwest). In summary, we need to have not only a universalist argument for ethnonationalism based on universal morality, but also clarify how that universal morality might govern the actual restoration of the historic American nation. Our position must be something more than “might makes right.”
*I’ve never heard any Alt Righter complain about Native Americans’ presence in the US. Their numbers are marginal, but their natural rights to be here are not.
Nevertheless, while the church will need to have a very defined, nuanced, and universalist position on such issues, both to separate from the genocidal LARPing crazies and define the ethical boundaries of the Alt Right consistent with Christian morality, I would not expect such issues to be front-and-center with every sermon. In many ways, such a church would be very normal, with its distinguishing characteristic being its lack of persecution towards those who publicly doubt Marxist presuppositions. It is especially important to keep out the crazies, though, who will endanger our ability to reach the broader neoreaction / traditionalist / Alt-Lite type movements. While some of these individuals are true believer classical liberals who simply enjoy flirting with edgy ideas, many secretly agree with us. They hesitate, however, to be associated with Alt Right types who lack discernment in how they present their ideas publicly. Many, many people agree with us, but a real world community must avoid purity spirals, and create space for people to have some sense of plausible deniability in their normal lives. This means the church cannot be simply “the racist church.” It has to be about something broader, a total revolt against Clown World of which racial issues are but part of the picture.
Race would not be the primary consideration of our congregations, but we disciple and most importantly, publicly stand with accused racists and others alienated by Clown World. We are a safe refuge for their families from a hostile world.
Crazy Like a Fox
While everything described so far is how the church should ultimately teach and function, how it gets there will take a lot of wisdom. What positions to express publicly, and when, will take a very special kind of leader.
Some will take exception to what I’m about to say, but please know I am not in any way completely endorsing this individual. However, the history and success of Pastor Mark Driscoll might demonstrate a template for how this all might work. His downfall also provides illustrative caution as we think about government and structure of such a church. Allow me to draw a few parallels with Driscoll, especially because I followed his ministry, and found some but not all of his teaching to be useful, engaging, and entertaining. I seem to suffer from acute ADHD during sermons, so am very picky about pastors and preaching styles. Driscoll kept my attention.
While Driscoll was uncontroversial on racial issues, it was never a focus of his ministry, and at times he would mock the ideas of tolerance, discrimination, and hate, painting conservative Christians like himself as the victims of such from the mainstream Marxist culture. While Driscoll could be vulgar at times, he has a unique style of being both culturally relevant and “with it,” the advantage of the hipster pastor, but also coming across as a working class guy who lifted weights and would be willing to get in a fight or kill someone to protect his family. As Dalrock has documented, he did at times preach in the cartoonish chivalry vernacular, comparing single mothers to widows and encouraging his men to (using Dalrock’s terminology) “man up and marry those sluts.” Nevertheless, he did preach a doctrine of female submission in marriage and never allowed female deacons or elders in his church, out of conviction. His preaching style and church/worship aesthetics were unapologetically masculine, and amazingly he succeeded, on purpose, in the least churched major city in the country, Seattle, attracting a male-heavy church with his direct, sometimes blunt, preaching style. Driscoll’s success is worthy of study.
Driscoll fell because, in my analysis, he was probably hypomanic. Individuals with his high level of charisma and energy are rare, and such individuals need to be in charge of their own organizations. Out of conviction, he organized his church to be elder-led, which eventually led to his downfall. I will discuss more on the disadvantages, in my view, of elder-led churches, especially when the public leader is controversial, in the following section. Driscoll is one of the few very famous preachers to not be taken down by a sex scandal, but rather by his own elders who could not handle public pressure about his behavior, and Driscoll’s behavior could be odd at times. It is to Driscoll’s credit, even if it was a mistake, to create a church government, in a church he started, capable of removing him from office, based on his conviction for elder-led government. That known cucks like John Piper and Paul Tripp publicly abandoned him, after embracing him, in his moment of need, further makes me doubt the narrative about his departure, and wonder if there is more to the story.
While Driscoll could come across as crazy, for many years he was crazy like a fox and had remarkable success in a tough church market. He has a large family, five natural born children, and now pastors a church in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has calmed down a lot, and I believe it is probably now his desire to not be as prominent and simply serve as a pastor for the rest of his career, or maybe he’s taking a breather while his children make their way through adolescence, when having a famous, controversial father would be tough. I believe Driscoll knew a lot more than he let on, as I said, crazy like a fox. A pseudonymous post he made on one of his early church discussion forums, later revealed to be Driscoll himself, shows as much:
My evaluation of Driscoll is that he was a tick or two past the useful point on the “crazy like a fox” scale, and he really did engage at times in strange behavior and strange preaching. He is a fascinating figure, however, and his success and fame, before his fall, reveal a latent hunger in the church for unapologetic, masculine teaching and aesthetics.
I believe any new pro-Western church needs a leader more like Driscoll than unlike him, a person who is smart enough to tune his message to be differentiating enough to peel market share from the mainstream church, and attract converts, but not so deviant that his message can be dismissed as crankish. We need leaders smart enough to not reveal their entire poker hand at once, but content to maximize their leverage on the Overton window, neither cucking to win plaudits from the mainstream nor needlessly alienating normies in the process of an awakening.
In other words, we need a new Martin Luther, a smart, bold, and fearless leader for a new Reformation.
Church Advantages, Form & Government
There are numerous legal benefits to a church, most notable of which is the right to apply once for a tax exemption and never make filings again. While ministries, non-profits, Christian schools, etc, must file an annual public return of their finances, churches are exempt from such requirements. The protections of churches are so strong that no church can be examined or audited by the IRS except by instruction of the highest level, presidentially-appointed bureaucrats. Whether we are talking about widely hated groups, like Westboro Baptist Church (perhaps the only group more hated than the Alt Right), or morally bankrupt scams like many of the Charismatic ministries where their “church” is a family business owning homes, jets, and jewelry, churches have shown themselves to be the most privileged legal structures. The case law is very solid on this, and as long as a church has basic things like including members from more than one family*, a set of defined beliefs, and meets regularly for religious services or instruction of some kind, they are almost untouchable without major revisions to established precedent. Pastors also receive tax benefits in being able to take much of their income tax-free as a housing allowance, and can also opt out of social security.
*Members, not governors. Churches can be controlled by one family or even a single person, but must include members from more than one.
Another major legal benefit of a church accrues to its members. Whereas political beliefs are not usually protected in the law, religion very clearly is, including religious beliefs very much at odds with liberal public policy (fundamentalist Islam, for example). Members of this proposed church would have religious protections against discrimination in employment, if the church properly incorporates non-suicidal beliefs of self-determination into its founding documents. Such a benefit would at least put doxxed employees in a much stronger negotiating position to extract settlements from their former employers. In addition, those not hired due to their public beliefs, if religious in nature, can sue for discrimination, throwing sand into the gears of the Leftist HR, affirmative action machine. An entire legal ecosystem could sprout around such a church, carving out public space for our advocates to fairly compete in the marketplace of ideas without fear of losing one’s income.
As somewhat touched on earlier, churches have a huge advantage in fundraising over other organizations: the tithing tradition. How many pro-Western Christians out there are holding back tithes to their local church because of the Marxist nonsense promoted in the pulpit? What if this church plant leveraged the distributed size of the pro-Western Christian community and asked them to “half tithe,” or give 5% of income, to a church that might actually lead to a change in their local churches through long-term influence? If only 20-30 families signed on, depending on income, there would be more than sufficient budget to pay a pastor and rent a space.
Finally, how should our church plant be structured? I admit that I do not have strong convictions on church government form, largely due to cynicism with churches across the spectrum of church government structures who have bowed the knee to Marx. It looks like to me that none of the structures are foolproof, nor does one seem better than the other. Our church needs to anticipate a period of persecution where it stops flying under the radar, attracts the attention of the Eye of Soros, and must go through a winnowing, a purifying period of controversy to either die or break through to the mainstream. As such, I think an independent, episcopal structure may be best. Episcopal, with a small e, simply means a church where elders are established by fiat at some point in the past, and self-select their replacements going forward. In other words, like many nonprofits, such a church would simply have a self-perpetuating “board” type of government, where board members appoint their replacements, without elections, upon death or resignation. Critically, I think this church will come under so much pressure that it must be controlled by the pastor himself. No one else will have “skin in the game” like the pastor, who is likely to attract a lot of attention, even national media attention. There would be too much temptation for independent elders to cuck and fold in such a scenario, unjustly removing the pastor from office. The check on the pastor will be people ceasing to donate or attend, but it is a mistake to introduce others with authority over the pastor, but without the pastor’s labor, life’s work, and sweat equity to bind them to the mission even when under intense public pressure. In today’s compressed news cycle, by the time someone cucks, the news has moved on to a new subject. The Eye of Soros is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and if resisted, eventually moves on to softer targets. A single leader, already famous and with nothing to lose, is more likely to endure such a trial than a committee with normal jobs and obligations that can be leveraged against them.
If a pastor with the talent, brains, and drive I am describing makes himself known, he must be compensated fairly for his efforts. One primary reason we are seeing such weak cucks in the pastorate is that, as a society, we have socially downgraded the pastor to the level of the middle class, if not lower. In times past, pastors were seen as the social superiors of both doctors and lawyers, who were merely high-dollar tradesmen after all, whereas pastors were a type of gentleman, often provided with upper middle class housing and servants by their parishes. As such, if the church is able to afford it from local donations, a salary of $200k-300k a year, if not higher, would not be unreasonable for the sacrifices and status rightly associated with the job. High quality people are not cheap, and such a salary merely assures the pastor that his hopefully large family’s education and health can be provided for, vacations can be taken, and child care and housekeeping assistance can be provided for the wife, who will necessarily bear a heavy burden herself in terms of entertaining and hospitality. This is another reason for the church to be controlled by the pastor, and these financial details to be obscured: church members are notoriously cheap and envious these days about paying pastor salaries, even when funds are available, and they get what they pay for. Better for people to experience the church as a package and make a go or no-go decision. There is greater liberty in allowing competing institutions to be what they should be, to naturally fulfill the vision of their leadership, with the only voting being done by members’ feet rather than by the petty divisiveness of internal politics.
My idea would be to plant such a church, after securing adequate funds, in a growing and socially conspicuous area that already has a decent population of Alt Right sympathetic individuals. Northern Virginia, near DC, is the most obvious place because of the Alt Right’s appeal among younger conservatives, and DC is where people go if they care a lot about politics. Other areas that could be considered include Austin or Dallas-Fort Worth.
One challenge not to be dismissed is that young Alt Righters who do not abandon their faith tend to be attracted to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions*, and repelled by the Protestant, which strikes them as either liberal cucks (Episcopalians) or “conservative” cucks (Piper). One advantage of those traditions is that church itself is more of a transactional experience, more about the direct receipt of grace in Mass, than religious instruction or study. A priest can offer Mass because of the authority vested in him, but the priest can be safely ignored as the hired help if he says something liberal in a sermon. Strangely, the authority of the Church reduces the perceived authority of its minister, whereas the opposite seems to be the case in Protestant churches. A key test of this idea is whether there is sufficient demand from Protestants and non-believers (who would presumably be as open to a Protestant church as they would to any other type) to support such a church, and also whether Alt Right friendly Catholics and Orthodox would be willing to abandon the authority of their traditions for a friendlier church environment and community.
*And sadly, if we think about it, those two churches are probably the least likely to actually excommunicate someone for having such beliefs, even publicly, as their test for membership is more akin to loyalty and identity than a particular set of ideas. One can’t even imagine reporters demanding to talk to the local priest about some Catholic’s politically incorrect comments, whereas the pastor of a Protestant church would be hounded mercilessly.
For such a church, securing rental real estate might be a huge problem. Not at first, because the pastor will be smart and wise as a serpent, but eventually, as described, a trial will come once the Eye of Soros turns its attention. This trial will come at a key turning point, likely when the church will be experiencing a great deal of success, and perhaps attracting the curious to its services. At such a time, any disruption of the venue by a landlord would be disastrous. While legal remedies might be available, the odds that a court system would side with such a church and require specific performance of the landlord is unlikely, as most commercial leases have plenty of weasel phrases that allow landlords to shut down leases for a variety of reasons. Most tenants are in some technical violation of some part of a lease much of the time, so all it would take is one claimed breach and a hostile judge would support the landlord.
As such, it may make more sense for the church to own a piece of real estate, if not at first, but once it begins to get traction but before it achieves major notoriety.