What Christianity teaches? The Architecture of Authority

I believe that for any reasonable and rational observer, the trajectory of modern America is clear: a steady movement toward what can be described as a christo-fascist state. People of old have already articulated this very fear:

… “[w]e fear christofascism, which we see as the political direction of all attempts to place Christ at the center of social life and history” and that “[m]uch of the churches’ teaching about Christ has turned into something that is dictatorial in its heart and is preparing society for an American fascism“.

Furthermore:

George Hunsinger, director of the Centre for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, regards the very accusation of “fascism” as a sophisticated theological attack on the Christian biblical depiction of Jesus. He believes that the view of Jesus, which is called Christofascist, is, in fact, the real “Jesus Christ as he is depicted in Scripture”.

This brings us to the central question: What does Christianity truly teach?

The concise answer is that Christianity, in its fundamental structure, teaches authoritarianism. I see no need to soften this by leaning on the word “fascism”—a term the West reserves for the one period of its post-agrarian history it collectively regrets. Instead, I will demonstrate how the theological underpinnings of Christianity have served to dominate world affairs, not merely during the Second World War, but for centuries before and after.

At its heart, Christianity preaches subservience to a higher authority. The Christian god, as the supreme sovereign, demonstrates what is considered acceptable and even expected behavior: acts of genocide, incomprehensible demands like the sacrifice of one’s child, preferential treatment based on favoritism, and judgment passed on private conduct. God is all-powerful, and to question his nature or motives is itself an unchristian act. Thus, a good Christian becomes a faithful servant, and in turn, often expects to be treated as a master by those beneath them. Christian Theology is that of Servitude.

The creed that “all men are created equal” contains its own subtle negation: God is not a man. This creates a hierarchy where all servants may be equal in the eyes of the master, but none are equal to the master. Christianity, therefore, sanctifies servitude and normalizes the capricious and often abusive behavior of the ruler. It even provides a mechanism for conflict resolution: the servant need only ask for forgiveness, and a good Christian, emulating his god, is expected to grant it. That this forgiveness often follows punishment is not a flaw but a feature. All can be restored—not through justice or change, but through faith. One must only believe.

We see this dynamic even in the telling of our own history. The Civil Rights Movement is often sanitized and remembered solely through the Christian, non-violent lens of Martin Luther King Jr.—a narrative that is palatable to the Western framework that cannot implicate Christianity as a source of the problem. This telling systematically sidelines the foundational work of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, and other non-Christian activists whose radical critiques created the political pressure that made King’s demands seem negotiable. The “acceptable” Christian narrative of liberation is promoted, while the essential, radical non-Christian contributions are minimized.

We must remember that the separation of church and state was not achieved with the blessing of the Christian majority. It occurred as the power of monarchs waned, ceded to bureaucrats who were better suited to managing the vast wealth flowing in from subjugated colonies. The church, witnessing the ensuing opulence and debauchery, saw a world overstepping the moral boundaries necessary if the Christian God were real. The agrarian-era model of converting native populations was too slow for the industrial age, and the subsequent schism between sacred and secular power is what we now call the separation of church and state.

This system of subservience holds a powerful appeal for the downtrodden, who find themselves with little leverage to demand anything from society. The church offers them a framework to comprehend their failure without requiring them to accept personal responsibility, while simultaneously granting them the future prospect of judging their more successful peers, who can be dismissed as heathens worshiping false gods.

This mechanism is uniquely potent in the modern world and is not easily defeated by democracy. The combination of a soft conversion narrative for the disenfranchised and the promise of absolute authority for the masters creates a political force that is difficult to counter in a free society. Historically, the only effective antidote has been wealth—remove the underclass, and you remove the pool for soft conversion; elevate everyone to a station where they are masters of their own destiny, and the demand for servitude diminishes.

I would like to conclude by noting that the dynamics of conversion and the dichotomy of a punitive yet forgiving god are common across the Abrahamic faiths. It is also vital to state that excusing the abusive behavior of the elite, or the existence of slavery, is not contingent upon Christianity. People can be cruel, and systems of oppression have always existed.

As a Hindu, I am aware that some would point to casteism as a counter-argument. Hinduism, however, employs a cyclical view of the universe to explain the evils of the present and the future. As a philosophy, it posits that no condition is permanent. Rise and fall are accepted as inherent facts of existence. Therefore, Hinduism does not lend itself to permanent, theologically-sanctioned authoritarianism in the same way. Instead, it explains authoritarianism as a transient phase that inherently contains the seeds of its own downfall or replacement.

Addendum:

I am of course not the first to have understood this as, in fact, I believe a lot many people who fought the christian domination through non-violent mean – first and foremost M.K.Gandhi himself – realized and utilized it for attaining their goal of freedom from oppression.