“The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none.”

—Thomas Carlyle, Hero Worship

An ongoing issue within the Christian retrieval and publishing project is silly sophisticates thinking the weight of their opinions matters to men of scars at sweat in the arena of deeds. The latest entry in this daring campaign is offered by Joseph Laughon at Mere Orthodoxy (MO) in his “review” of Positive Christianity in the Third Reich, with specific reference to Sacra Press and myself (Cody Justice).

For anyone wondering, no, I do not regularly read MO, and neither should you, as it’s just a standard lib “Christian” outlet run by Jake Meador, a fat lesbian posing as a man, as best I can tell. A friend notified me of the article. In this piece I will be directly responding to it. I will henceforth refuse to name the author as Joseph, as he is clearly unworthy of the saint’s title; instead, I will refer to him as L, as apt a designation as providence can presently afford for such a miserably uninspired and bitter creature.

L, like his fellow scholar of integrity whom he elsewhere references, Alastair Roberts, commences his torpid assault by poisoning the well, gaslighting, and, of course, bravely employing the use of a Leftist shibboleth. There is an “ongoing issue within the Christian retrieval project,” he alleges, where there is an “attempt by some parties to smuggle in white nationalist thought in the hopes of baptizing an explicitly racial political program.” Never mind that “smuggle in” is dishonest framing—since I have been honest and upfront about the book and the reason for its publication; ignore that “white nationalist” is a favorite jejune buzzword of Cretans—typically deployed to shut down meaningful dialogue and interlocution; and ask no questions about Japan or Israel in relation to the implied heresy of an “explicitly racial political program”—because we of course aren’t here to actually cogitate; no, we are here to parrot and perform. Such a beautiful little tutu dance, isn’t it?

If you, dear true Christian, driven by the ever-present and always-dominant credulity, assume that L is a bona fide Christian, that he really is a “conservative” Anglican, that he is really here to engage sincerely and substantively with “the issues of our modern age” and to “simply focus directly on Fabricius’ work and witness,” then you are itchin for a switchin from Daddy Reality. None of this is true. The matter, to use L’s words, is actually “quite simple”: L everywhere studiously avoids engaging the content of Fabricius’ book, including a meaningful distinction between principles and particulars applied to said content, and instead undertakes what effectively amounts to a screed of special pleading, because he can’t meaningfully engage Fabricius, for to do so would be to undermine what is otherwise L’s very clear mission of malice, and, were he to actually operate on a real principle, he'd have to dismiss men like Aristotle along with Fabricius. But really, the matter is “even simpler”: L is a loser.

To be clear, I am not alleging L never cites Fabricius; he does. The issue is that L’s citations are minimal in actual content, and only made in service to a problematizing, sensationalist scheme, in which Fabricius is clearly fitted to be a villain who “served devils,” “downgraded Christian truth,” and apparently even “betrayed the gospel.” The citations made are not made in order to engage the ideas; they are made in order to include them as dinky ornaments in a cheap game of gotcha. This is because L is not acting as a scholar, lay or professional; no, he is a tabloid goon, here to offer easy pickens.

L makes no direct citation of Fabricius outside of Positive Christianity (PC). If he did, he’d know Fabricius repeatedly writes of the gospel and how it is a priority to him (sidenote: it’s really unsurprising this is not an emphasis in PC since it is a book of political theory, not a gospel presentation). For example, in 1934, when writing on The Jewish Question in the German Evangelical Church, Fabricius notes how, following (and for him, related to) the rise of National Socialism, many people in Germany were open to the gospel who formerly were not, and that “the Gospel is the one great truth for all Christians.” Elsewhere, in Germany and the Religious World Situation (1937), Fabricius says that his efforts in the book are, in part, to “ensure the purity of the preaching of the Gospel” and that “a true unity is possible and already present in the innermost holiest possession of Christianity—the Gospel,” and that churches “can best contribute” to peace between nations “by proclaiming the Gospel of peace and refraining from any political agitation” that incites one people against another. Wonder of wonders! Somehow, we can find gospel-centric material from an allegedly gospel-betraying devil-worshiper! Then again, faith eats honey from the carcass. But of course, L is a ceremonial Scrooge, so he’s not about to touch the lion’s dead body. His loss; Samson's strength.

Really, there is not much more to say than this. L is a liar. He says his piece “will simply focus directly on Fabricius’ work and witness.” Nothing of the sort follows. What follows is just another “extreme blandness,” mostly composed of this message: various paragraphs of “Hitler and Nazis bad because reason x, y, and z” + “here is a minimal-effort reference to something Fabricius said which really doesn’t connect to these paragraphs.”

L links to Alastair Roberts, but Roberts is just as bad: alleging, from a certain source, that Fabricius changed his mind on the NSDAP, when, in reality, said source yields the exact opposite conclusion—and, in fact, the man who initially shared said source, has admitted as much in public after I pressed him in private over his devious framing.

L says that the “Fabricius’ tract has nothing to commend it to a Christian.” Nothing? We will leave it to the readers to ultimately judge for themselves, but certainly, beyond the particulars which one may disagree with, there are wholesome principles in the work, e.g. his comments on the relationship of humility and heroism; these are excellent and should be embraced by all sound Christians.

L alleges that Positive Christianity “deemphasized or outright denied the basic creeds of the Christian Church,” among other things. But notice: no citation of Fabricius here. Just an assertion with a link to one non-Fabricius source. Of course, anyone who has spent time in primary sources knows there is a variegated spectrum here, thus it is not so easy, though L would have it to be, to suggest that because Fabricius affirmed Positive Christianity that therefore he must have believed x, y, or z. Such a historical methodology of ready-made non sequiturs only holds utility for the amateur and the ideologue.

L alleges that Fabricius “notably rejected a substantial credal definition.” Of what, exactly? Of Positive Christianity—because, for him, it had less to do with dogma and more to do with deeds, a sort of “James emphasis” where faith is shown by works. The insinuation of L seems to be that this replaced the creedal-institutional expression of the Faith, but he offers nothing in support of such an insinuation. My read is simply that, for Fabricius, perhaps not for everyone like him, but likely for some, “Positive Christianity” was a civil expression of the Faith, intended to accompany the creedal-institutional expression of the Faith. This is not unheard of. Even today, there are certain “conservative” Evangelicals who maintain a sort of “Jesus and guns” civil-political view. Do these people therefore deny all creedal formulations due to their civil view? To ask the question is to answer it. Likewise, Christian Nationalism, as articulated by its chief academic proponent, Stephen Wolfe, is subject to a similar classification. Does Stephen therefore reject all creedal formulations or the institutional life of the church? Obviously not.

L suggests that Fabricius was naïve in proposing that Germany had a foreign policy “centered on promoting peace and goodwill between nations without jealousy.” I can only assume that it is L who is the ready prey of naivety. Is he unaware of Hitler’s repeated peace proposals to England and disinterest in fighting them? What about the fact that the USA had been (effectively) at war with Germany prior to Pearl Harbor? And what of the daring attempt made by Rudolf Hess, NSDAP party leader, to secure peace through a secret flight to England after the war had commenced? Can L tell us why the Germans, from their perspective, invaded Poland to begin with? Why they attacked the Soviets? Likely not. L hasn’t demonstrated an ability to understand his opponents on their own terms; thus he is not only a liar: he is also lazy.

L seems to think we are simply re-publishing PC. If so, L is indeed naïve and lazy, and unimaginative. We are publishing over a half dozen more small books or documents of Fabricius, including several sworn affidavits given after the war had ceased, all in one physical copy—a larger book that has more than doubled in size from its initial stage (from ~100 pages to ~340). The content of the book is multifaceted: part political theory, part historical commentary, part polemical dispute over certain theological and ecclesiastical questions, part private correspondence and pleas made to fellow academics and German authorities, and part legal documentation. L has therefore technically not reviewed the book we are publishing, but only a piece of it. Really, he hasn’t “reviewed” anything; he has only ranted in effete desperation. Perhaps if he were as interested in patience and faithful interaction as he is in speedy and substanceless condemnations, he’d have waited and requested a review copy.

L ends his baloney bonanza with a great boohoo: Fabricius was a devil-serving miscreant who choked on his own vomit. Of course he hasn’t proven any of this, substantively. No, instead, without any apparent pains of conscience, he has simply spouted off lies, slanders, and cavils, even citing the wonderfully virtuous oyster-slurper, Rod Dreher, and the Infamous Ungovernor, Alastair Roberts, all in service to flagrant ninth commandment violations, which he proffers as “light.”

Curiously, L mentions that Fabricius was arrested and expelled from the party, but doesn’t mention the other information which is part of the same affidavit. Now there are two options here: either L is aware of and has read the full affidavit, in which case he is deliberately omitting said information; or, he has not actually read the affidavit, in which case he is simply parroting what he heard someone else say. Either way you slice it: L is either a liar or a parrot. Of course, both are true. More importantly, L is a pious jackass.

But praise God, the gospel can even save religious fops who think disdaining Nazis in 2025 makes them righteous.

And it can save Nazis.