The kingdom of heaven on Earth is not of this world. It will not use fear of police power to enforce laws, written by a majority.... whether conservative or progressive...

The kingdom of heaven on Earth is not of this world. It will not use fear of police power to enforce laws, written by a majority.... whether conservative or progressive...

God forgive me. The flesh is weak. I am feeling so mentally weak, I just need someone to talk to, I need someone to guide me.

So I’ve lurked here a few times, and I’m genuinely curious,

What is Radical Christianity? Is it taking Jesus’s teachings to the extreme or at least being extremely proactive about them?

Also, given how the term “radical” has been used lately, especially in describing certain Islamic sects, why use that term of all things?

I live and minister on a small estate (housing project) with significant deprivation. We tried to get CAP life skills going here because we thought it'd be useful, but it was really difficult to get any movement despite it all seeming straight forward. COVID didn't help but even after that I juts couldn't get momentum.

This year at a Christian conference I was worshipping and I percieved God tell me that He didn't allow it because He had more in mind for the people on my estate than learning how to cope with intergenerational poverty and exploitation wages.

I don't really know what to do with that other than pray about it.

How would you go about challenging intergenerational poverty and exploitation wages?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCmae3xPlZx/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

I'm an agnostic atheist so I guess I don't really belong here, but I have to say I was really blown away when I fell down an internet rabbit hole about this dude.

He was a vegan abolitionist by the end of his life, and he refused to even use animals for transportation. This was the start of my rabbit hole: https://youtu.be/gIkQrr8pgSI?si=syR8XAQfjXIs8XOh

It makes me wonder how often the excuse "they were just a product of their times" really isn't valid.

What’s everyone reading this season?

If there is anything you need praying for please write it in a comment on this post. There are no situations "too trivial" for G-d to help out with. Please refrain from commenting any information which could allow bad actors to resolve your real life identity.

As always we pray, with openness to all which G-d offers us, for the wellbeing of our online community here and all who are associated with it in one form or another. Praying also for all who sufferer oppression/violence, for all suffering from climate-related disasters, and for those who endure dredge work, that they may see justice and peace in their time and not give in to despair or confusion in the fight to restore justice to a world captured by greed and vainglory. In The LORD's name we pray, Amen.

I've wondered this since I was a teen.

I've wondered since my mom propped up a relative changing her college and career path entirely (think engineering to literature in terms of drastic change) because her parents didn't understand her original major and didn't like it. Mom said she was honoring her parents...clearly to convince me I should take her advice about my college path too. I'm not accusing them of abuse, to be clear, but it rubbed me wrong that this was honoring? Just do whatever? And it got me to thinking.

What does "honor your father and mother" mean in the face of abusive parents? What are you meant to do? Or evil parents - pushing you to do morally depraved things?

What does Holy Family day mean to those of you with abusive parents?

For context, the only things i have ever stolen are small food items from large grocery store chains or chain pound/dollar stores. My family is alright financially however I do not have much money myself. I never really thought of it as a sin and I am not certain on my religion but I am really looking for advice.

Siblings in Christ,

To start, I know many of you are not of my particular denomination; I'm an Anabaptist, and furthermore I belong to the Church of the Brethren. Our reading of the bible (especially from the Sermon on the Mount) concludes that all war is sin, and that we as Christians must not partake in violence, study the art of war, or even aid those who would cause violence, such as serving in the military in a non-combatant role (medic, cook, etc.)

That being said, with the rise of hatred against the marginalized in my community and especially the mass hardening of hearts signalled by the election of Donald Trump, I'm starting to fear more and more for my safety. I don't want to be a martyr, but I don't want to be a Zealot, either. I just want to live a peaceful and normal life, but my circumstances as a woman and a child of immigrants may make that impossible, and I fear that violence - either against me or from me in order to protect myself - may become inevitable.

Is there any scripture you all know that might affirm my belief of peace, or convince me that things will be OK if I stay the course? All I can think about is the verse about those who save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for Him will find it, and that doesn't seem to bode well for me on this plane of existence.

On this day we remember those whose lives were cut short at the end of the fascist sword. On this day we Christians refuse to trample the living memory of our martyred Trans* Comrades-in-Christ.

Written here so that none may forget the purpose of our exercise: "We observe this day of mourning to reaffirm our commitment and loving-kindness towards one of the world's most-heavily marginalized groups, we do this to affirm the inherent human dignity of every person regardless of status or creed because the face of G-d lays not in the poor alone but all others pushed to the margins of society or otherwise denied life here on Earth by those who hate us." --MC

We invite everyone to join in prayer with Saint Jeanne d'Arc in petitioning The LORD, Our God, creator of Heaven and Earth, for the liberation and safety of all LGBTQIA+ folk all over the world -in Christ's name- so that His Glory may be more greatly revealed to all. Amen.

The topic of violence and atrocities in the Old Testament is a well known area of theological and ethical discussion and debate. For those who have seen some of my posts, they might known that I have had extensive public discussions and debates on the topic. Each of them seeking to probe the issue from different angles. What we see in the OT are multiple voices and perspectives. Some justifying violent atrocities. Others condemning and resisting violent atrocities. And some simply narrating and describing. For this post I want to problem the question of what we do with voices in the canon that explicitly seem to sanction and justify violent atrocities. For this I am going to use as my conversation partners C.S Lewis, Rowan Williams and Franz Fanon. Fanon is the well known and famous anti colonial theorist who wrote the Wretched of the Earth and was famous for his participation in the Algerian war of Independence against France. Lewis as everyone knows is the famous Christian apologist and author of the Narnia series. Rowan Williams is the former Archbishop of Canterbury and an eminent theologian in the Anglican communion. These are some of the perspectives they have that I think is useful to meditate on when speaking about this topic.

C.S Lewis: The Goodness of God vs the Inerrancy of our interpretations

Because C.S Lewis is seen as a conservative religious figure people might be surprised at some of the views and perspectives that he holds on certain topics. Not least his rejection of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. C.S Lewis was explicitly confronted with the topic of Old Testament violence and one of the fascinating things about his answer is this. He didn't seek to defend it. In fact in the context of Joshua spoke his "atrocities and treacheries". He states in this context that if a choice had to be made between the "Goodness of God" v the "inerrancy of scripture" the former always has to be chosen. Always. In response to potential rebuttals to this, he states that while Christian doctrine speaks of the fall of humanity, scripture does not say that we are "as fallen as that". Scripture itself is always pointing to the fact that God placed the moral law on our consciences. And that moral law is itself a reflection of the goodness of God. What this means is that when we then read something in scripture that seems to contradict the basics of the moral law, even if it is justified "in the name of God" we can challenge that view and perspective. Now I don't agree with Lewis's specific example with Joshua, but I agree with the general premise and I would widen that premise to include not just the topic of the "inerrancy" of scripture, but also the "inerrancy" of interpreting divine revelation. The most famous example of this is the Prophet Samuel. Samuel as we know, is the one who gives King Saul the infamous decree concerning Amalek, where he explicitly says destroy even the women and children. And Samuel states "thus says Lord". Now as readers of the text, if we read the text through the lense of God's goodness as one of his attributes should be we allowed to challenge Samuel's interpretation of the word of the Lord in the name of God's own moral law? I would say yes. Because Samuel, even though he is a prophet, he is subject to the same errancies that you or I are. The example of Samuel is something I am going to come to recurrently.

Rowan Williams: The Nature of scripture, revelation and its multiple voices

Rowan Williams the former Archbishop of Canterbury also addresses this issue in a little known book he wrote called "Being Christian". And in it Williams explicitly points out the multiple voices present in scripture. The best example of this is Jehu and his violent revolution against the House of Ahab. In the Book of Kings Jehu and his faction justify Jehu's coup in the name of avenging the crimes committed against Naboth and his family. But then in the Book of Hosea the violent atrocities of Jehu himself is condemned. We clearly see here debate and self criticism. Dr Williams explains it this way by states " I’m sure the tyranny and idolatry of the royal house of Ahab was a scandal that needed to be ended. But, human beings being what they are, the clear word of God calling Israel to faithfulness and to resistance was so easily turned into an excuse for yet another turn of the screw in human atrocity and violence. And we’re right to shed tears for that memory.’ That to me is a very powerful moment in the Old Testament: a recognition that it is possible to grow in understanding and to think again about the past."(Being Christian, pg 38-39).

But more than this Dr Williams also probes into the nature of how we understand Divine revelation. It is not simply a "revelation" about God. It is also a revelation about ourselves in terms of how we understand ethics, morality, culture, and God himself as well as our growth and development. Williams states "God is saying, ‘This is how people heard me, saw me, responded to me; this is the gift I gave them; this is the response they made . If in that story we find accounts of the responses of Israel to God that are shocking or hard to accept, we do not have to work on the assumption that God likes those responses."(Being Christian, pg 27-28). So let us go back to the example of Samuel. Samuel is in a tradition of warrior prophets. And in receiving Divine revelation he interprets that revelation through the lense of a militant tradition of total war. That is Samuel's interpretation. We do not have to view that interpretation as being inerrant. More to the point when we speak about Dr Williams question, we should ask ourselves were are we in the narrative. Are we at the point where just like Samuel the prophet we are saying "thus says the Lord" to justify violence and violent atrocities? Or are we at the point of someone like Amos, a writing prophet who in the name of the Lord challenges the violent atrocities of the nations(Amos 1) and calls for humanitarian justice even in the context of war? Are we at the point of Proverbs were we can categorically says that of the 6 things that God hates, the shedding of innocent blood is one of them(Proverbs 6).

Franz Fanon: Violence and its context

At this point it is easy to just dismiss violent episodes in the OT and just say from a progressive standpoint "well that was just their limited reading in their cultural context". To me that draws a "not so fast" response. And its "not so fast" because I still think that these passages are in the canon for a reason theologically. This is where I would like to bring in Franz Fanon. Fanon in the Wretched of the Earth makes a famous distinction between "violence" itself and "counter violence". In the context of colonialism and the power dynamics involved, "counter violence" is the force of arms of the native against the system of oppression imposed on them when their backs are against the wall. When looking at counter violence Fanon subtly insists that we cannot make ethical judgements of that without first considering the context that produced it. So let us use Nat Turner as an example. Nat Turner led the famous slave revolt in the U.S. During that slave revolt, militant factions killed not just the slave master, but the slave master's spouses and children. Same thing with factions during the Haitian revolution. That was violent. That was brutal. And many aspects of that violence we would challenge. However those of us committed to a progressive politics would also recognize that we cannot make any serious or legitimate assessment of that violence if we don't also look at the context or conditions that produced the Nat Turner rebellion. The criminal system of the Transatlantic slave trade where millions were tortured and abused on the slave plantation and millions more died during the middle passage. It was counter violence when their backs were pushed against a wall. Furthermore Fanon speaks of what he calls a "liberal mystique" when it comes violence and human dignity. It is a mystique that in practices says "everyone is equal" but unequally reacts to violence when only one side is doing it. Namely the side that is reacting when their backs are against the wall. It is also a mystique that creates a false equivalence when discussing violence. So in the context of the Algerian revolution, the violence of the Algerian nationalist fighting for independence is compared to the violence of the French who were maintaining a brutal settler colonial system over them that included a system of concentration camps where millions were placed. Furthermore the mask of that mystique pays attention to and condemns as uncivilized the killing of dozens of Frenchmen, but hypocritically ignores the whole sale massacre of thousands of Algerian men, women and children as well as their torture that triggers this response.

When integrating this perspective to the Old Testament, what I see in the Old Testament is a lot of counterviolence. Violence that is produced out of a certain context and certain conditions. Jehu's violence is an obvious example in terms of it being a reaction to the tyranny of the House of Ahab. So is the militant commands of the Prophet Samuel, which is a response to centuries of aggression and oppression by Amalek. As readers we have to ask ourselves if we read these stories holistically. Samuel's response can in no way be "justified" from a moral perspective. However do we limit our focus to Samuel's counter violence, or do we also look at the "back against the wall" conditions that produced Samuel's militant response and his militant interpretation of Divine revelation. Do we approach the text with a liberal mystique that gives a hypocritical mask of equality, while unequally assessing atrocities? Unequally assessing the violence of Jehu while ignoring the atrocities of Jezebel. Unequally assess the violence of Samuel without assessing the atrocities of Amalek and its King.

I hope folks reach a point where they give up trying to convert Imperial Christianity to the Gospel... LGBTQ+... women's ordination... non-violence.... etc. There are Catholic Workers out there to join.... or better yet.... "wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name" there is an outpost of the His kingdom.

If there is anything you need praying for please write it in a comment on this post. There are no situations "too trivial" for G-d to help out with. Please refrain from commenting any information which could allow bad actors to resolve your real life identity.

As always we pray, with openness to all which G-d offers us, for the wellbeing of our online community here and all who are associated with it in one form or another. Praying also for all who sufferer oppression/violence, for all suffering from climate-related disasters, and for those who endure dredge work, that they may see justice and peace in their time and not give in to despair or confusion in the fight to restore justice to a world captured by greed and vainglory. In The LORD's name we pray, Amen.

I’m a bisexual genderfluid teen and a lot of Christianity I’ve been exposed to is right-wing conservative queer hating people. I want to remain close to god but I also want to feel comfortable and confident with myself, but it’s hard because of the Christianity I’ve been exposed to. Any advice?

Title basically. I'm just really struggling right now to love people and it's killing me.

The commune is the basic unit of partisan reality. An insurrectional surge may be nothing more than a multiplication of communes, their coming into contact and forming of ties. As events unfold, communes will either merge into larger entities or fragment. The difference between a band of brothers and sisters bound “for life” and the gathering of many groups, committees and gangs for organizing the supply and self-defense of a neighborhood or even a region in revolt, is only a difference of scale, they are all communes.

A commune tends by its nature towards self-sufficiency and considers money, internally, as something foolish and ultimately out of place. The power of money is to connect those who are unconnected, to link strangers as strangers and thus, by making everything equivalent, to put everything into circulation.

The cost of money’s capacity to connect everything is the superficiality of the connection, where deception is the rule. Distrust is the basis of the credit relation. The reign of money is, therefore, always the reign of control. The practical abolition of money will happen only with the extension of communes. Communes must be extended while making sure they do not exceed a certain size, beyond which they lose touch with themselves and give rise, almost without fail, to a dominant caste. It would be preferable for the commune to split up and to spread in that way, avoiding such an unfortunate outcome.

The uprising of Algerian youth that erupted across all of Kabylia in the spring of 2001 managed to take over almost the entire territory, attacking police stations, courthouses and every representation of the state, generalizing the revolt to the point of compelling the unilateral retreat of the forces of order and physically preventing the elections. The movement’s strength was in the diffuse complementarity of its components-only partially represented by the interminable and hopelessly male-dominated village assemblies and other popular committees. The “communes” of this still-simmering insurrection had many faces: the young hotheads in helmets lobbing gas canisters at the riot police from the rooftop of a building in Tizi Ouzou; the wry smile of an old resistance fighter draped in his burnous; the spirit of the women in the mountain villages, stubbornly carrying on with the traditional farming, without which the blockades of the region’s economy would never have been as constant and systematic as they were.

• The Coming Insurrection by the Invisible Commitee

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/comite-invisible-the-coming-insurrection#toc10

This is mostly just a silly post, I'm not really one for conspiratorial thinking. I just find it odd that Trump is the ONLY president that conservative Christians don't accuse of being the antichrist despite him being the closest to fitting the bill. I remember they even turned on Bush and started calling him the antichrist back in the day. My family is very conservative with the exception of myself and one of my siblings and they all think Trump was chosen by God to bring American's back to the church.