In the words that will follow, I propose to undertake an examination of Fascism from the point of view of the Church. The following essay is a thought experiment to consider the question of how Fascism is to be considered from an ecclesiastical point of view. The purpose is not to argue that Fascism is good or bad, but how it should be understood by a Christian.

Introduction to Fascism
This is not a simple task of comparing what we think we know about either institution, but requires a clear understanding of the true nature of both, their history, and the context in which they are related to one another. This, of course, leads us to first understand how Fascism is defined.
“a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”
Definition of “Fascism” (Merriam-Webster online Dictionary)
This definition, however, is far from satisfactory. The seemingly neutral wording does a poor job of masking the bias, not to mention its lack of depth and actual explanation of its cause or purpose. Furthermore, within it’s historical context, the definition does us little good as it draws from the benefit of hindsight, and the opinion of the ideology is contaminated by those leaders that have implemented Fascism and the general understanding of them. How did they view Fascism? One persons abuse of an idea, does not disqualify that idea. Mussolini begins The Doctrine of Fascism with a general understanding of the concept. “Like all political conceptions, Fascism is action and it is thought; action in which doctrine is immanent, and doctrine arising from a given system of historical forces in which it is inserted, and working on them from within.” That is to say, that the movement is intrinsically linked to the time and place of its establishment. Julius Evola, largely considered to be one of the greatest writers on Fascist philosophy, writes that it is important to not “mythologize” nor “idealize” Fascism absolutely. He points out that those who lived in the regimes understood that there were both good and bad, and that it is possible to embrace the system while recognizing it’s flaws and working to iron out the wrinkles. “…we must energetically oppose anyone who claims that the choice must be between Fascism or anti-fascism in an attempt to exhaust every political possibility and discussion.” (Evola, Fascism Viewed From The Right) Evola suggests that Mussolini, being the first leader to rule under what is now called “Fascism”, should be seen as it’s purest form. Giovanni Gentile, noteworthy professor and author who worked during his rule, scribes in Mussolini’s book Doctrine of Fascism “In Fascism, the deed has preceded the doctrine.” This idea is, later in the book, confirmed by stating: “Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine previously drafted at a desk; it was born of the need of action, and was action; it was not a party, but, in the first two years, an anti-party and a movement.” This sentiment is echoed by Evola in his writings. That is to say that there is no strict Fascist ideology. There was no manifesto that leaders had at their disposal to follow – it developed and evolved through experiment. The words “need for action” is important. These governments did not gain traction simply because one man wanted power. The support behind it has to have motivation to rise out of a negative situation. As a result, it should not, as a whole, be judged on the basis of how certain individuals may have abused the process. Or, as Evola puts it, “it is a question of reconnecting Fascism wherever possible with the great European political tradition, and to separate out that which existed in it only because of compromise, of divergent and absolutely deviant possibilities, and of a phenomena that in part suffered from the same evils it was reacting against and attempting to combat.” If there were to be a strict definition that could satisfy our needs, it can be found in the following:
“The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual, and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit.”
Doctrine of Fascism
Julius Evola interprets Mussolini’s philosophy as the people being the body of the state and the state being the spirit of the people. (Evola, Fascism Viewed From the Right) Mussolini did not view the installation of a Fascist government to be an act requiring force, but rather to be an organic process, and, in fact, denounced anyone who would use Fascism as an opportunity for personal gain. It is often believed that Fascism is the ideology of leaders who deem themselves to be gods. A simple quote from Mussolini from Doctrine of Fascism rejects this hypothesis. “The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a “god” of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenious and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.” Gentile in his book ‘Reform of Education’, also suggests, in other terms, that the belief is misguided. “This life, which is perpetual criticism, and unceasing progress in a learning which is never completed, which never aspires to be complete, is the serious and fruitful purpose of the University.” Today, in the Land of the Free, subjects like science, history, sociology and psychology are declared to be settled. Yet, one of the top fascist university professors in Mussolini’s Italy takes the position that nobody should stop challenging their predictions and hypotheses. Indeed, to paraphrase Gentile further, in Reform of Education, the State is self realizing by its own will and constantly reconstituting itself. The understanding is that there is malleability and a necessary change that exists within nation and government as the people change in order to “exculpate” the Fascist State. This stands in stark contrast with the belief that once such a state is established, it remains unmoving.
“If Fascism does not wish to die or, worse still, commit suicide, it must now provide itself with a doctrine. Yet this shall not and must not be a robe of Nessus clinging to us for all eternity, for tomorrow is something mysterious and unforeseen. This doctrine shall be a norm to guide political and individual action in our daily life. I, who have dictated this doctrine, am the first to realize that the modest tables of our laws and program, the theoretical and practical guidance of Fascism, should be revised, corrected, enlarged, developed, because already in parts they have suffered injury at the hand of time.”
Mussolini, Doctrine of Fascism (Appendix 1)
This might, in fact, be a negative in the eyes of a Christian; those who believe in absolute truth would seek to establish and maintain that truth. On the one hand, changeability allows for correction when the State goes in an improper direction, and Mussolini’s position stands true along with the approval of the Christian. If, on the other hand, the State was established in a suitable, God-honoring, manner and no change is necessary or wanted, then, in order to keep it, allowing for adaptability and evolution would be undesirable. In this situation, it would be preferred by the Christian for the State to remain unmoving. The corrosion of Western, Christian Civilization is due in large part, because society was too willing to accommodate it’s enemies as they became more populous. The United States was born with a precise Constitution which had the expectation that all citizens would acknowledge and respect it. The truth is that they do not. Whatever the intent and purpose may have been, the fact of the matter is that both the State and the population have no respect for the document, nor give any regard to its authority. Would this current predicament have been avoided with a State that refused to change? Perhaps.
Comparing Italy to the Fascist Germany, that would later follow, Evola points out similar social movements that led to the rise of Fascism in each respective country. Notably the increase of conservative values and the support of the returning soldiers who just fought a world war. While Germany underwent the Conservative Revolution – which would later be overshadowed by the National Socialists, led by Hitler – Italy had merely a desire to return to lost roots as opposed to keeping anything it currently had since there was, at the time, nothing left in Italy worth valuing or saving. “Therefore the historic Right has left us no precise ideological legacy and developed into a moderate liberalism.” (Julius Evola, Fascism Viewed From the Right)
Fascism is considered, by many, to be a far right ideology. While it is true that its origin is wholly incompatible with liberal thought, the “Right” is a fragmented platform. To, once again, quote Evola, “Between the true Right and the economic Right there is not only no common identity, but on the contrary, there is a clear antithesis.” (Julius Evola, Fascism Viewed From The Right) You will find, in the early 21st Century United States, as much divide between one Republican to another – in many cases even more so – as you will from a Republican to a Democrat. The same can be said of Christian Denominations. Influenced by social and political changes (precious few for the better), the current state of the Church, even within theological schools, is as unified a puzzle with no matching sides. Prior to his elevation to leader, Mussolini’s political experience was in a Socialist state. As he put it, however, Italian Socialism had died by the end of the first world war. It must be stated, too, that classical Socialism and the modern definition which arose from the likes of Marx, are, themselves, in opposition.1https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism Certain economic policies reflected what he knew from the previous era, particularly his sympathy for the working man. “If the bourgeoisie… believe that they have found in us their lightening-conductors, they are mistaken. We must go towards the people.” To say that he embraced Socialism with open arms, however, is disingenuous. He completes the previous sentiment with “We wish working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business.” (Doctrine of Fascism) The very concept of Fascism, according to Mussolini, opposes the very doctrine of “scientific and Marxian socialism” which he describes as having an overly simplistic view of history; considering only materialistic facets – ignoring any other possible contribution to human struggles – and viewing mankind as, simply, an animalistic workforce. Another difference between the philosophy of Mussolini and Marx was that while Marx advocated for class warfare, Mussolini promoted class cooperation. His disgust with Marxist ideology, as a worldview, is made very clear. His distrust of democracy is equally enthusiastic. “Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations.” He describes it as “a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one.” (Doctrine of Fascism) Here there is common ground with Christian doctrine as democracy is, inherently, unbiblical, and was seen as such, by the American Founding Fathers. Communism, too, which developed much later, is (historically) opposed, very strongly, by the Church.
If I may quote, extensively from a few pages from Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini and Gentile outline better than I would be able to summarize the place that Fascism held in their century. “The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789 [a reference to the French Revolution – a cause which was denounced by key Fascists], a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards… Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry.2https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecclesiolatry Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.” Much in the way that Evola argues that a man can take the good from Fascism and discard the bad, Mussolini suggests that Fascism adopts that which works within socialism, liberalism, and democracy, – adopt what he calls “the acquired facts of history” – and remove the rest. He viewed the previous century as being defined by an individualism embodied by those three ideologies, and foresaw the current century – the 20th century – as being one of authority embodied by Fascism. Naturally, the Christian will look upon the view of devotion to the Church as old fashioned, warily, as God must always be honored above the State. He [Mussolini] also rejects the idea that there is, or even can be, an ideology for all people at all times. He states that while each have their own roots and intentions, every political and social philosophy serves the same purpose. “All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display.” The role of the State in this regard is also unique and stands apart from what other ideologies have proposed, “For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as ‘ethical’” (Doctrine of Fascism) While he speaks, here, specifically of political ideologies, again the believer must disagree, as the Christian doctrine is timeless and universal ie. an ideology for all people in all times. Furthermore, as discussed in the lecture series “History of Calvinism in America”, there is an order of authority for the leader of every group, whether civil, ecclesiastic, or familial, that may not be outgrown. Evola wrote similar sentiments when distinguishing classical Fascism from Totalitarianism – which he considered only fully compatible with Stalinism. “The traditional state is organic, but not totalitarian. It is differentiated and articulated, and admits zones of partial autonomy. It coordinates forces and causes them to participate in a superior unity, while recognizing their liberty.” On the following page, he further states, “The evidence of the effective force of a state is found in the measure of the margin it can concede to a partial, rational decentralization. Systematic state interference can be a principle only in the socialism of the technocratic and materialist state.” (Evola, Fascism Viewed From The Right) This further contradicts the definition of Fascism laid out by Merriam-Webster.
Fascism is considered, however, as more than a political ideology; it is a life philosophy. It is, Nationalist, by nature, and abhors all international organizations, focusing, exclusively, on it’s own people. The formation of such a government must reflect this.
“Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood in relation to its general attitude toward life”
Mussolini, Doctrine of Fascism
Both Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, in their respective works, write about self-sacrifice into the whole. To paraphrase Gentile in Reform of Education, the individual sacrifices himself to the state – which is the ideal that the collective strives for. This is not to say, as stated in Doctrine of Fascism, that the State abuses or “crushes” the individual. Rather, in Fascism, the individual is multiplied, in the way that a “soldier is multiplied to form a regiment”. The Philosopher Renan is quoted in Doctrine of Fascism saying “The Maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans, which care only for the species and seems ready to sacrifice the individual.” This, however, suggests that physical existence is more important than the soul, or even, than the Spiritual climb that Fascism, itself, exists to promote. Albeit, the soul of Fascism is a national one.
Fascism also rejects the notion of an easy life. One of Mussolini’s gripes with Marxism, is its belief that happiness is achieved when the individual obtains the status of indulgence. To live is to struggle, overcome, and improve. Evola writes that “a profound crisis is inevitable at the point when prosperity and comfort will finally become boring… They consist of all those forms of blind, anarchic and destructive revolts embraced by a youth that, precisely in the most prosperous nations, notice the absurdity and senselessness of an existence that is socialized, rationalized, materialistic, and dominated by the so-called ‘consumer culture’.” This, again, is in line with Christian belief that materialism is a form of idolatry, and suffering is a necessary fact of life.3https://unconscionable.life/christian-life/the-importance-of-suffering/ Nor does Fascism believe in the “utility of perpetual peace” claiming that peace at all cost is cowardly. In Metaphysics of War, while denouncing the modern purposes of armies and war, Evola writes how war elevates the warriors into a spiritual plane comprised of heroism and a higher purpose – creating a mythology. That said, this is far from saying that war is its own end. Furthermore, to the fascist, life “means duty, elevation, conquest; life must be lofty and full, it must be lived for ones self but above all for others, both nearby and far off, present and future.” (Doctrine of Fascism) Conquest. here, does not mean military, but rather conquest of spirit. Should it spread, the means would, ideally, be peaceful. In much the same way, Christianity is more than faith; the Christian is called to live in a certain manner. Both individually for God, and socially among others, both those who believe and those who do not. And we must not forget the Great Commission which demands the spread of the Gospel.
Country and Homeland
The very idea of “Country” is under attack. What does it mean to be a country? Is it just the dirt under our feet? Some would say yes. Is the term synonymous with “government”? Again, some would say yes. I would argue not. A country is more than the land it has claimed or the government that rules over that land. It is a set of ideas – a culture. For those who say that a country is defined by its government: what do you say to revolutionaries? For people to overthrow the government because of their love of country – because the government does not represent the values or principles that the country stands for – is proof that the two are and must be, inherently, separate. Once again turning to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the word country is defined as, simply, the sticks and the stones.4https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country The word “Homeland”, however, is more accurate for the ideal.
“a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin”
Definition of “Homeland” (Merriam-Webster online Dictionary)
The difference between the two is akin to the difference between “house” and “home”. A house is the materials to build the physical structure. Home, on the other hand, has a deeper, emotional – almost spiritual – attachment. This distinction is important for everything that follows. Why bother with saving a country and preserving a culture if there was never life there, to begin with? And what is the purpose of government if not to ensure the rights of the citizens and maintain the values and sovereignty of their homeland? Fascism, as mentioned before, attempts to reconcile and unify the idea of the State as the representation of the Spirit of the land and the people. According to this way of thinking, in order to discuss the government in any meaningful way, it is imperative to, first, understand the “Homeland”, in question, rightly.
How, then, should a Christian understand Homeland? Christ’s Kingdom is an eternal domain and covers all peoples. As such, while there is reason to take it into account (especially today), ethnicity is not the end all – provided that the cultural and national identity is observed correctly. Historically, national culture was represented by the ethnicity of the people in that geographical area. Today, as skin color is no longer divided by national borders, what will unite the people within their respective homelands? There are many answers, but I would argue that, as Christians, faith needs to be one of them. Of course, the Christian faith extends globally, and, still, cultures and ways of life are incompatible. What is needed, then, is to find traditions and ways of life that are universal among your country which are unique or, at the very least, essential to the core of who they are, and exemplify them. This is assuming that such practices are not pagan or unrighteous. It needs to be re-iterated, then, that the desire to re-establish a homeland that honors God should be at the forefront of every Christian’s life. What remains is “how”?
The question of “Nationality” was at the forefront in Italy preceding Mussolini, and Professor Giovanni Gentile sought to merge education with National identity. In Reform of Education, he acknowledges the many ways in which a country and a people are defined – commonly a collection of values, religion, language, history, and geography. Gentile argued it was more than that. “All these elements in so far as they are natural are evidently extraneous to our personality… we may even relinquish our customs, forget our language abandon our religion; or we may, within our own fatherland, be kept separate by peculiar historical traditions, by differences of dialects or even of language, by religion, by clashing interests, and yet respond with the same sentiment and the same soul to the sound of one Name, to the colors of one flag, to the summons of common hopes, to the alarm of common dangers. And it is then that we feel ourselves to be a people; then we are a nation.” This is expressed quite clearly in our present time. Christianity, while prevalent, is not practiced or held in high regard by the majority in the United States. And yet, the Christian is still an American Citizen and feels pride in their citizenship despite the disgust and hatred of certain aspects of what our country has done and become. Along these lines, Gentile also notes that Giuseppe Mazzini, a figure who was instrumental in 19th century Italy, and whom Giovanni held in high regard, viewed a nation as a goal that is never achieved. An ideal to strive towards. As Gentile put it: “an action.”
“For Mazzini nationality is not inherited wealth, but it is man’s own conquest.”
Giovanni Gentile, Reform of Education
In the second chapter of Reform of Education, Gentile writes about the personality and ego of the individual. Consider the same for a country. Each country has its personality and moral being, born of its origin, experience, etc. The Fascist view of the individual is that he exists only as part of the whole. Applied, the interpretation of life as, say, an American, is understood through the context of being an American citizen. A person who was born and raised in the American Midwest cannot understand life or the world in the same way as someone born in Africa and living in Japan. This strengthens the bond between the people and their homeland. As Wolfe writes in Case For Christian Nationalism, a special bond is formed through common experience. Evola argues that one area where Fascism fell short was in its lack of properly explaining the distinction that existed between the type of State that it attempted to create versus the forms of State that existed more widely – a social state that is created on social contracts and democracy – which he believed to naturally deteriorate into hedonistic liberalism and Communism. One of the foundations of nationalism is a commonality on a Spiritual level, and Evola saw potential for the State to be that unifier under Fascism. One danger here, which he witnessed to a degree in Italy, was “Self-Transcendence,” that takes form in “superficial” and “contrived” customs. (Fascism Viewed From the Right) Perhaps, this is one reason why there is such enthusiasm for Christian Nationalism today; a nation unified under Christ fulfills the same needs and bond while, also, maintaining the proper hierarchy with God on top. I will wager that the Church would consider this to be a good thing.
Requirements For Holding Church Office and Christian Living
Throughout history, humanity has experienced periods where Church and State have altered between bumping heads and cooperating to form a cohesive entity. The reason why is quite clear. Where does the authority of one begin and the other end?
“The Fascist conception of the state is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
Doctrine of Fascism
This, of course, seems to be in stark contrast to Christian doctrine which places God, Christ, and the Church as that “all embracing”. Accordingly, absolute Fascism is argued by many theologians, notably Rousas John Rushdoony, to be entirely unbiblical, but on the other hand, is Church government not fascistic in nature? After all, two things can be true at once. And if one is to create a Christian country, how can non-Christians run it or permit itself to be infiltrated by beliefs that are specifically not Christian? A strict and rigid government would be required in order to remain faithful to the Constitution in question and achieve such an order. Is it not possible for a country to adopt a Fascist doctrine founded on Biblical principles? If the State, as understood by Fascism, is a true embodiment of the people’s spirit, then a Christian people would result in a Christian State.
As stated previously, Ecclesiastical bodies operate on a level that resembles Fascism. The requirements to be considered, and continued standing to keep the position as an official fit the definition of “Fascist” when applied to Church government. Godly living, a well-ordered family, being in good standing with the church body and larger community are universal among all denominations.
Consider, also, the theological precision that exists within each denomination. All of Christianity is united by the common beliefs which are outlined in the Apostle’s Creed, however there are differences between them as well. These differences overlap with some while standing in contrast with others that have their own overlapping interpretations or practices. Take for instance: Baptism. If a person believes the Bible teaches Infant Baptism, then they cannot fully embrace the larger Baptist denomination. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Bible teaches baptism only after salvation, then they cannot fully embrace the larger Presbyterian denomination. Theology and denominational definitions within each Church School are specific. Any deviation is a rejection of the beliefs of that specific denomination. Naturally, any person regardless of faith or denomination, would be welcomed in any Christian Church. The point here is simply that precise doctrine is precisely defined.
Church government is more precise, still. Presbyterian and Orthodox Presbyterian, are two separate denominations which are divided, primarily, by its governmental structure. The manner in which a Church operates determines what name it has a right to be called, even if they are theologically similar. On the note of Church government, the political structure recommended by Richard Darre (minus the biological distinctions), in A New Nobility of Blood and Soil, is strikingly similar to that of a Church body as it exists within a denomination. In it, he includes, legislative committees, financial offices, representatives within the group and for sub groups, as well as to higher committees which then appeal to civil authorities. Also among the internal committees are boards which determine a candidates qualification to be included. A very similar system of bodies can be found within many Church governments. Naturally, anyone (Christian or not) is welcome to attend any church in any denomination. The purpose here, is simply to point out how denominations are clearly defined in the same way that a State is clearly defined when implementing certain elements of Fascist ideology.
The Christian faith is all encompassing for the Christian and dictates every area of life. This includes politics and government. Furthermore, the believer submits himself to the authority of the Church body. Christian denominations, when seen this way, are micro theocratic fascist states. Strict theology, strict statements of faith, and only those who adhere to these standards are permitted membership, with even stricter criteria, still, for Church officials.
It is no bad thing that such rules exist. They are intended to ensure that everyone is on the same page and believes in the same basic principles – especially as it pertains to the Church leaders. This, then, begs the question why there is such a stigma, among Christians, when the same rules are applied to politics.
Sources:
- 1https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
- 2https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ecclesiolatry
- 3https://unconscionable.life/christian-life/the-importance-of-suffering/
- 4https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country
Leave a Reply