Bruce Charlton's Notions

Francis Berger has followed-up last-week's powerful post about the Roman Catholic Church (which I discussed here), with another concerning the vital importance of spiritual discernment in a time when things have come to a point. 

Here are some excepts:

My overarching point was that the bishop and the [Roman Catholic] Church remain officially aligned with the birdemic narrative. As such, they continue to believe their decision to close churches and deny Mass to hundreds of millions was totally justified. 

Put another way, the Catholic Church - and practically all other Christian denominations - remain firmly convinced that they did the right thing for the right reasons. They feel no need to reflect upon or perhaps reassess their decision, and they certainly do not think they have anything to repent. 

I happen to think the opposite. I hold the opposite view because I am convinced that the birdemic is an Evil Lie. Moreover, I believe in the primacy of the spiritual - in putting God and spiritual considerations first. 

By denying Mass and other sacraments such as last rites at the behest of the secular global diktat of none are safe until all are safe, the Catholic Church (and other Christian denominations) essentially demonstrated that they believe in the primacy of the material - in putting the world and material considerations first. 

 ...At its core, the birdemic is not about science or medicine or church doctrine. At its core, the birdemic marks the epicenter of things coming to a point. More specifically, the birdemic is about being able to spiritually discern good and evil and making the right choices in light of this discernment. 

 ...As far as I'm concerned, churches the world over failed miserably when they closed their doors due to the birdemic. I will go even as far as to say most churches actively and willingly made the wrong choice. And churchgoers who passively and obediently follow their churches in this regard are also making the wrong choice. 

People can reject this as my "opinion", but I do not regard my standpoint on this issue to be mere opinion. For me, it's discernment - discernment based on my understanding of God and Creation - that is, on my understanding of the fundamental nature of reality and of our current spiritual war. 

 ...The line separating good from evil has rarely, if ever, been clearer. That doesn't mean that discernment is always easy or that our judgments are always correct, but it does mean that spiritual discernment can no longer be considered a passive, optional activity. 

Like it or not, we have all been put in the position where we must choose - and those choices are based on our ability to effectively discern. In this regard, we are all our own spiritual authorities. 

The possibility of outsourcing discernment to an external church authority is closing before us. When it comes to matters of religion and spirit, we no longer have the luxury to simply believe what we are told to believe and do what we are told to do. 

We must make our own judgments about these matters, and these judgments must emanate from our innermost selves and our active and willing alignment with God and Creation. In this sense, spiritual discernment is the most important special competence we can possess in this time and place.

Read the whole thing

Comments: Frank goes far towards clarifying matters, for those too caught-up in the daily virtual-reality to stand back and do it for themselves. 

There are at least three separable issues. 

1. Birdemic Big Lie

The birdemic is evidently a Big Lie - top to bottom, many-fold, from its beginning to now. 

Almost everything substantive we have been told about the birdemic has later been shown (by the same official/ media sources from which the first Lies came) to be not just mistaken, but calculated untruth. 

To know this, one only needs to be capable of common sense and memory. However, an aspect of the very general and extreme spiritual corruption of these times is that people are capable of neither. Even when (as in the UK) the Prime Minister (speaking on behalf of 'science' and 'the evidence') contradicts himself completely in the space of four days about whether Christmas 2020 'needs to be cancelled'; the obvious implications are missed, and the event is soon forgotten. 

Big Lies are intrinsically evil - because lying is a sin. 

 

2. Birdemic Evil Lie

The birdemic is an Evil Lie because of its provenance (evil refers to its motivation; the source tells us the motivation). 

The birdemic lie comes-from the Global Establishment - whose major strategies are evil; and who is explicitly anti-Christian, anti (any) God, anti-spiritual, denying of divine creation; and favouring the Big Lies of open-borders, climate emergency, antiracism and the sexual revolution including the trans agenda. They have explicitly stated their plans for transitioning the birdemic into the Great Reset - which is a atheist totalitarian dystopia. 

The purposive evil of the Big Lie is evident. 

3. Even if the birdemic was not a Big Evil Lie...

Let us assume, as a thought experiment, that the birdemic was not a Big Evil Lie - let us assume that the world Establishment was (overall) honest and Christian, therefore working for God, The Good, and divine creation (instead of against)...

Let us also assume that the birdemic really was a very lethal pandemic (the current, recent, definition of 'pandemic' only means a new and wide-spreading disease - it does Not mean a dangerous disease). Let's say its mortality rate was fifty times what it really has been, and that it significantly affected the young and healthy. 

Let's also pretend (because it is false) that lockdowns, masks and social distancing really were known to be effective in reducing the mortality rates of this disease (rather than, as IRL, at first doing nothing then making things much worse). 

Would this imaginary scenario be a reason for the Roman Catholic Church to close and deny the sacraments of baptism, Mass and last rites to its flock for months or a year? 

Well, certainly not - if these sacraments really had the significance that Catholics assert for them. 

Would it be a reason to deny spiritual healing (by laying on of hands), or exorcism, or to close shrines and pilgrimage sites such as Lourdes? 

Certainly not, if these had the efficacy that the Roman Catholic faith asserted for them. 

The list could be continued. 

This is a stark discernment here, things have already come to a point. The Roman Catholic Church has behaved in a way that - with extreme comprehensiveness and clarity - denies its own most sacred and fundamental assumptions regarding its own authority and spiritual power. 

Note: I think this situation is clearest with the RCC, not least because the RCC has for centuries striven to be clear and explicit about its own beliefs and assertion. But the same basic situation prevails with all other large Christian denominations and churches. Churches have beliefs and assertions that both explain and justify their own existence - and these have been starkly contradicted by their response to the birdemic - by their willing alignment wit the Big Evil Lie. This crisis includes all of Christendom - and indeed (I would guess) all other religions - but I shall leave that to them.

These are quoted from the official guidance directed at priests. I will refrain from commenting, except to add emphasis, here and there: 

In response to government legislation, the archbishops and bishops have advised all churches to close completely during the government lockdown. This is both to reduce travel and to help to model best practice in maintaining social distance. The Archbishops’ Council is aware that some elements of what the Archbishops are asking goes beyond what is required by government but considers that this shows the Church modelling the very best practice* in promoting social distancing and reinforcing the message to stay home in order to protect the NHS and save lives.

Can I livestream a service from within the church? No.

Should I stop access to the site, as well as to the church building itself? Ensure that vehicle access to your church is secured if possible, so that vehicles cannot easily access the building itself. If you have gates, close and lock them.

Can we do anything to keep an eye on the building? ... There will probably be members of the congregation taking their daily exercise or shopping for essentials whose route will pass by the church. They could check if all looks well from the outside, without entering the building... A pair of binoculars can be helpful in assessing the building.

Can a nursery still operate from church premises? The government has issued specific advice for early years and childcare. Early years provision can stay open for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children.

Correcting the time of the clock, winding the clock, and raising or lowering of flags does not justify the risk of a lone person climbing the tower.

Can I collect post that is delivered to the church? Yes, but only if this is done as part of exercise or another essential trip... collecting post cannot be considered an essential activity that would justify a separate journey.

Can I access my closed church to do the cleaning? ... Cleaning cannot be considered an essential activity that would justify a separate journey. Please be aware that a building in which someone who may have the [birdemic] has been is considered ‘dirty’ (i.e. may contain infection) for 72 hours afterwards.

Should we still pay our parish share? Parishes should aim to pay as much of their parish share – ideally all – as they are able. The work of the Church continues, albeit in a different way.

Are we allowed to lead worship outdoors, if people maintain 2m distance? No. The Archbishops have given clear guidance that our church buildings are closed and there should be no public worship.

Will food banks have to close? Foodbanks and services such as GoodSAM should continue where possible under strict guidelines

The church (or a hall) is used for blood donation, can it continue? Yes. Donating blood is an essential activity, and travelling to give blood is allowed.


My summary - The Archbishops have decided, going beyond government requirements, that (ideally) churches should be closed, locked, nobody should enter the building or their grounds, and no public worship should occur. On the other hand, church buildings may still be used for non-Christian purposes. And the congregation should continue to pay their full tithe.   

* This phrase is the nearest to an explicit confession of being engaged in virtue signalling, that I've yet encountered. Some more Church-birdemic themed posts can be found by following links from here. 

Metaphysics refers to a person's ultimate beliefs - or more accurately his assumptions - about how reality is structured and works. 

These primary assumptions are usually implicit rather explicit; and that they are assumptions is usually denied (claiming instead that they are logically-entailed or based on overwhelming evidence). 

What I am seeing in these End Times, is that every person's superficial 'beliefs' and self-identifications are being stripped-away and his metaphysical assumptions are being revealed. 

This seems to be striking among self-identified Christians. A large number are being revealed as simply Not Christian - in the sense that they are merely using Christian language to live by mainstream atheistic, materialist, Leftist and anti-Christian assumptions. 

But among serious Christians of all denominations there is a gap opening between those whose primary loyalty is to their church - and whose core ethic is obedience to that church; and those who have taken ultimate responsibility for their own Christian faith.  

This is interesting because there are very large differences among and between the belief systems of Eastern and Western Catholics; and Protestants such as Anglicans, Methodists or Calvinists; and churches such as Mormons. 

Yet brought to a point by the events of 2020-21, in and among all of these there is this division that has opened-up between those serious Christians who are primarily obedient to the church authorities, and those who evaluate and judge their own church according to personal discernment. 

At a metaphysical level; this relates to a primary assumption concerning the nature of Man. Among those who put obedience to their church as primary; there is the assumption that the relation between each Man and God must be mediated by a church if it is to lead to salvation and theosis. 

That 'I' needs 'the' church, but the church does not need me. The church has a mystical reality and primacy that does not depend upon its 'members'. This precisely because God has made the church essential to each Man - so therefore God will sustain the integrity of the church, no matter what. 

Among those whose faith is based on personal discernment is the assumption that salvation and discernment are a matter that is primarily based on a direct and unmediated relationship between each Christian on the one hand - and God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost on the other hand. 

That 'I' do not need the church. The church may be helpful - even very helpful - but may be harmful. The church has no mystical reality distinct from its members; so that any church has the potential to become as corrupt as any other human institution.  

By this account, God's promise of the availability of salvation and the possibility of theosis is made to each individual, and not to the mystical-church. So that although churches might all fail and fall; God will ensure that every Man capable of love will always have a path open to salvation, and the potential to grow in divinity.  

What I find striking, as one of the second category who regards churches as optional extras at best and potential enemies in the spiritual war; is that those who have taken the path of the primacy of the churches are spread across all types of Christian churches of which I am aware. 

It seems to make surprisingly little difference whether a person professes to be Catholic, Protestant or Mormon. It is a person's actual metaphysical assumptions about how reality works, how salvation works, and the purpose of this mortal life  - which seem to be crucial.... No matter what their churches may say. 

This is, I think, because Christianity has been primarily church orientated, and therefore focused upon whatever happen to be the requirements of church membership - which are very varied, usually very restrictive and specific; but very detached from metaphysical assumptions. 

Churches will exclude people on the basis of their failure to endorse and/ or live by behaviours that are integral to that particular church's sustained existence - but they will take no serious notice of a person's ultimate metaphysical assumptions. As long as someone verbally agrees-with and sticks-by the rules - they are included - but fundamental matters of assumption are unknown or ignored.

It is this neglect of metaphysical assumptions that is at the heart of the current malaise, and the deep reason for the mass apostasy of Christian churches and their loyal members - because the self-identified Christians, it turns-out! - have near identical primary assumptions as the mass of atheists, non-Christians and - in particular - the Global Leadership class whose agendas are now structuring the lives of everybody, everywhere.

People (including church-loyal Christians) go-along-with the secular, Lefts (and anti-Christian) agendas of the birdemic, antiracism and the CO2-environmentalism, social justice, equity etc. because - in an ultimate sense - they regard-themselves as primarily obedient creatures - obedient to the institutions of their-church...

"I need the church, but the church does not need me" means that their core metaphysical assumption is that such Christians regard themselves as members (or 'a people') - entities whose individual personal discernment has no objective validity in relation to salvation and theosis.  

At root, they assume: If I am not a member, then I am nothing.  

Such is the metaphysical assumption that has been exposed in these End Times. And like all such assumptions it needs to be recognized, acknowledged as an assumption - and then evaluated.

A Christian cannot for long stay a Christian nowadays; if he regards loyalty/ obedience to his church as primary. 

In a world where The System is evil in motivation and net-activity, anyone whose primary loyalty is to any institution will be vulnerable to being drawn to support The System - whenever their institution is threatened. 

And anyone who is drawn to support The System cannot for long be Christian; because The System serves Satan. 

 

And this conflict between Christ and Church will happen, is happening, as often as the powers of evil can contrive it. 

For instance; it seems apparent than many devout traditionalists Christians have chosen to support The System over the past few weeks; apparently because they perceive an existential threat to their church. 

But the fact is that The System can contrive events such that any church can be acutely threatened at almost any time; and indeed all churches, because they are institutions, are dependent on The System for their survival and sustaining. 

Churches are linked by many ties with The System bureaucracies and mass media - economics, finance, laws (employment law, workplace regulation, laws to do with buildings and utilities etc), with educational provision and may other links. 

Any church can therefore (in principle - if 'necessary) be subjected to a coordinated international official-media destructive hate-fest of lies, misinformation, fake news, hostile propaganda and PSYOPS such as we have seen for the birdemic-peck, antiracism, climate and the current Oceana-Eurasia frenzy. 

Whether at this extreme, or by a more attritional process; sooner or later, every serious Christian church has-been or will-be faced by an immediate threat to its survival - unless it complies with one or another (eventually all) of the priorities of The System. 

The church will then either orientate to The System, or acutely be destroyed as an institution. 

In other words; all that is worldly about churches will be assimilated or destroyed, along with those adherents who are loyal to it; and only that which is 'not of this world' will remain Christian. 

The adherents of that church will then face the choice between God and Church, Jesus Christ and Church, being a Christian and Church. 

Indeed, this has already happened, and is in the past for many Christians in many churches. Those who remain in these churches, and remain primarily loyal to the church, are in The System - and being led ever deeper. 

Some traditionalist Christians who survived the birdemic-peck have succumbed to System assimilation in the past few weeks - as they decide to support their church's here-and-now survival as first priority. 

All will come to this crux sooner or later, and the pace increases; as something that we personally love - yet which depends upon The System - is threatened. 

But church survival - the survival of any institution we love, is only acute and short-term. 

In the end, everything of this world depends on The System; can be destroyed by The System - and The System is destroying itself - and with increasing rapidity.

So survival of any institutional church is in fact only a stay of execution, a delay from destruction.  

Which means that those who accepted The System into their hearts in order that their church would survive; will see their churches be destroyed - and be left with nothing but The System.  

This we should expect; should regard as eventually inevitable. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, because this world is mortal, and resurrection comes after death. 

The kingdom of this world is Satan's - more and more obviously so; and insofar as any church is of this world, that church will be part of the Satanic System.

Thus, Christians cannot primarily be loyal to any church. Faith must be rooted in the next world, or perish. 

It is a very difficult time for traditionalist Christians, whose churches have already aligned with the evil global agenda and who are becoming more converged all the time. 

In times like these a strong, secure and really-Christian church would be more valuable than ever; but such an entity is not on offer. 

The large churches are net-evil-aligned, and the only 'pure' churches are small and weak - in worldly terms (and there may be none of these available, even if such would be regarded as acceptable). 

The dilemma I wish to discuss is that it has been noticed (e.g. by Rodney Stark) that the successful churches of the middle 20th century were demanding of their members - that is, they demanded significant changes to lifestyle. 'In return' such churches gave significant social support; so that membership 'made a difference'.  

By contrast, those churches that did not demand any significant changes or sacrifices from members ('liberal' doctrine, any lifestyle tolerated) were declining, collapsing; becoming numerically heavily-dominated by older women - and without many men, families or the children that are signs of a thriving church. 

But this is (or rather was) a sociological explanation for strong churches - not primarily a spiritual one. And the recently-strong churches have over more-recent years (and especially since the birdemic) suffered (or had imposed) a disconnection between the church as a social group, and the church as a genuinely Christian group. 

In other words; group-cohesion of the church has been maintained by social/ lifestyle elements and at the cost of spiritual Christian elements. 

This means that church-orientated Christians find themselves in a repeated dilemma where the church authorities introduce anti-Christian practices - but to oppose these will cause fracturing and schism of the church. 

In different words; church cohesion is maintained only at the cost of core Christian values; while maintaining core Christian values will tend to break apart churches, and will also entail that the church members must discern and discriminate within the church - perhaps even rejecting most or all of the leadership (priest or pastors).

This is something that very few traditionalists are willing to do - especially not explicitly; because it goes against the (inevitably) group-ish explanations regarding the special and distinctive rightness and truth of their own churches.  

One reaction I have noticed is traditionalists advocating a doubling-down on the tougher and more demanding aspects of their church - which tends, or until recently tended, to reinforce group strength. 

But the problem is that these lifestyle or theological aspects are (mostly) only 'incidentally' Christian, should not be regarded as core to the faith; and are practices that distinguish and divide the various Christian churches. 

So - at a time when Christianity is at just about its weakest and most corrupt in history, and when the (small) minority of faithful Christians who have resisted the socio-political convergence of (for example) the Litmus Test issues; some of the traditionalists among these faithful Christians are dividing this small remnant of sincere and courageous believers by their core insistence on that which makes their own church different. 

I think this doubling-down on the inessentials (and the consequent hostility among Christians) happens as a way of 'dealing with' the traditionalist problem of evil-aligned leaders and the need for discernment within the church. 

By this means, the church leadership can continue to be supported by traditionalists - because the leaders mostly sustain the cohesion of the churches while discarding core Christian alignment with God, creation and The Good - by retaining and emphasizing 'church order' issues that emphasize the specific distinctions between types-of-Christian.  

The 'beam' of vast and escalating core-corruption in one's own church is thereby neglected by this doubling-down on the 'motes' of lifestyle micro-issues and church-order/ church-unity matters. 

This strikes me as an insidiously-effective demonic strategy for further weakening and corrupting what (comparatively-little) remains of the Christian churches after the repeated onslaughts of socio-political Litmus Tests; by ensuring that Christians in traditional denominations expend a great deal of their time and energy on emphasizing their differentness-from and superiority-to other types of Christian - to the point of denying that the other types of Christian really-are Christians. 

Folk need to realize that saying "But I have access to a real Christian church, which has defied the pressures of the birdemic-fake-response and remained open" is Not an answer to the problem of Christians now. 

It certainly is a good thing if you do have such access - but it is not an answer because (as of her and 2021) many Christians do not have access to a real church. 

Either because there are no real Christian churches accessible (or maybe none in a denomination that they would regard as valid). 

Because they do not have access to these churches: maybe too far away; or because the buildings are shut due to lockdowns; the priests/ pastors have stopped work or been stopped; or because the people cannot, or are not allowed to, travel to a real church. 

What the "But I have access to a real church" people are indirectly saying amounts to "You can do nothing by yourself, therefore just wait until some priest (for catholic Christians), or some gathering of devout people (for protestant Christians), sorts-out a church of real Christians that you are able to attend"... 

This is a counsel of passivity, waiting, hoping for better times - but actually doing nothing substantive. Because (according to such Christians) nothing can be done by one Christian, alone. 

Unless you can do it alone, and without permission or help from any other persons; then nowadays, it probably is Not going to be done. 

And if this state-of-affairs (of a church being organized for you) does not happen - well that's tough. 

You can't be a Christian, because (they assert) if you aren't in a church (that I approve of) then you can't be a Christian.

(e.g. Either because you have no access to priests and sacraments, or because you are not gathering.) 

I think we all need to understand that this situation is not an accident. 

On the one hand, Christians have too often (usually) painted themselves into a corner. They have made Christianity a mandatory group religion; such that there is no concept of an unaffiliated, or solo, real Christian: only of church members. ("The church" is primary, specific individual human members are at best secondary, at worst just an Optional Extra.) 

On the other hand, for many Christians in many circumstances church is not an option, being corrupt,  unavailable, inaccessible, or shut without any assurance of ever again opening (or opening only with strict and anti-Christian, anti-human, controls and conditions).    

Church First worked fine in history when there were both real and accessible Christian churches, but cannot work when there are not.  

The double-bind is Must Church... but No Church. 

And the only way out is for individuals to re-examine the assumption Must Church with its sub-implications Must Priest and/or Must Group. 

If it turns-out that - after all - any individual can be a real Christian on his own and without the cooperation of any other person or people, or institutions, or laws - then there is No Fundamental Problem with being a Christian in 2021; or at any other time or in any other circumstance.  

So, if you are one of the Christians who believe they must be part of a church but no church is available; then (while you are waiting for some other people to solve your impasse), you might as well expend some serious time and effort re-examine your assumption that church membership is necessary in order for you to be a Christian. 

And you might start with prayer and meditation on this theme; to see if you can discern what God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost has to say on the matter.

Francis Berger is himself a Roman Catholic - but his most recent post - which is a point by point response to a Bishop's call for Catholics to return to mass - would also apply to Eastern Orthodox and Anglo Catholics. 

It is a very powerful, heart-felt and angry response to his church's response to the birdemic; and what this response tells us about that church. 

(Note: This matter is important even if you are not Catholic - because together, these Catholic denominations, especially RCC and EO - represent by-far the largest group of organized Christians in the world - as of 2019, anyway.) 

Frank's piece covers the fact that the worldwide churches willingly locked their doors and suspended Mass (and other sacraments and duties), for months or more than a year. But/and now are stating that people need to 'come back', to being attending in person (and, presumably, tithing).  

Read the whole thing, and please consider it care-fully. 

What I see in the Bishop's words throughout is managerialism .

I see the works and thinking characteristic of a clever, hard-working, dutiful global bureaucrat; someone who sees himself as a loyal member of the ruling Establishment; someone who (at the bottom line, when the chips are down) says and does... whatever that Establishment requires. 

Of course the Bishop is being hypocritical - but that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is that he is lying; he is deceiving, selecting and manipulating concepts dishonestly and with intent to mislead.   

And this is a problem with all the churches with respect to the birdemic; they have lied, and they have chosen to support lies from the Establishment - and these are specific lies of habitual and systematic liars - those whose major global policies (e.g. climate change, antiracism, sexual revolution) are all Evil Lies. 

In a nutshell; the churches have obviously lied, and have aligned themselves with obvious, observable liars; have not repented their lying; and have (therefore) continued to lie. 

Now, the question my Catholic readers need to ask themselves is whether (as Frank argues) the events of the past 15 months have been a devastating insight into the real nature of their church - a revelation of the real attitudes and beliefs of its actually-existing leadership and bureaucracy... 

Or not. 

And the same - but mutatis mutandis (i.e. not about the Mass, but the equivalently up-to-2020-vital aspect of what their church offers) - applies to those who are members of other churches (Protestant, Mormon and others); churches who willingly closed, whose leaders eagerly supported their own suspension, who often stated officially that health was their first-priority (!), who ceased to provide any real-life help to church members (and insisted that virtual, online 'watching a monitor'-type help was a valid substitute for reality). 

These are testing times; and it seems that most devout, church-going Christians have failed the test spectacularly. 

Yet, many know in their hearts that something fundamental changed when the churches went-along-with the birdemic.

The world has changed - and it is the kind of change that is irrevocable. 

So, whatever people say, and whether or not Roman Catholics (or other Catholics) do obey their church leaders and go 'back to Mass': Mass will never be the same again. 

At the start of the birdemic global coup in March 2020, I predicted that the Christian churches would (intentionally) be extremely hard hit by the lockdowns. The Church of England Bishops ensured maximum harm of their institution, by imposing what I think were the most extreme and irrational set of lockdown rules of any British institution. 

The above data suggests that this combined effort from the UK Government and Bishops was effective, to the tune of increasing the increment of already existing declining church attendance by an extra 25% approximately. 

When I became a Christian shortly before 2009, the Church of England had about a million a week attending church (from a population of around 60 million); and by 2022, without lockdown this would have been expected to have declined to about 810 thousand.

Whereas - thanks to lockdowns, masks, abolished sacraments etc - the actual decline was to 605 thousand. 

So, apparently, the anti-church birdemic measures successfully deleted a couple of hundred thousand church attenders - as if adding about a dozen extra years of decline...

Of course, the rate of decline of the CofE has been so fast anyway, that it is headed for extinction within a generation. 

And this numerical decline does not take into account the fact that most of church attenders in the CofE, as in all the other mainstream self-identified Christian churches, have explicitly taken the anti-Christian side (of global atheistic totalitarian leftism) when it comes to the decisive Litmus Test issues.

Causal trends are established; it is too late for reversal to be possible; and the organization is ruled and staffed (overwhelmingly) by generic politically-radical bureaucrats, whose actions betray very obvious hostility to religion. 

Indeed, we are seeing the unfolding 'karma' deriving from multiple wrong decisions made several decades ago - again, the same pattern and trends are seen across all the churches. 

My conclusion: The future of Christianity in the UK will either be located outside the churches, or else there will be no future. 

It would seem like an obvious insight to recognize that watching a church service on a screen (whether in real time, or delayed) just is not attending or participating in church. 

For catholics there can be no 'real presence' when there is no real bread or wine; for protestants there is no gathering when people are not gathered. 

A church that is virtual is not a church. When there is no church, the church has ceased. When there is no assurance that it will resume; the church has ended. 

This is - more-or-less, substantially - the situation, all over the world. The Christian churches (along with nearly all other churches) have stopped. 

Of course, the bureaucratic structures remain, the personnel are still there, the buildings are still there; but the churches ended last year. 

The birdemic has almost wiped-out church-Christianity - and replaced it with either nothing; or movies of services and social media chat-rooms. 

Will churches return? Maybe, but when there is no acknowledgement that they substantially have-ended; when the leaders and members seem only mildly concerned at the situation; there seems not much likelihood that the organizations will resume activity as churches. 

Christians live in a post-church world. Here. Now... 

Any Christian who regards his church as essential to salvation is not going to be able to remain a Christian; or else he will need to rebuild his church from the ruins (and with mostly new personnel).    

Yet even such a simple, obvious and (surely?) undeniable fact, seems beyond the capacity for insight and thought of modern people. 

The rapidity and eagerness (and virtue signalling) with which leaders of Western churches have responded to the birdemic by ceasing masses, closing churches - by, pretty-much, essentially suspending church - strikes me as (esepcially in the case of the Roman Catholic Church) - shocking; but on further reflection, pretty conclusive evidence confirming what I already believed: that serious Christians are on their own now.

Whatever church members may want or feel - this has been a unilateral abandonment of whatever remained of the traditional, church-led form of Christianity. 

The era in which 'being a good Christian' could be equated, or even approximated, by a life of obedience to church authorities and the practice of church rituals, has passed.


Church leaders have advertised their primarily secular perspective, have advertised that they see themselves as a part of the Establishment with its mainstream materialist priorities - rather than living and giving an example as primarily spiritual people.

In the past, no doubt, the spiritual protestations of church leaders was often hypocritical; but now they see no need even to be hypocritical!

So extreme and ingrained is their Establishment-materialist perspective, that they seem not to have noticed that they have - in effect - declared themselves obsolete, irrelevant along with their institutions.


Anyway - as I said, this is merely confirmation of the reality that modern Christians have a different consciousness than Christians of the past; part of which is that we each know we each have primary responsibility for our Christian life.

Churches - and their leaders - may help or may hinder us; and that is for each one of us to decide.

Christians may choose to affiliate with a church or denomination, or may live more or less outside the avialable churches and denominations; but the individual agency of serious Christians now amounts to a spiritual fact.
 

Kudos to the group of Roman Catholic Cardinals and an Archbishop (with many other signatories) who have produced a statement concerning the birdemic which is exactly what is most needed.

This is solid evidence that real Christianity remains active and effective (if not dominant) within the Roman Catholic Church; and puts to shame the other major Christian denominations who have failed to make similar statements (who have indeed actively colluded-with the global powers of anti-Christian materialism).

Excerpts:

The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the [birdemic], the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good.

We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against [the birdemic], however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry. The rights of God and of the faithful are the supreme law of the Church, which she neither intends to, nor can, abdicate. We ask that restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.

Such a failure of discernment from So Many of those who might - until 2020 - have been regarded as The Best Christians seems to demand explanation. 

How could the devout, church-involved nice-good Christians not notice the totalitarian coup, the evil motivation behind the birdemic and its peck, the actual intent of antiracism/ multiculti/ mass migration, the reality of the climate change agenda?

Such colossal failures invalidate any amount of 'good' stuff; in the same way and for the same reason that a single un-repented sin self-excludes from resurrection and Heaven. 

The failure to know sin leads to no repentance. And enthusiastic embrace and zealous promotion of any of the above evil-motivated ideologies and projects is even worse. 

I think we need to engage in an act of imagination to see what happened, from the perspective of a church-involved, nice-good Christian. And, after all, most Christians have tried to be this at some point, and have admired those who achieved it so much better than we ourselves could manage. 

My understanding is that this failure indicates that their church-discernment was overwhelmingly external and social - and boiled-down to mere obedience to some kind of institution that self-identified as a Christian church. 

This would include those who claimed to 'follow scripture' in their lives; but reveals that they were in truth just following scripture-as-interpreted-by-some-institution. 

Church Christians have sometimes noticed (especially in relation to sex and sexuality) that value/ moral-inversion was now official, and increasingly mandatory (legally and via employers and service providers - evil is the new Good, and vice-versa. 

And some of these that devout church-goers have noticed this is sustained (in part or in whole) by all political parties, bureaucracies and the mass media.  

Yet these same self-identified Christians have enthusiastically and zealously embraced one or all of the agendas of birdemic-peck agenda, climate change, and antiracism/ mass migration - which emanate from exactly the same Establishment source; 'evidence' for which has exactly the same origin; and which form elements of the same ideology of leftism.

I think this is probably due to the way that Christians have come to regard Christian morality as a legalistic, quasi-bureaucratic checklist; imposed-upon naturally evil and self-deceptive individuals from without, and sustained by social mechanisms. 

The individual is regarded as the root of evil; kept in check only by the group. God's inspiration and guidance is seen as coming to the group, and reaching the individual only via the group - at least, when it concerns major and serious matters. 

Individual revelation (from the Holy Ghost) is allowed in some personal matters that aren't covered by explicit rules and regulations; but not for matters of the group: whether that group be global, national, institutional or church group. 

In serious matters, individual revelation and personal discernment is regarded as merely/ always/ necessarily a cloak for self-interest and self-justification of sin. 

The idea that each Man's primary guidance could (let alone should) derive from the divine within each of us (by virtue of our status as Sons of God) and from the direct knowledge of the Holy Ghost - is seen as a snare.

Ultimately, Man's duty is to subordinate himself willingly to A Group - and the only legitimate question is Which Group? (for which specific matter)? 

For devout, church-involved nice-good Christians; individual discernment is a sign of stupidity, mental illness or evil when it conflicts with the group. 

It is literally nonsensical and incomprehensible to such folk that The World including all the major institutions, and the leadership of all major churches - could be wrong; and that some very small proportion of individuals would nonetheless be right. 

For these church Christians, there is no debate, no issue to be addressed; they have decided as a fundamental assumption Not To Trust Themselves; but to surrender their judgment to some or many institutions. 

And because they regard obedience to groups as the only true virtue; the possibility that all groups are evil cannot be allowed even as a possibility; therefore no amount of evidence of evil could ever convince them it was the case.

Following from my previous selection; the following phrases are from a non-public letter - there is no web-link. You will just have to trust me about accuracy; or not. Quotes are in plain text; my interpretative comments and emphasis are in italics:

For many people, the restrictions imposed on the use of church buildings has been of particular concern, and a source of sadness.

 Sadness... Well, of course, the sadness of priests is primary. Laity... not so much. And sadness is, of course, the main thing; not - errr - salvation, or anything of that sort.

The House of Bishops has now agreed that individual diocesan bishops can issue guidance about the first stage of a gradual easing of restrictions on the use of church buildings, whilst keeping our church buildings closed.

Only essential buildings are remaining open in the UK (such as bicycle shops); and the House of Bishops does not regard churches as essential - hence they need to remain closed.

Incumbents and priests in charge, or area deans where there is no incumbent, can in consultation with their churchwardens and bearing in mind their specific location, appoint one person for each church in their benefice to enter that church building...

Other organisations like supermarkets can have plenty of people inside their buildings; but not churches. In churches only an appointed person may enter. Because... well... presumably because of the danger that if two or three are gathered together - something Christian may occur. 

The appointed person should be entering the church building for any or all of the following (i) pray the Daily Office and/or celebrate the Eucharist on behalf of the community they serve, (ii) live stream or pre-record worship, (iii) ring one bell to mark prayers being said or mark events (e.g. Clap for Carers...)

Because the modern Church of England's focus of worship is the National Health Service?

...The church should be near to where the appointed person lives and a visit should generally be part of their daily exercise....

In other words; priests must choose between visiting church and exercise. Other workers are 'allowed' to exercise in addition to travelling to and from work; but not priests.

Only the appointed person (and any of their household) should enter and the door should be locked.

Because it is vital to keep people out of the churches.

Consideration should be given to what cleaning will be needed to make our churches safe (e.g. bat, mice and rat faeces, mould spores, dust, legionella disease in water systems, as well as disinfecting gates and door handles etc). This will need to be done by the appointed person.

The priest may pray the daily office or celebrate Eucharist; but only if there is time left-over after sweeping-up the bat faeces...

When adopting this guidance, our priority must be to act responsibly and safeguard ourselves and other people from infection.

Yes, we understand. The Bishop's priority is this world and not the next, the material and not the spiritual, safety of bodies but indifference to souls. 

We get it. Really, we do.

The age of the Great Apostasy - a rapid, wholesale and self-imposed abandonment of Church Christianity worldwide - has-happened; and the results are currently working-through the lives of every remaining serious and real Christian.   

The astonishing and unprecedented global spiritual catastrophe of 2020 has been ignored by the Christian churches as much as by the masses everywhere; yet it marks - or should mark - a decisive change in what it means to be a Christian.

The lesson of 2020 is that All the different Christian denominations failed to discern the world-wide imposition of a totalitarian (that is, necessarily evil) system of governance; and by failing to discern and reject this reality; the Christian Churches joined-themselves with that demonically-led agenda for the corruption and damnation of Men. 

In a nutshell; 2020 was a decisive battle in the spiritual war of this world; and All the major Christian churches failed to recognize that there was a battle, and thereby surrendered (without fighting) to the powers of evil; and therefore now serve those evil powers. 

It seems that All of the major Christian churches (those large churches - with numbers, power, wealth, influence etc) have joined with one or more of the core agenda-drivers of evil: the birdemic-peck, climate-change, antiracism, sexual revolution, socialism generally... And adopting even just one of these goals is evidently sufficient to tie an institution to the agenda of evil; and ensure its incremental corruption unto complete obedience.  

So individual real Christians have been witness to The Great Apostasy - a truly colossal and world-wide, all-denominational abandonment of Christianity, by far the largest set-back of Christianity in two millennia; yet so deep in corruption are the mass of church-dominated self-identified Christians that they have not even noticed! 

What I find striking is that all the different types of Church Christianity have collapsed - and that none of the principles have sufficed to prevent this. 

The Roman Catholic Church - with its emphasis on priestly authority and the sacraments, its tradition of rigorous theology - especially the Mass; immediately aligned with the evil agenda at the top level and has consolidated this, incrementally and bureaucratically. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church, with its emphasis on tradition, the Church Fathers, asceticism and a life permeated by ritual - likewise took the side of the world government; and willingly closed itself down at their pleasure. 

The 'Bible-based' Protestant Churches; who take Scripture as their primary guide to personal conscience - all suddenly found that Scripture was telling them to comply with any and all dictates of secular government and the media; including dictates that put (their definitions of...) health as the primary human value (transcending any and all spiritual considerations). 

Likewise the Mormon (CJCLDS) Church (a large but mostly 'amateur' institution, with very few full-time pastors; that had developed a membership with high personal standards of obedience to commandments and rigorous adherence to strict rules of living); this very-different Christian church, with its very different theology, nonetheless behaved exactly like the traditional-orthodox Christian institutions in 2020; willingly shut its chapels and temples, and explicitly embraced and expounded the new totalitarianism that made primary the principles of 'health' and antiracism.  

(I realize that there have been individual, personal exceptions who recognized what was happening and continue to fight the spiritual war - and that the exceptions, like the rules, are cross-denominational; coming from many of the variants of Christianity. But not from those already 'liberal' - hence converged - churches. The 'liberal Christians' enthusiastically embraced 2020 evil almost to a Man; having already embraced the principles which justified this evil. And I recognize that a more substantial minority of lower level, non-leadership, lay church members of all denominations have remained faithful to Jesus Christ. But the above point remains. There surely has been an unmistakable abandonment of Christianity of a world-historical scale and suddenness - and made all the worse for being invisible, denied or unacknowledged.)

I could go on - but the fact that the leadership class of four such distinct denominations/ churches, each with such extremely different ideas of 'the Christian life', and each with a very different core and focus to that life; all apostatized almost simultaneously and very completely. 

And this apostasy went beyond mere obedience to a power that was regarded as overwhelming; because there is in these churches an official and enthusiastic embrace of the secular, materialist and anti-Christian principles of the New World Order. In these churches the fluctuating dictates of an evil-motivated totalitarianism have all been made - somehow - a Christian duty!

The rulers and officials of these churches do not merely comply with the secular-Left rules; additionally they praise and celebrate the motivations of the secular-Left rules, and the primacy of living by secular-Left rules - and conversely suppress and discipline those who dissent and push-back against the new regime. 

The first step is to acknowledge what has already happened; the second step it is try and understand its implications; only at the third step can people decide what to do about it. 

This is something that - surely? - all Christians need to do, and ought to be-doing? 

And that fact that they are neither being led nor encouraged to do this; is itself a factor in understanding the present situation of a real Christian who finds-himself in a world where (almost certainly) 'his' church has become an apologist for evil; has enthusiastically joined with the legions of Satan. 

What specifically to do about it will - probably - vary according to the Christian's denominational and church background. 

But in the mean time, all real Christians who have taken the side of God, divine creation and Jesus Christ as against The World; can be united in their recognition of the reality of The Great Apostasy - of this catastrophic loss in the spiritual war of this world. 

All Christians can be joined by their realistic recognition of what has (already) happened, and by their discernment that it has been a great evil. 

I think this has-created a genuine (and new) sense of fellowship among many very-different types of Christians; who might, until recently, instead have regarded each other primarily as heretics and threats. Now, they instead see - first and foremost - comrades in the spiritual war.  

So, in deciding what best to do, starting from here - there will surely be many and distinct ideas among the many types of real Christians; because none of us know what is The Best counter-revolutionary strategy; and the best answer may well differ in different parts of the world, and among different individuals each with an unique context.  

But it is possible, and desirable, that those minority of real Christians who remain Christian after this Great Apostasy, may achieve an unprecedented alliance.

Because the two sides in the spiritual war have since 2020 become clear and distinct. It is now very obvious who is fighting on our side; and who is not. 

And the opposed sides of Good and evil do not, it turns-out, map onto specific Christian denominations or churches. 

 

I've already covered this on the blog - but I don't think everybody understood what I was saying, or maybe thought I was exaggerating; so I'll say it again.

In broad terms, my feeling is that all the major Western Christian churches have revealed themselves as at best lacking sufficient faith to have courage, as universally dishonest, and at worst as unbelieving hypocrites.

All the Western Christian churches - so far as I know. 


For example (and I use this example because the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination, and 'officially' they are solid supernaturalists)...

(...Sorry, I still can't get my head around this one!)

The healing pools at Lourdes have been closed to prevent spread of the birdemic. The healing pools...

If the RCC believed the pools worked, they would not close them (quite the opposite); if they don't believe the pools work, then why is Lourdes just-about the biggest Catholic shrine in the world?


The Christian churches have abandoned and excommunicated Christians (either literally in denying communion, or whatever equivalent is regarded as most significant church provision in non-Catholic denominations).

This is not a speculation about what might happen 'if' - it has already happened; officially, from the leaderships.

There has been, in the space of a few weeks, a clear statement in the form of action, that the self-identified Christian churches don't really believe what they say; and that when the chips are down (as now) they actually believe that speculative, manipulative, evil hype from politicians, media, and pseudo-scientists is More Valid than all the 'Christian stuff' that they spout from the pulpits.

Christians are Now living in a post-church era.


Now I am a Romantic Christian, so I was already living in this era - by choice and by conviction.

I believe that Christianity is primarily between me and God - and that there is a direct and umediated contact between Man and the Divine. I believe that God has not left us bereft of all the guidance we need. Even if we lack valid churches, traditions, scriptures and theology - we will each individually be provided with what we need - if we turn to Jesus for help.

(Not least because we knew Jesus personally, and knew the nature of his mission, in our pre-mortal lives; and will recall this when our decision is needed on whether or not to follow Jeus; recalled whether in this mortal life, or afterwards.)

I believe that any particular church/ churches have a secondary and optional role (sometimes helpful, sometimes useless, sometimes harmful) - we may choose to join or 'use' the resources of a particular church or denomination to help our Christian life; or choose not.

But we choose and the churches job is to serve us; each of us.


Romantic Christianity is now the only game in town for serious Christians. The churches have signalled explicitly and unambiguously that they simply do not believe that they offer anything essential for Christians in a time of crisis and need.

If you are a Christian, then you too live in this post-church world - like it or not. You live in a post-church world even if this is against your wishes and convictions; because you have just been abandoned by your church; and sooner or later you will (if you remain a Christian) be compelled to acknowledge this as a fact.  

I trust I make myself clear?

Note: All of this is conditional - of course; because some churches may yet repent and acknowledge their sins and errors in this matter.

From a Christian perspective; Pope Francis is either an irrelevance, or the single most dangerous and damaging person in the world. 

Which, depends on one's assumptions about what is the best future for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Francis leads the largest Christian denomination, and the only one with a centralised world-leader (the second and third largest - Orthodox and Anglican, have national level leadership). And he is leading them into greater confromity with the Globalist secular (and leftist) agenda. 

Insofar as Roman Catholics are led by Francis; that is their primary, overall direction - towards world government along the lines of The Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030.

Towards a world in which CO2 Climate Change dominates the economy; a world of mass and unrestricted first-world immigration, third-world migrations sustained by core antiracism; of (gradually, with increasinly fast) embracing of the sexual revolution as a positive moral gain; and (as of 2020) the birdemic regarded as a great plague compelling the above restructuring. 

 

In total, Francis's strategy could be seen as based on the assumption that the mass majority of self-identified Roman Catholics (both ordained and lay) are correct in their de facto embrace of the above process of secularisation and liberalisation; and therefore the best way forward is for the Pope and Magisterium, the bishops and priests, to conform to that mass-majority.   

In another phrasing; for Francis the short-term tactical expediency of confroming to the Global socio-political trends is also the best long-term strategy for the RCC survival and thriving. Presumably; Francis sees the best future as one in which the RCC has 'a seat at the table' of the other great movers-and-shakers of the world. 

And indeed that has been happening. Francis personally is certainly given much greater approval, publicity and backing from the mass media and major political actors. 

Presumably the strategy is that this would extend through the hierarchy of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to the laity - who could then lend a Catholic influence to the mainstream. 

But the view of the other, still living - Emeritus - Pope Benedict XVI - is the opposite. 

Benedicts view is that the future of the Roman Catholic Church lies in reforming itself around the most devout of its members - what he called a Creative Minority. 

In other words, Benedict was a kind of elitist - on religious grounds. He apparenty felt that the mass of Roman Catholics were leading the church astray, and into assimilation with secularising socio-political trends. 

 

For Benedict; the way ahead was a tough path; where things got worse before they got better; a path that could only be tackled with considerable faith. 

Because Benedict envisaged, and argued in favour of, a reduction in size of the RCC, a shedding of lax and secular ('corrupted') members - who would, presumably, leave voluntarily when the reformed church demanded from them more, and different, than was compatible with social expedience. 

(And if they were priests who would not join the Creative Minority agenda, they would ultimately need to be expelled from Holy Orders, even against their will; if laity, they would be excommunicated.)

 

So, en route to a future of RCC survival and thriving; for Benedict there must and would be a period of shrinking, contraction - and concentration of members into a coherent and purposive Creative Minority. 

This much smaller, but more devout and correct, RCC would then be a seed for a renewal of growth in the future'; and this future would be one of renewed differentness-from, distinction-from, the secular world. 

I think Benedict saw the best future as a smaller but more-coherent and more-different church; acting as a countervailing power; mostly pushing against the mainstream of dominant socio-political power (such as the bureaucracy, multinational corporations and the mass media). 

Against, that is, the prevalent focus of The World which makes sexuality, healthism, envirnmentalism, race &c - into the prime value-issues of the world. By contrast, Benedict was in favour of maintaining the ancient idea of the Church as a (Holy) City of God; as much as possible distinct from the City of Man - or, indeed, a future unified Megalopolis of Man.   

Thus (by my understanding) the two living Popes have almost exactly opposite strategies from each other. 

And if, as I do, you approve Benedict's strategy; then you cannot (consistently) approve Francis's strategy; and would regard Francis's path as leading - not to church renewal but to church assimilation-into the Global Bureaucracy. 

...Not for the church to be a distinct voice from the tech and finance multi-billionnaires and global media, but to speak with exactly the same voice - at least when it comes to speaking about the core (i.e. socio-political, secular) issues of our time - and making them the tactical priority. 

 

I’m excited. I’ll be honest, it feels good not to be so cynical. I like being hopeful and feeling like the Church is uniting (other than the German bishops, of course.) It’s pretty rare that I get to write pieces about Pope Francis that are hopeful and joyful. I’m taking my opportunity while I can. I’ll say my morning rosary and then head to Mass. I don’t know if a parish near me is having people gather for the consecration or if I’ll watch it on EWTN. I’ve seen this “Joy of the Faith” guy before being interviewed. He’s my mood today. Upbeat. Almost Ned Flanders-ish. I’m hopeful and prayerful today. I should be like this more.

It has become rather obvious that anything pushed as safe today is bound to be dangerous, whereas "dangerous" things may actually prove to be "safe". This applies to Christianity and society. 

Trust is a proximate matter. 

There are those who say they 'trust the science' but what they are proximately doing is trusting the mass media, and government officials. They know nothing of the ultimate that is 'science'.

Indeed, even professional and credentialled 'scientists' are not 'science' - since scientist (for several decades) is just a job; a job in which you are not evaluated by truth-seeking or exact truthfulness; and where all the modern incentives are in the direction of (deniable) exaggeration, hype, spin, selective distortion; money-making ability ('grantmanship'), careerism and conformity to bureaucracy. 

 

Or, if you are a Christian - who actually do you trust? The church in an ultimate sense... yes, but proximately there is massive and deep disagreement between churches, subdivisions of churches, even within your chosen church's sub-division; and between that church now, and in the past... 

And your exposure to any teaching of the past comes via understanding the communications of the present - indeed via a few very specific conduits who are not, themselves, 'the church'.

Reflection will show that you actually-have, your-self, already-chosen from among many various available 'church' possibilities - even as you claim (to yourself, probably to others) that you are 'simply obeying the teachings of the church'.  

And the same applies (mutatis mutandis) to those who shelter behind an assertion of mere-obedience to the authority of tradition, the Bible, theology, or Any Other external authority. 

 

(On top of all this is the - surely undeniable by now? - gross corruption of the churches - their assimilation to the mainstream secular agenda - such as (any one of, because one will suffice to corruopt) birdemic-healthism, antiracism, climate change, the sexual revolution, open-borders mass migration and egalitarianism. Mere obedience to any church that is thus corrupt, and has therefore substantially joined the side of The Enemy, is surely liable to lead to damnation more often than salvation?)

What these times are asking of Christians seems to be an acknowledgment of this actual fact of our personal discernment; demanding we cease to shelter-behind the evasion of personal responsibility that is an assertion of 'obedience' to a 'church' who you, personally, have in fact either selected, or else selectively-accepted.  

Again: To assert passive obedience to an authority which you deny having personally selected, is a dishonest evasion. 

...Hence, it should be needless to say: UnChristian.

It's not about the birdemic... I have found this slogan to be a useful mantra.

Converting the entire developed world to a totalitarian police state in a fortnight isn't about the crow birdemic.

The birdemic is just an excuse - and, indeed, a very inadequate excuse; since the plague of crows is nowhere near severe enough to warrant any kind of mega-reaction in The West - let alone the actual reaction.


Reasons for knowing the fakeness of the birdemic

1. Numbers of international deaths too small by c.1000-fold to assume that this is a dangerous birdemic - European deaths are even less, proportionately.

2. Severely affecting and killing almost exclusively the very-old and/or already-sick - just like dozens of other Upper Respiratory Tract Infections. Apparently, zero people under age fifty have died in Europe thus far (and very few in China - and these may have had other medical conditions).

3. Severe effect is mainly seen among East Asian ethnicity, much less or not at all among Europeans. The mortality rates among the young seem much higher for China and S. Korea than in Italy - and mortality in the Italian national population may well have been disporportionately among the large East Asian immigrant/ migrant population - but these numbers are being withheld.


So the birdemic crisis is fake. Why then do we have a crisis?

Because of the response; which is not fake, and indeed amounts to the very-rapid and universal imposition of a bureaucratic totalitarian police state; run (because such are the people involved) on atheistic, leftist, anti-Christian lines.

Since the epidemic is fake, there is little reason to assume the new 'special powers' will be revoked; and at the least they will be claimed to have saved The West from imminent mass death.


Why do I infer the response is fake? 

1. The response is unlike the response to any previous crisis ever - there is no track record for its success; there is zero reason to suppose it will be more effective than other responses in the past (which fell short of a totalitarian coup).

2. The response is, indeed, precisely the same as was being asked for by the Climate Change/ Extinction Rebellion cartel of the Global Establishment: in other words omni-surveillance and micro-control of the population of The West - eventually The World; plus collapsing the world economy and international trade.

3. The response is destructive of the primary basis of survival of the world population - the 'Industrial Revolution' etc. - the international system of specialisation and trading which has increased the world population from c.1 billion in 1800 to c.7 billion now. This means that the Global Establishment are risking the death of billions of people (of all ages and health), in order to try and save thousands (almost all old and unhealthy).


Implications

We can't, as individuals, do anything to stop or ameliorate the Big Picture. But what we need to do is interpret the crisis spiritually.

The crisis is real, and it is a spiritual crisis.

It is, indeed, a spiritual battle, an example of Unseen Warfare. Specifically there has been a successful coup by the powers of evil.


This has already happened, it is too late to prevent. But it is vital to recognise that this is indeed What Has Happened.

It's not about the birdemic; it's a socio-political takeover by the powers of evil.

And most people in The West support this takeover - fanatically so! One aspect of the crisis is that things have come to a point; and nearly everybody has-taken sides; and the side that nearly everybody has taken is that of the evil (demonic) powers.

Having recognised what has happened, and that we are in a tiny minority; serious Christians need simply to continue as usual.

To continue (that is) to recognise this life - your and my actual lives - as tailred for our spiritual learning ('theosis'); and to recognise death as a portal to eternal life in Heaven for those who choose to follow Jesus.


And having said that; many Christians will find themselves pretty much alone, spiritually; and will need to develop their own resources to survive and thrive in a condition of Faith, Hope and Love.

That will be a big challenge because it is new territory, a novel situation for Christians who have been accustomed to regard themselves as primarily part of a church.

Many people will find that they are in a situation in which either they are an autonomous 'solo Christian'; or they will soon be no Christian at all.

That will be another 'coming to a point'.