If you’ve attended university in a Western nation, you’ve probably heard all about the “negative impacts” of colonisation and how, for many non-Europeans, Christianity became intertwined with that legacy. It is said that during the colonial era, European powers often used Christianity as a tool of control, framing it as part of their “civilising” Christian mission.
We often hear people say that for many indigenous peoples, this made Christianity a symbol of oppression—associated with the loss of autonomy, cultural traditions, and ethnic identity. For years, our educational institutions have claimed that missionaries, often backed by colonial authorities, reinforced the idea that accepting Christianity was part of a broader agenda to erase their heritage. As such, we’re told that many non-Europeans still view Christianity as a remnant of colonialism rather than a genuine faith. To this day, many missionaries are trained to be sensitive to this topic by ensuring that the Gospel they preach is not of Western civilisation, but of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whether or not this portrayal is accurate, it has undeniably shaped how the Western church now approaches missions and evangelism. The key point is that the Western church has long embraced the belief that the Gospel should not be used to erase the ethnic identity, culture, or place it seeks to redeem. Yet, paradoxically, throughout the Western world, Christian ideals of charity, love, mercy, and compassion are now frequently invoked to justify doing precisely that—only this time, the target is European identity itself.
Ironically, the very sensitivity intended to prevent cultural erasure abroad is being abandoned at home in the wake of mass migration and enforced multiculturalism. One of the unintended consequences of undermining Europe’s historic cultural roots through large-scale demographic shifts is a growing alienation from Christianity itself, particularly when concepts such as Christian love are exploited to justify compliance.
While Christianity is a global faith that unites people under one sovereign King, it was never meant to destabilise nations or erase ethnic and national distinctions. Yet when it is co-opted to justify the cultural dissolution of European—particularly White—peoples, it presents them with one of two options: either accept their gradual dilution through multiculturalism or reclaim and reaffirm their ethnic and cultural identity.
On the political Left, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated with anti-White propaganda and fear-mongering campaigns designed to discourage any form of White ethnic or cultural pride. They are encouraged to view the decline of their heritage and culture as well-deserved and even virtuous. For these individuals, embracing the demise of their own people is seen as an act of moral superiority—a form of the “White Saviour complex.” The cowards—those too afraid to publicly acknowledge the issue—remain silent, preferring to stay in the good graces of the “respectable” institutions that have largely been overtaken by self-loathing leftists.
In contrast, people on the political Right often feel it’s their duty to resist this cultural destruction and to revive national, cultural, and ethnic pride. Naturally, these efforts will be labelled as supremacist or xenophobic by the first two groups. But the desire to preserve one’s cultural identity is a natural sentiment felt by all people groups—whether Jews to their own community, Arabs to theirs, Blacks to theirs, or Asians to theirs.
The problem arises when the Church itself joins in condemning those who seek to preserve their European identity, insisting that it is a Christian duty to surrender one’s people and heritage for the sake of the Gospel—the very thing their ancestors are now condemned for supposedly having done to others through colonisation.
However, when young European men hear supposed Christian figures tell them that it is their Christian duty to abandon their culture, nation, and ethnic identity for globalisation, they begin to feel that Christianity itself is complicit in the destruction of the homelands they inherited from their ancestors.
As such, a growing number of Europeans, particularly the young, are turning to pre-Christian paganism—especially Norse mythology—as a way to reconnect with their ancestral roots and a religion that doesn’t facilitate the degradation of their own country and culture. Figures like Odin and Thor seemingly symbolise strength, identity, and continuity in contrast to a modern Christianity that many now see as compromised by globalist ideals.
Of course, this revived interest is less about theology and more about reclaiming a cultural heritage that feels threatened or forgotten in an increasingly rootless society. In this sense, for some, the ancient European gods of paganism may feel more representative of their heritage than a version of Christianity that seems to support a nation-undermining, globalist agenda.
Now, some here may argue that any rejection of Christ represents a rejection of truth. To some extent, they are right. However, it’s not entirely correct, as the Christ they are rejecting may, in fact, be a false Christ. What’s more, these young people are so far removed from paganism that they are unaware of the practical, moral, and philosophical flaws that led their ancestors to reject it in favour of Christianity in the first place.
What they are aware of, however, is the harmful impact of globalism and multiculturalism. They see it in their everyday lives, and they feel it in their communities. It confronts them daily. As their ancestral homes are increasingly handed over to foreigners, they feel forced to embrace and propagate their own heritage, their own identity, their own religion, and their own gods—anything that is distinctly their own.
These unfortunate trends reveal why it is vital for Christianity to remain true to the Bible. Globalists, even within the church, have hijacked the faith, cloaking anti-Christian concepts behind Christian language and presenting them as the true expression of Christ. But in reality, Christianity is not opposed to nationhood, ethnicity, and familial distinctions. It does not envision a future where all nations are erased into a bland, indistinguishable mass of people. That is the goal of globalism, not Christianity. Rather, the Bible speaks of a time when people from every tribe, nation, and language will worship the one true King, each bringing their own national tribute before Him (Rev. 21:24).
Christianity must not be used to justify what the Bible calls a curse. Those who twist it in this way will only drive more and more young Europeans away from the religion, making them believe that Christianity was complicit in the downfall of their own people and culture.
Ultimately, if Christianity is to remain relevant and true to its roots, it must reject the idea that ethnic and cultural identity is somehow incompatible with the faith. The Bible calls for a unity of nations under Truth, but it never calls for the erasure of the distinctiveness of each one. Until the Church can reclaim this truth, it risks alienating more of its flock, especially those who feel they cannot embrace Christ without destroying their neighbours. As Christians, we are commanded to love both God and neighbour, and one never comes at the expense of the other. Anyone who suggests otherwise is doing neither.
