Lately, I have been pondering, and frankly a bit concerned, with the idea of acting within the perceived confines of morality. Perceived, because this applies to all ostensible morality in both that which I am an advocate for and that which I am opposed to. However, I began to question even my intentions as I was unsure if I was being coerced into a post-millennial ecclesiology. I have been somewhat delving into Christo-anarcho-primitivism and have a continuing love affair with both liberation theologies and non-violent theologies (though I am starting to feel as though we should shift the language to anti-violent, as anti-violent precludes a sense of ambiguity toward violence, one that non-violent does not) and was questioning the validity of the altruism in either, though that is not to say that it is actually there. However, I have come to the conclusion that I am not a closet post-millennialist. I have come to the conclusion that either theology is not attempting to recreate, re-imagine, reestablish or influence the coming of the kingdom of God. Rather, they are trying to very simply establish a orthopraxic ecclesiology that mirrors the life of Christ, not to usher in the return of Christ or to establish a utopia for the sake of perfection manifesting itself in the world but for the sake of following the teachings of Christ, for the sake of doing what is virtuous and right. These are the things we should strive for. Not producing a world void of failure and darkness but living personally and intimately the way that Christ lived. There is a grave distinction that must be made here. One applies to an enforcement upon others and one applies to the personal decision to follow Christ. Let us choose the later.