tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post6493955958307072763..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: Ten stations on my way to Christian pacifismBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73041126436389937972011-08-15T23:05:01.144-04:002011-08-15T23:05:01.144-04:00Great stuff, Kim. Thank you.I think it's worth...Great stuff, Kim. Thank you.<br><br>I think it's worth re-thinking your assessment that the Lutheran two-kingdom model is a compromise, though. The misunderstanding, if there is one, comes possibly from our tendency to confuse it with Augustine's "city of man/god" model, which is dualistic.<br><br>In my mind, both the Lutheran and Reformed tradition understand both the sacred and the secular to be under one sovereign lord. The difference is often one of emphasis, with the Reformed coming off a bit triumphalistic.CJDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-31711094085879954442011-08-15T23:05:00.474-04:002011-08-15T23:05:00.474-04:00Actually, I think Luther radicalized and deepened ...Actually, I think Luther radicalized and deepened the dualism of Augustine's City of God/Man division. Yes, Luther saw God as sovereign over both "kingdoms," but he saw the state as ruled by an entirely different ethic from the church--and argued that a Christian could commit to both. Thus, in an infamous example, a Christian executioner could not commit private revenge, but should rejoice in being honored to meet out death for the state. The standards of the Sermon on the Mount were only for individual ethics.<br> Now, Calvin had his own way of defusing the radical nature of the Sermon (making all about interior attitudes), but at least the Reformed tradition rejected two kingdoms thinking. Is the Reformed tradition triumphalist? Sometimes. Max Stackhouse found 3 forms of Calvinism within the tradition vis-a-vis the "cultural mandate." 1) Imperialist or Triumphalist Calvinists who are often theocrats. They are to be feared and kept from power or influence. 2)"Evangelical" Calvinists (Stackhouse's term; I would say "Pietist" Calvinists) who concentrate solely on "spiritual matters." 3)Democratic Calvinists--those who imbibed deeply from the Covenant tradition that began with Bullinger. Kim's form of pacifism, it seems to me, comes from this last strand--the strand which created the URC in England, along with the Congregationalists.Michael Westmoreland-Whitehttp://levellers.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9494075746975790842008-08-28T13:38:00.000-04:002008-08-28T13:38:00.000-04:00Note that I've finally responded to this post over...Note that I've finally responded to this post over at <A HREF="http://growinggrace-full.blogspot.com/2008/08/peace-its-whats-for-dinner-in-both.html" REL="nofollow"> Growing Grace-full</A>, Kim.<BR/><BR/>I wonder, even if it isn't as finely tuned as Pannenberg, if it nonetheless will cause a little hesitation with respect to the two-kingdoms model?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-1733092487765991732008-04-23T20:22:00.000-04:002008-04-23T20:22:00.000-04:00Hi great post, I just have some 2 cents to throw i...Hi great post, I just have some 2 cents to throw in, if I may ;)<BR/><BR/>I am interested in the policing/military aspect that was mentioned. My current understanding is that all Christians must not engage in [violent] policing (formed around 1700s AD I think) nor a [violent] military role (as well as, not being able to become a magistrate with the power of the sword - as in the early church), as it is against our Messiah's teaching. A famous example would be St Martin de Tours, and how he handled his situation, i.e. he would gladly go on the battlefield with no armour/weapons, but only with prayer and the gospel.<BR/><BR/>But some were asking, what about UN, etc. Wouldn't it just mean that the non-Christians can join if they want, we have no way to compel them not to join, without preaching the Gospel first? If our society was made up of only Christians, then we could form a community policing function as described by M.Gandhi [and the "Tinkers" in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time;)], where the people would use no violence, but offer there lives/bodies for the kingdom and in defense of others etc. Or perhaps, societies should have a separate non-violent role of Christians in the police force, but it would take alot of courage to knowingly face death without a recourse of violence, and to only rely on God, and love.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the type of government in place, whether democratic, communist, despotism, anarchist, we are not allowed to violently rebel, and are to obey God rather than man... I am starting to believe that Christians truly shine under persecution, and unrepentant nations/powers/systems crumble when they choose to attack God's people, as the Lord hears our prayers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-76878510081049693112007-09-05T22:20:00.000-04:002007-09-05T22:20:00.000-04:00It's worth posting more of Luther's own words (fro...It's worth posting more of Luther's own words (from <I>On Keeping Children in School</I>): "Beyond that, however, he [that is, the pastor] does great and mighty works for the world. He informs and instructs the various estates on how they are to conduct themselves outwardly in their several offices and estates, so that they may do what is right in the sight of God. …To tell the truth, peace, the greatest of earthly goods, in which all other temporal goods are comprised is really a fruit of true preaching. For where the preaching is right, there war and discord and bloodshed do not come; but where the preaching is not right, it is no wonder that there is war, or at least constant unrest and a desire to fight and shed blood."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-32453033529079167152007-09-04T16:45:00.000-04:002007-09-04T16:45:00.000-04:00Lutheran pacifism, rightly understood as an outcro...Lutheran pacifism, rightly understood as an outcropping of the non-dualistic two-kingdoms model, centers on this fundamental point (from Luther's <I>On Christian Freedom</I>): "In all his works [the Christian] ought to entertain this view and look only to this object—that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbor." <BR/><BR/>This, arguably, puts duty to fellow humans before any other secular duty—even the obligation to one's country. It may be that pacifism is only implicit in Lutheran theology during the Reformation, but it nevertheless seems to be well-founded upon the non-dualistic two-kingdoms model. The model emphatically does not necessitate playing the part of executioner or soldier. It, in fact, necessitates always carrying one's Christian faith everywhere, which frees the Christian up for positive ethical involvement (like pacifism) in the world, something missed by a great many others—including "democratic" Reformed types—who'd rather promulgate "christendom" (an oxymoron both in Lutheran and apostolic terms) than confront it with the ethics of the kingdom, the already/not yet, the paradox.<BR/><BR/>Note too, that Lutherans confess The Augsburg Confession, which, as a point of fact, is not a summation of Martin Luther's idiosyncratic theological views, but the collective wisdom of the protesting churchmen of the German countryside.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-66654859987689887652007-09-04T16:22:00.000-04:002007-09-04T16:22:00.000-04:00Lutherans may dispute this. I will ask for some fe...Lutherans may dispute this. I will ask for some feedback from my friend Glen Gersmehl of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship. But my reading of Luther is that princes have a different ethic than that of other Christians. Luther told the prince that his duty was to use military force in enforcing law and order--NOT to turn the other cheek or follow the Sermon on the Mount.<BR/> Luther's 2 Kingdoms ethic specifically restricted the Sermon on the Mount to individual ethics. That seems to preclude pacifism. So did the way that Luther told Christians to act by a different ethic in public life--and his favorite example was a Christian executioner (!) who was to love his enemies and practice forgiveness in his private life, but to act without mercy in his professional life.<BR/> Lutheran pacifists, it seems to me, have to say that Luther was wrong about some things. This seems easier for some of us in other traditions. Mennonites have little trouble criticizing Menno's weird theology of the Virgin Birth. Baptists, having no one founder, don't feel they have to agree with everything John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams or any other early leader supported.<BR/> But, it seems to me, that traditions that are dominated by one major founder, sometimes feel obligated to hold to everything the founder believed--even if the founder was adamant that Scripture was more authoritative (as Luther was so adamant).<BR/> Were there Lutheran pacifists before Bonhoeffer's critique of 2 kingdoms thinking? I don't know. But I doubt there were any before the Pietist movement of the 18th C. Opinions vary greatly among Lutherans and others as to whether Pietists were orthodox.<BR/> Lutheran Confessions, and many Reformed confessions, too, often made the rejection of pacifism (the "error of the Anabaptists") and the embrace of Just War Theory as a creedal matter. <BR/> Again, I will contact friends with the Lutheran Peace Fellowship (the only Lutheran pacifists I know) and see what take they have on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-71000406440080939162007-09-03T00:15:00.000-04:002007-09-03T00:15:00.000-04:00Among the French Lutherans that have settled near ...Among the French Lutherans that have settled near the outskirts of Nantes, there is a rich liturgical rite known as 'peace dancing' or 'peace skipping'. However, I am not sure if this has been influenced by the pacifism of the Anabaptists.<BR/><BR/>Does anybody know if there are any conservative and orthodox Lutheran pacifists out there? I am specifically thinking of the Lutheran Church in Australia or the various conservative bodies in the United States.<BR/><BR/>To Michael Westmoreland-White, don't you underestimate Luther's Christian ethic by reducing it to individualism. Would this be anachronistic, a view more formed by modern liberal politics? <BR/><BR/>(no, I don't mean "liberal" in the contemporary "liberal vs conservative" such as witnessed on American news TV shows)<BR/><BR/>Dind't Luther speak of paying love to princes which rule the public sphere? Dind't he say that even princes should obey law?<BR/><BR/>Could the case be made that the Prussion Union between the Reformed and the Lutherans was a case of ecclesiastical violence?<BR/><BR/>I eagerly await your kind reply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-74724843599128857652007-09-02T18:42:00.000-04:002007-09-02T18:42:00.000-04:00I, like many Christians, dismissed Pacifism withou...I, like many Christians, dismissed Pacifism without much thought until I went to a Christian college that had an Anabaptist foundation and was challenged by it. So many people I talk to seem to equate Pacifism with being passive and not doing anything. While true of some, I've have known quite a few active Pacifists doing their part to change the world. I wish more people would listen to the Pacifist point of view and take it seriously. There are some good questions being asked...Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11607498252631868850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-31475642181793891092007-08-31T12:49:00.000-04:002007-08-31T12:49:00.000-04:00Actually, I think Luther radicalized and deepened ...Actually, I think Luther radicalized and deepened the dualism of Augustine's City of God/Man division. Yes, Luther saw God as sovereign over both "kingdoms," but he saw the state as ruled by an entirely different ethic from the church--and argued that a Christian could commit to both. Thus, in an infamous example, a Christian executioner could not commit private revenge, but should rejoice in being honored to meet out death for the state. The standards of the Sermon on the Mount were only for individual ethics.<BR/> Now, Calvin had his own way of defusing the radical nature of the Sermon (making all about interior attitudes), but at least the Reformed tradition rejected two kingdoms thinking. Is the Reformed tradition triumphalist? Sometimes. Max Stackhouse found 3 forms of Calvinism within the tradition vis-a-vis the "cultural mandate." 1) Imperialist or Triumphalist Calvinists who are often theocrats. They are to be feared and kept from power or influence. 2)"Evangelical" Calvinists (Stackhouse's term; I would say "Pietist" Calvinists) who concentrate solely on "spiritual matters." 3)Democratic Calvinists--those who imbibed deeply from the Covenant tradition that began with Bullinger. Kim's form of pacifism, it seems to me, comes from this last strand--the strand which created the URC in England, along with the Congregationalists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-26238783081585141522007-08-30T14:50:00.000-04:002007-08-30T14:50:00.000-04:00Great stuff, Kim. Thank you.I think it's worth re-...Great stuff, Kim. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I think it's worth re-thinking your assessment that the Lutheran two-kingdom model is a compromise, though. The misunderstanding, if there is one, comes possibly from our tendency to confuse it with Augustine's "city of man/god" model, which is dualistic.<BR/><BR/>In my mind, both the Lutheran and Reformed tradition understand both the sacred and the secular to be under one sovereign lord. The difference is often one of emphasis, with the Reformed coming off a bit triumphalistic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006685610827238652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-77566397931136733392007-08-30T03:04:00.000-04:002007-08-30T03:04:00.000-04:00Hi E.E.What if the people don't listen to the chur...Hi E.E.<BR/><BR/>What if the people don't listen to the church? And what if the people do listen to the church, but the state doesn't listen to the people?<BR/><BR/>To cut to the chase, what if the state acts unjustly, let alone demonically? Does the church do nothing, as otherwise it would be a co-mingling of the kingdoms? Or do Christians not engage in protest, acts of civil disobedience, and other forms of nonviolent active resistance?<BR/><BR/>"No co-mingling of the kingdoms" - isn't this precisely the kind of "thinking in two spheres" that the theologically aghast Lutheran Bonhoeffer so emphatically rejected?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-49854424657922649502007-08-30T02:43:00.000-04:002007-08-30T02:43:00.000-04:00Norman Geisler's new book 'Love Your Neighbor: Thi...Norman Geisler's new book 'Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely Abour Right and Wrong' contains a great, balanced chapter on war and the biblical position on a just war. Non-partisan yet straightforward and biblical it is challenging and will make you view the current war (and all wars for that matter) in a new light. <BR/><BR/>Check out the book:<BR/><BR/>http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850299900001436137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-81780314391143307452007-08-29T17:34:00.000-04:002007-08-29T17:34:00.000-04:00Michael wrote, "Should Christians be in the busine...Michael wrote, <I>"Should Christians be in the business of making secular political systems work? Should we compromise our ethics to do so?"</I><BR/><BR/>Yes to the first and no to the second.<BR/><BR/>Here a famous Lutheran prnciple for the social sphere very aptly applies:<BR/><BR/><B>The people should listen to the church, the state should listen to the people</B>. (Gustave Eibeling Derisen, <I>LUTHERISCHE THEOLOGIE IST FUR DIE WELT GUT - vol 2</I>)<BR/><BR/>Here there is no co-mingling of the kingdoms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-52798832323284484222007-08-29T16:21:00.000-04:002007-08-29T16:21:00.000-04:00Well, John, it may be that secular Franciscans wer...Well, John, it may be that secular Franciscans were part of the reason for the downfall of feudalism. Gibbon infamously blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on pacifist Christians. The question that comes to mind is, "Should Christians be in the business of making secular political systems work? Should we compromise our ethics to do so?"<BR/><BR/>Jonathan, 2 things: 1) I do not hold military members in contempt. Not only was I once a soldier and come from a long line of soldiers and sailors on both sides of my family, but I am always trying to get faith-based peace groups to partner with groups like Veterans for Peace. I think the real contempt is shown by civilian governmental leaders who recklessly send the military into wars of choice--and then give better vehicle and body armor to civilian mercenary companies, cut the hazzard and combat pay to the troops, etc.<BR/><BR/>2) I do not think that the military creates our political opportunities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-75246873801683146192007-08-29T11:04:00.000-04:002007-08-29T11:04:00.000-04:00Coincidentally, in the near future I'm hoping to b...Coincidentally, in the near future I'm hoping to begin the process of becoming a Secular Franciscan. So I was recently reading Francis's original Rule for the laity, which was written in 1221. <BR/><BR/>It says:<BR/><BR/>Chapter 5, 16. They are not to take up lethal weapons, or bear them about, against anybody. <BR/><BR/>Because of Francis's Rule, the feudal system began to crumble. It became so popular with the laity, that nobody wanted to take up arms and fight for their Lords<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>John McBrydeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-49401602081419327742007-08-29T07:40:00.000-04:002007-08-29T07:40:00.000-04:00"It is no easier to be a little bit pacifist than ..."It is no easier to be a little bit pacifist than to be a little bit pregnant." (Hauerwas, "A Church Capable...").scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07363699655835684168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-57910721723792390142007-08-29T07:09:00.000-04:002007-08-29T07:09:00.000-04:00Hi Michael and Kim,I admire Christian pacifists fo...Hi Michael and Kim,<BR/><BR/>I admire Christian pacifists for their courage, vision, faithfulness and example. I also think that Western democracies provide a wonderful opportunity for political activism that pacifists, in partnership with other lovers of peace, will put to good use. I see a danger that Christian pacifism may encourage contempt for the very people (and soldiers are people, not rats) who help to create that opportunity. But I know you will avoid that danger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-9616332887992472302007-08-28T18:46:00.000-04:002007-08-28T18:46:00.000-04:00Regarding Lutheranism, I appreciate certain sides ...Regarding Lutheranism, I appreciate certain sides of the ELCA and I also appreciate Bonhoeffer.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I'm not sure I would consider either of them to practice fidelity to Lutheranism as it is known by its confession. (Perhaps the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod would better fit this bill? I don't know.)<BR/><BR/>So, is there anything in Lutheran orthodoxy that would prevent one from being a pacifist? Two-kingdom?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-19638719447214814552007-08-28T13:20:00.000-04:002007-08-28T13:20:00.000-04:00Yes, and as one who became a conscientious objecto...Yes, and as one who became a conscientious objector while serving in the U.S. army, I think I was "getting real" when I got out to follow the unarmed Jesus. Armies cannot be immediately disinvented, but the churches can create models for the Powers to follow. Once the only hospitals were run by the Church and churches. Now, except in the U.S., governments know how to provide healthcare.<BR/> Once, education was a church matter, and the first universities grew out of monasteries. <BR/> Now, we can pioneer nonviolent methods of defense and intervention that governments can see and, possibly, adapt. In 1983 and 1984, I risked my life more than I ever did in the army by joining with other unarmed civilians in going into a war zone to stop a war--the war zone was Nicaragua, and these trips were the beginning of Witness for Peace.<BR/><BR/>Christian Peacemaker Teams, Nonviolent Peaceforce and other pioneers of nonviolent third party intervention show what may be accomplished in one day replacing armies.<BR/><BR/>If the church is to be NOW what the world will become (Yoder), then such risky pioneering efforts are our calling as disciples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-65146804712584424512007-08-28T12:46:00.000-04:002007-08-28T12:46:00.000-04:00Hi aka jtm,You say, "Get Real!" I agree. That's ...Hi aka jtm,<BR/><BR/>You say, "Get Real!" I agree. That's exactly what Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-8432835705377636482007-08-28T08:59:00.000-04:002007-08-28T08:59:00.000-04:00You people are living in a dream world. A reconsti...You people are living in a dream world. A reconstituted UN? Hah, don't hold your breath! What makes you think they'll be any different from all the other power mongers who've bestrode the face of history. Pacifism is an ideology for the pampered sitting in their pantries. Talk is cheap, when no one is raping your wives and daughters and then shooting them in the back of the head. Or dragging your families and countrymen off to death camps, before dumping them into mass graves.<BR/><BR/>Do you actually think that those who perpetrate such atrocities are just going to lay down their arms whenever your so called "police force" show up? <BR/><BR/>Of course they're not! And when they don't, you know what you've got? A war, sanctioned by you.<BR/><BR/>Get Real!<BR/><BR/>The Devil's Advocate (aka jtm);-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-58457005016408482022007-08-28T07:06:00.000-04:002007-08-28T07:06:00.000-04:00Hi Kim,I misunderstood you. When you wrote that ar...Hi Kim,<BR/><BR/>I misunderstood you. When you wrote that armies cannot be immediately disinvented, I assumed you had in mind the consequences to any regime that suddenly and unilaterally disbanded its armed forces. I'd expect such a regime to be overthrown, sooner or later. Wouldn't you? I'd be too scared to vote for a political candidate with such a policy. And that acid test shows that the dirty work of the military is for me.<BR/><BR/>I agree that Christians should long for global disarmament, and work to bring it about. But I'm not convinced that we could even find the political space to carry out that work without according a role, for a time, to the military.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-28688996314692639882007-08-28T06:55:00.000-04:002007-08-28T06:55:00.000-04:00Thanks Kim for another great post. I hope to refer...Thanks Kim for another great post. I hope to reference it in an upcoming seminar I am preparing on God and violence. <BR/>Robert Jenson has a wonderful quote about peace which you might know:<BR/><BR/>…All humans hope for something that may be called peace. But most societies have interpreted peace as the success of violence – in the ideology of Western states, as a “security” to be established by “defence”. Just so the hope for peace becomes itself the constant occasion of conflict. The gospel promises the actual advent of peace and invites us to its anticipation in the Eucharist. The gospel makes peace a possibility by telling us that we do not have to defend ourselves, by telling us that our lives are hid with God in Christ. Just so, the gospel interprets peace as what Christ brings, as the fruit of his self-surrender. <BR/><BR/>Robert Jenson in Systematic Theology II, p. 210Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-60077480173327640202007-08-28T06:36:00.000-04:002007-08-28T06:36:00.000-04:00Lee, the realised Christian position is one of...Lee,<BR/> the realised Christian position is one of Anarchy but as Jaques Ellul defines it, the reality of course is Christ stated the terms necessary to be his disciple and it includes 'forsaking all' which is why from time to time you would have those mnovements of people literally doing so, because unless you are completely rootless then in some measure responsibility stains the hands with that blood shed to maintain the nation's economic position. Zizek in the Puppet and the Dwarf highlights the sincere dissimulation of those liberal professors who demand the impossible knowing no national government could possibly grant such demands but of course they are then allowed their sense of moral superiority. Pacifism is only possible when someone else does the beating for you, Kim of course recognises such when he acknowledges the need for a Police Force and Edward Norton in American History X actually provides the best explanation of why we desire they are a Force and not a Service. Of course any who haven't enjoyed a 'priveledged' upbringing will cavil (O what a delicious word) at any form of authority knowing it for what it is merely the tool of oppression guarding the treasure house of one's insipid masters. John Bland's online essay 'Men who would be Kings' highlights the truth that we are responsible for our servitude because we truly fear freedom and thus will insist on making some poor sod the boss. Where the argument gets silly is when people refer back to WW11 to justify the use of an armed response as if for a slave - and any who have to work for a living are slaves - it makes a damn bit of difference who the master is. <BR/> Revelation insists that to serve the economic and power totality of the day is to effectively refuse the seal of Christ but we likes our comforts so we'd rather pay our tithes and have some very clever chaps explain why this is godly indeed; as Barth insists 'the problem of culture is the problem of humanity' and when something is inescapable what can we do but have a thorough critique with our tea and cream cakes.<BR/> 'The ontology of productive Becoming clearly leads to the Leftist topic of the self organisation of the multitude of molecular groups that resist and undermine the molar, totalising systems of power - the old notion of the spontaneous non-hierarchical, living multitude opposing the oppressive reified System' (Zizek Organs without Bodies) sounds like a good church don't you thinkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com