I'm in an on-going conversation with someone, and here are some highlights of things I written.
About the Christian Commons Project™:
What will God do? Do I know that the powers that be will allow the Christian Commons to go forth? Pray, and know I already have it. Pray too. Where two or more are gathered together in his name, there will he be. Amen (truth).
It's a spiritual battle on a certain level. Competition is fierce. Executive directors and board members of non-profits cross-pollinate with capitalist corporatists. They lobby so governmental agencies and the so-called private sector use licensing and accreditation to keep down the grassroots.
I was recently accused of being a complete fraud on that basis. I explained to the neoconservative, with libertarian-capitalist leanings, that I use the term politics and ideology with varying connotations depending upon the fuller and fullest context I'm being moved to show. I explained to the fellow that I'm using the term politics as coming from its root. I tried to get him to see the bright, shining city (the polis where the term politics comes from) on the hill as Zion, as Heaven coming to conflate with the Earth as the New Heaven and New Earth. I went into this at some length while being well aware that many people don't come to this website to be enlightened or enlightening but to tear down the truth. In short, God's government, politics, economy, etc., comes to Earth if we will but do it. We have to have it in our hearts as the law written there. I write that the New Commandment encompasses all of this and that that is our constitution as Christians. The enemies of Christ will have none of it. They say they will "destruct" everything I've written and do so using the scriptures. Needless to say, they never do that and, frankly, never will, because it's impossible.
What I'm consciously working on is lifting political ideology to become synonymous with Christianity rather than lowering Christianity as the Calvinist capitalists are want to do. The Church is a body politic. It is the only real body politic, real here meaning not fraught with false-heartedness.
Jesus came with an entire way of life. This is what I'm promoting. He came in complete consistency. His is perfect logic. I've been terming it divine logic.
Monasticism applies here. Historically though, the church deliberately forbad people to live that way who were not ordained into that life by that hierarchy. I know that this is not consistent with Jesus's principles. He does not teach us to use coercion to prevent people from living communistically. The church though did exactly that. Consequently, many people are under the false impression that communistic living goes against nature when in fact we all came out from it. There was communism before even human agriculture. It was God's agriculture, and families shared in it freely. The spirit of selfishness is what ruined the garden.
As for Constantine, souls bravely spoken truths even after Constantine, but those souls were not chosen to lead the church. There has never been a Pope who reminded us of Jesus. By "reminded" here, I mean whose words and deeds were strikingly Jesus-like. That fact speaks volumes doesn't it?
What we have now is a Pope who made his mark by being anti-Liberation Theology. One could miss the mark by pointing to the error of militancy amongst those who claim that theology. Pope Benedict XVI though has not limited his rebuke to violence or coercion. He's made clear that tolerance of lukewarm Distributism is about the most we can expect.
The Popes just refuse to say what would rankle the capitalists in the pews. The real message of Jesus is not allowed to be spoken at the top. Therefore, there is something wrong (antichrist) there at the top.
The Pope's won't (haven't) stated the truth, which does have built into it the qualification that there is no coercion in the Church. Hence, the real state, the right government, the perfect economy is voluntary giving and sharing. There is no medium of exchange. There are no taxes. There is no military. They refuse to say this. It isn't brave of them.
Monasticism is a partial model for large nations. We are to be remade. We can't simply just say it isn't practical or it runs against human nature. Jesus doesn't teach us those things. The hard-hearted are the ones who promote those false ideas, so they can cling to their worldly possessions for awhile. He comes to rebuke all the nations.
The whole world will someday be giving and sharing. That's what saving the world (what Jesus came to do) will bring. We aren't to wait for Jesus to come to miraculously make it happen. We are miraculously to become Christlike now. This doesn't fit with typical Roman Catholic eschatology. I say that that eschatology is designed to avoid taking the right stand with Jesus right now. We are Jesus or are supposed to be: He in us, we in him, one. [This doesn't mean Jesus isn't coming again. He's here now if we will believe it, just as Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah.]
The liturgy needs to follow these truths. Jesus prescribes. I don't follow after those who refuse to speak the truth from the top (from the bottom and top if they are properly oriented vis-Ã -vis the dark princes of this worldly world).
We need to offer deeper thinking in the mainstream. The capitalists will do everything they can to prevent that of course without tipping their cold-hearted hand and utter hypocrisy to the point where the masses swell the ranks of real Christianity.
It's a great time to be raising all of this what with the display of George W. Bush and his cronies, sycophants, dupes, and minions. The contrast must become so stark that no one has any excuse left not to choose righteousness. Then the separation will occur.
The mainstream here promotes the idea that being open to spirit is dead or quickly dying in Europe. That's wishful thinking and self-promoting on the part of secular-humanist-atheists.
The Norwegians are falling prey to neoliberalism? Their social democracy is better. They should move from where they are to real Christianity and obviously not to neoliberal economics.
Gentlemen don't read each other's private letters. Do we have a right to privacy across the Atlantic via fiber optics and satellite? Yes, we do, but we are disrespected.
There actually is a place for Bush's concept of privileged communications. His kind just doesn't give a damn whether they abuse the privilege. They think it's there to be abused. I do care though. They have a right to privacy, but no one else does, because might makes right and money makes might.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)