Christianity Isn’t Anti-White, A Response to Todd Lewis

This is one of these “for the record” posts, published only because Todd Lewis is repeatedly insisting that my disinterest in going around in circles with him is proof that he’s vanquished me. This eccentric anarchist anabaptist has been trying for years now to drive a wedge between being pro-White and pro-Christian. For the monomaniac, everything’s a dichotomy. In his mind, I must choose between my worldly love for my extended family and my transcendent love of Christ. Why not both?

Mr. Lewis fancies himself a master of rhetoric and theology who’s got me on the run with his blistering critiques. This fancy of his would be far more plausible if he were actually arguing against my position. He is not.

His essay, Unorthodox: Matt Parrott, Orthodoxy, and Ethno-Nationalism is his latest salvo.

The main bone of contention will be miscegenation. Does the Orthodox Church condemn or allow racial mixing?

I have never asserted that the Church condemns racial mixing. That’s not my assertion. The Church is Universal, meaning that it’s for all nations and identities, including hybrid identities and folks without any coherent ethnic identity at all. My assertion is that the Church does not condemn national identity and does not condemn those who choose to refrain from political, geographical, and sexual admixture. My assertion is not that Orthodox Christianity is only for White Nationalists. My assertion is that the Church is also for White Nationalists.

Does the Orthodox Church condemn ethno-nationalism?

Within the canonical American archdioceses, the Orthodox Church does indeed condemn ethno-nationalism for White Americans and only White Americans. These same archdioceses actively promote ethnic and national pride and political action for any and all other identities, while also welcoming those with an absence of defined identity.

From the perspective of Matt Parrott, nations should be constructed upon ethnic grounds i.e., Syrians and Greeks should not be allowed to live in the same state.

The etymology of the word “nation,” related to “natal” implies a genetic dimension. Even within Orthodoxy’s empires, nations were afforded degrees of autonomy and sovereignty. Imperialism doesn’t necessarily entail or demand the dissolution of the nations under the imperial aegis. In fact, Orthodoxy’s very survival in its heartland relied upon preserving ethno-national identity under the Ottoman Empire’s Greek ethnarchs within the overarching imperial context.

I will show that the Orthodox Church is not a tribal religion, unlike the ancient Hebrew faith, but is a global imperial faith and as such must of necessity condemn miscegenation.

Does he actually mean that this “imperial faith” must of necessity condemn people who don’t miscegenate? He’s obviously made a forgivable error here, but what he was actually trying to say is surely no less erroneous.

If Mr. Parrott insists that the Orthodox Church has a history of tribalism, then he needs a refresher course on Orthodox history. The first example of an Eastern Orthodox political system was the imperial system of Rome. The universal scope of the Eastern Church was encapsulated in the imperial motto, “One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor.” This imperial system was perpetuated by the Muscovite state in the mid-15th century with its official origin with the panegyric written by Philotheus of Pskov to Grand Duke Vasili III. From its origins, the nature of Byzantine political order was universal and imperial; by definition, anti-tribal.

Has he conveniently forgotten the client kings of the Roman Empire, whose sovereignty was over their respective ethnic nations while simultaneously being under Roman control? They figure pretty prominently in Christian history, so it would be quite an oversight for Mr. Lewis to overlook them. Slipping back into his sola scriptura habit, he takes a bundle of quotes out of historical and universal context to confirm the wild assertion that Orthodoxy is interminably globalist, uncompromisingly open borders, and hostile to the preservation of any and every identity.

More could be said on the universal salvific nature of the Byzantine Imperial model, but suffice it to say enough information has been produced to destroy Mr. Parrott’s flimsy claim of thousands of years of Orthodox tribal nationalism. To be clear, there was nationalism, but it was imperial Roman and Russian nationalism, not petty tribal nationalism.

Of course, there’s a wealth of nationalism in Orthodox history, but it doesn’t count because it’s petty and even Greece, the bedrock nation of Orthodox Faith, is petty, you see?

Mr. Parrott might appeal to the petty Balkan states of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece for examples of Orthodox nationalism. Firstly, they are latecomers after the second millennium A.D.; secondly, rejecting the dominant Roman culture in the name of petty tribal identities led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire; thirdly, when the Bulgarian Church got ideas like Mr. Parrott’s into their heads, their actions were condemned as phyletism by the 1872 Synod of Constantinople.

Now for the “phyletism” thing. We have never advocated for nor attempted to deny the Mysteries to anybody on account of their identity. That’s all that was condemned in the 1872 Synod of Constantinople, which has seen been grossly mischaracterized as a blanket condemnation of White (and only White!) identitarianism. Our struggle doesn’t belong in the Church, and we never asserted that it does.

Did the Council imply Mr. Lewis’s hysterical interpretation, that all national borders and identities are heretical? In light of the historical context and commentary surrounding the Council, the proposition is too asinine to entertain. Beyond a handful of radical Marxists and some fundamentalist cults in America (which Mr. Lewis belongs to), nobody in the time of this Council seriously entertained the dystopian vision of a borderless, raceless, and nationless world.

He quotes an Ancient Faith Radio podcaster’s attempt to promote the Ameridox position.

“Phyletism is, again, placing one’s worldly identity, identity as a pilgrim in this world, above his identity as a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, as a baptized Christian who is no longer a member of this world, first and foremost, but is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven. And we have the words of the Apostle Paul, which we all I’m sure know, but which is good to recall. “There is neither Jew nor Greek for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” And just before that he says: “You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.””

Mr. Lewis doesn’t even know about King Herod, apparently, so it’s no surprise that Fr. Peter’s deliberate and malicious distortion of scripture went unnoticed. Fr. Peter paraphrases the verse to achieve his worldly political agenda, redacting it to, “There is neither Jew nor Greek for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The verse actually reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The complete verse in its complete context confirms that St. Paul was emphatically not implying that ethnic identities are heretical. After all, for that interpretation to work, the Orthodox Church would necessarily confirm that allowing different roles and treatments of males and females are also heretical. It’s abundantly obvious why Holy Scripture was abused here, as it confirms my position. It confirms that we ought to all be one in Christ without negating our racial, ethnic, national, and gender identities.

Faith transcends race and nation. It does not negate race and nation.

Mr. Lewis makes several mistakes in his essay, but none is greater than pasting this excerpt which underscores my point, that phyletism is about ecclesiastical matters and the Mysteries. It was never intended as a radical political statement.

Rev. Fr. Stephane Bighamhere says also:

“Phyletism is the name of an ecclesiological heresy which says that the Church can be territorially organized on an ethnic, racial, or cultural basis so that within a given geographic territory, there can exist several Church jurisdictions, directing their pastoral care only to the members of specific ethnic groups. A Church council in 1872 officially defined and condemned this heresy. It reacted to a proposition made by Bulgarians of the Patriarchate of Constantinople who wanted to establish a Church jurisdiction, sanctioned by the Turkish government, on the territory of the Patriarchate: The formation in the same place of a particular [local] Church based on race which only receives faithful of that same ethnic group and is run by pastors of only of the same ethnic group, as the adherents of Phyletism claim, is an event without precedent.”

For the Ameridox clergy to be as phyletically subdivided as they are by their non-American and non-White ethnic identities, and to deny us the Mysteries on account of our White American identity, requires a staggering degree of deceit, dishonesty, and dishonor. You can be proud to be Greek, proud to be Black, or proud to be Eskimo and the Church will gladly smile and clap along. But if you’re proud to be a White American, they’ll drop the chalice in abject horror.

I guess Mr. Parrott really does not understand that ‘all one in Christ’ thing when he divides the Orthodox by seeking to prevent miscegenation.

I can’t be bothered to even bicker about the rest, as he goes into a long digression on the false assumption that I believe interracial unions are heretical. I do not. I do believe that interracial unions are generally unequal yoking, and I believe they should be socially and even politically discouraged in sovereign nations which seek to preserve their ethnic identities. But I don’t believe Orthodox Christianity should treat mixed-race families any differently than they treat any other families. Orthodoxy is a catholic faith, and there’s no imperative for it to choose between identities.


Matt Parrott

What’s startling for me but shouldn’t be is the confluence between these Protestant radicals and modern leftism. Anabaptists, Quakers, Pentecostals, and Seventh Day Adventists were in many ways centuries ahead of the degeneracy curve.

They can reach back well into the 1800s for their radical pacifism, extreme anarchism, gender denialism, anti-white racial hysteria, and other nuttery which has only infected the mainline denominations within the past few decades.

This isn’t a direct or indirect swipe at Calvinism, mainline Protestantism, or Protestantism in general. They’re arguably not even Protestant. But it’s fascinating to me how Fundamentalism superficially appears to be near Traditionalism while actually being an equal partner with the usual suspects in the slide down the abyss.


I have no interest in defending any “ism”, but it’s my humble opinion the Devil was let off his chain almost exactly 1000 years after Christ left the Earth. We see a great schism around that time and further – Europe began its slow descent into “rationalism.”

Every “ism” since has been an attempt to rationally justify a religion that needs no rational justification, and over time, the “isms” began to turn from God to the social order – society itself needed rational justification. It’s noteworthy that the radical protestant sects were unbounded (in various ways) from the mass of Europe. The masses of Europe were able to provide a “slowing” effect on radicalism.

…but now the transition is almost complete and the tables have completely turned. The rationalist radicals have used their rationalizations to conquer the masses, all of whom are micro-rationalists.

“In the last days everyone will do what’s right in their own eyes…”

Fr. John+

Cambria has touched on this in his most recent column:

“There are atrocities being visited upon the European people by the Moslems and the black barbarians that go far beyond anything we have seen in the history of the European people. And yet there has been no reaction against the atrocities. The liberals encourage and support the atrocities, because they are at war with the white race. The white grazers ignore the atrocities, because after years and years of life in Liberaldom, the grazers have no sense of kinship with the white race. What happens to one group of whites in another part of the pasture has no bearing on their lives. They will just keep grazing until it is their turn to be led to the slaughterhouse. And the white nationalists, who should be the leaders of a white counterrevolution, spend their time cataloging the atrocities and urging whites to “wake up.” But once they wake up, they are told to put pressure on the government and remain non-violent. If the liberals in power were Christians, such a policy might work, but the liberals are not Christians. We can’t negotiate with Satan. ”


“After all, for that interpretation to work, the Orthodox Church would necessarily confirm that allowing different roles and treatments of males and females are also heretical.” – check your privilege cis-scum.
One wonders how identity has survived for all this time when it has apparently been proscribed this whole while.


Is the impossible fight to convince your local cleric to put his 501(c)(3) at stake something the pro-white movement necessarily needs?

No. It’s not. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-Christian, it means I’m pro-reality. The only way to get your Church to do what you want is to take political power and tell them what to do. And before you hit me with prejudiced bolshevik-style labeling like Freemason or “materialist” for pointing out an obvious trend of history (that temporal matters influence/guide theology and clerical behavior) , the fact of the matter is, your theological arguments are quickly neutralized by a call to one of these metropolitans from the SPLC.


“that temporal matters influence/guide theology”

I would say it’s more the opposite, theology(at least in the in the old high-chruches) is relatively stable and pure compared to political ideology.


Be selfish. Put yourself first. The church is only good if it helps you, your family and your social surroundings. If the church is going to be used by others as a weapon to hurt you or compromise your living conditions, why defend it, especially to a Jew.


Clerics are like women: you could be the most lovable, upright loser in the world, but they’re still going to get in bed with the man wielding the biggest club. You could bring them a letter from Jesus Christ himself, and the higher ups of any church will still do what is necessary to please secular powers instead..

There’s a reason why every last clerical and monarchist restorationist movement in the 20th century was a catastrophic failure. The general idea behind monarchy and church influencing politics might still have SOME relevancy today, but the vehicles (church and king) are horse drawn buggies trying to race against Lamborghinis.

Unlike neo-reactionaries, the Churches themselves realize this, which is why they’ve specialized in becoming a niche novelty (like the cute horse drawn buggies of NYC) that goes along with the NWO rather than impotently trying to resist it with its limited and archaic means, and no matter what, will never go back to whatever people fantasize the Middle Ages were like.


EricStriker, there were actually many conservative religious political movements in
europe at the time. In germany and austria alone there were both
catholic right-libertarian and political conservative movements

The Irony is that german conservative catholic thinkers used the same argument you are using against hitler. They saw in the nazi ideology a return to archaic absolutism.


EricStriker, in the 20th century, there were many political, intellectual, social movements by catholics to revive traditional ideas and these all failed mostly because of positivism, materialism, and secular government hatred of the catholic church. People rejected these ancient and beautiful ideas because they weren’t fashionable to the times.

Also, Someone like yourself who loves Buddhism can’t rule out that the poz in the churches isn’t karmic retribution for the damage done to the churches by secular authorities.

Trump IS Hitler

Anabaptists were the ones who wanted to have the orgies with the nuns, yes? Edit: oops, this was a left-over sock account I was using to torture NRO mods, please don’t take the name seriously.

Trump IS Hitler

Its amazing how a violently leftist and anti-religious revolutionary movement in Europe transmogrified itself into the Mennonites.

Fr. John+

Read E. Michael Jones’ book, ‘The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit’ for full details…

Todd Lewis

That is a characteristic non-answer. I guess you cannot give one. But what else is there to say when your own church and your own alt-right allies hate you? Do the honorable think and say mea culpa. Probably not.

I could take your fake outrage seriously if you attacked Counter-Currents for their blather, but we both know you won’t.


Doesn’t there have to be a question for there to be an answer?

Matt Parrott

You argument boils down to “Your clerics disagree with you. Haw!”

You fundamentally misunderstand how High Church matters are worked out, operating on the most asinine assumptions about Catholics. It’s not even true about Catholics, and I’m not even Catholic.

Matt Parrott

Drama Note:

Eric Striker has the rest of the Internet to talk shit about me, my faith, and women. He can go do it there. He’s a bright guy, and if you don’t mind (actual) misogyny and insidious anti-Christian needle-dicking, he’s one of the most insightful guys out there. But you’ll necessarily need to read his writings elsewhere.


Wow, can’t believe you got rid of Striker. He was the only person worth reading on this page.


please don’t stop him from contributing over a few overly-emotional comments.

He wrote some great articles. And made some insightful comments.

Did he leave of his own volition?
How was he ‘misogynistic’?

Matt Parrott

I didn’t stop him from commenting at the site or writing articles from the site or participating in the project.

He’s welcome to have my co-editor edit and post his articles. He’s welcome to comment on any other articles on the site (unless he’s using that loophole to provoke me specifically), and he’s welcome to continue participating in the project. He chose to leave.

But I’ve personally had it with him. I’m not dealing with him. I gladly tolerate a great deal of disrespect and contentiousness in order to maintain talent. And I’m not disputing that he’s immensely talented. But I have my lines, and they were crossed. I’m not dealing with him anymore.


oh, so it was him leaving in a huff because you deleted his whiny comments.

It’s not so surprising tbh. It was kind of weird that someone with those opinions chose to contribute and support a specifically christian site like this.

Matt Parrott

I don’t want to go into it in too much depth, as I’m deleting his comments on my posts so he can’t respond.

But it’s ultimately a personal thing, where he called me a woman eleventy billion times in private conversation for disagreeing with him on party and policy matters.


it’s not a good idea to alienate people on the personal level if you want to build political alliances.

That’s the big problem that our side has, lots of smart people with few social skills, it makes us look like weirdos and repels folks that should be supporting us.

Fr. John+

The modern Scoba-dox, clearly are engaging in the worldly LUST for inter-racial fornication; it is one reason I could not join any of the so-called ‘ethnic’ jurisdictions, in that they both: strove to remain only for their designated ‘in-group’ (Greeks for the GOA, Russians in the ROCOR, Ay-Rabs in the AOA (even as they both used/abused the Western Rite, and took the money of the “Anglo” Converts. This is historically o record, and it is only as the Orthodox jurisdictional wars prompted the ‘big three’ to find a way to act like the ‘Democratic Party with prosphoras,’ did we begin to hear and read of such blasphemous articles as ‘Archbishop Iakovos marched with MLK’…

Matt, I believe you have not thought out your presuppositions of what makes conciliar Orthodoxy, if you seek to allow all and sundry in a church that contains in her Canonical Scriptures, the book of Tobit, and yet, denies the validity of Tobit 4:12, by writers such as this fool whom you give credence to!

What does the Word of God say, about this very issue?

“12 “Beware, my son, of all immorality. First of all take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. ”

Can one get any clearer than that? If the construct of Adultery means the ADULTERATION of the Adamic ‘seed’, then this clearly posits an ‘in-group’ only marriage mindset. As a Trad Greek Orthodox cleric once said, of Italians marrying the Greeks in his congregation, ‘Same face, same race.’ Anything beyond that, is not permissible, or biblical, or (frankly) Orthodox.

The fact that the Pseudo-dox are APING the multicultural heresy of the apostate, fallen world, should be your FIRST CLUE that they are not TRUE Orthodox!

That a Scoba ‘Bishop’ excommunicated you, for merely holding to the views you do, should have been the thunderclap that he is Anaxios, as a Christian/Orthodox cleric. Any people, any church that can vote for the Democratic Party, and have adherents likes Stephanapoulos, and Dukakis in it, clearly are apostate, and Pnevma-los.

In days such as this, when perverts like Brucie Jenner are lauded, is it any wonder that ‘we have awoken, and groaned to find the whole world, Bastards?’
(To paraphrase the Arian argument)

Fr. John+

This is the sort of heresy I mean:

“Nearly 25% of our population is non-Christian. Demographers suggest this number will continue to grow. As a result, it is becoming increasing more likely that Orthodox Christians will meet, date and fall in love with a non-Christian.”

1) Why presume this is inevitable?
2) Why wink at it?
3) Why condone it?

A: Because the novus Ordo GOA does not WANT to remain faithful to the Law of God. They SAY they do, and they inculcate a Hellenic Supremacist Worldview, but in America, they are adulterating the ‘Greekness’ out of their own Church!

Phyletism is also the wilfull act of GENOCIDING a race (the European/White race) while adhering to statist Multicultural PAGAN religious norms…

Leave a Reply