I have been publicly a Christian for not much more than five years - although it feels much longer.
It feels like time has slowed-up in the same way that parents' memories of the first five years of their first born child is slowed-up - so much happens in such a concentrated way, that subjectively it represents a much bigger proportion of my life.
Many things have changed and many things continue to change - and one of them is the decline of optimism in the growth of Christian alliances.
I used to have a simple vision of the power of Christians taking-sides: in particular of ceasing to support groups with evil intentions, and of starting to support those with good intentions - of tipping the balance of influence in that fashion.
But I had underestimated the degree to which almost all groups, and all large and powerful groups, in the developed-world have been first subverted then incrementally-demolished by their leaders (from the top downwards) - and since all hopes of group alliances depend on cooperation between leaders, the taking of sides has gone in the opposite direction from that which I hoped.
Christian alliance-building, such as the 'ecumenical' movement, has in practice been a matter of apostates and anti-Christian leaders joining together to demolish the faith of their flocks - using alliance building as an excuse.
Their idea of Christian cooperation is one in which everybody's faith has become so weak and superficial that there is no reason remaining why all self-identified "Christians" cannot join hands and march forward together in implementing the projects of something very much like international socialism.
Christianity is NOT the opposite of secular Leftism - that would be the reaction against Leftism and something more like (secular) fascism - but secular Leftism IS the opposite of Christianity in an Antichrist way: Leftism dishonestly mimics some features of Christianity - e.g. tactically pretends to love, truth, humility, meaning and purpose - but in practice is destructive.
Tactically and temporarily the Left allies with anybody who can provide (temporary) grounds for its work of destruction. The Left used to ally with native male proletarians, it used to ally with Christian socialists of the Anglo Catholic type (who then dominated the Church of England when Britain was a world power), it used to have Israel and China as their international poster children. But all these are now hate groups for the Left.
In recent times the Left allies with pacifists when pacifism used to have the greatest potential for destruction of Christianity - for example during the Vietnam war when Leftists temporarily linked pacifism with the sexual revolution.
In a nutshell, the Left are doves when the cause is good (or pro-God), and hawks when the cause is bad, futile or just plain incomprehensible
But Leftists also support new 'random' (i.e. seemingly unmotivated, wasteful and futile, anti-self-interested) acts of military aggression and support of rebellion when that seems more destructive (e.g. for the past few years and currently in the Middle East 'spring' revolutions, the one certain result of which has been the near-total elimination of Christianity in that region).
And the Left's latest anti-pacifist aggressive agitation is related to the Ukraine, where they sense vast possibilities of destructive consequences with near zero chance of benefit.
So the Left is willing to ally with anybody, for a while, in order to implement whatever destructive possibilities seem most urgent and fruitful - and this includes even supposedly-Christian leaders such as Pope Francis and the current and previous Archbishops of Canterbury, and Reformed Jewish Rabbis.
Christian alliances, on the other hand, are continually blocked and subverted by their leadership - who are a fifth column within.
So far as I can see, real Christians are mostly on their own - in worldly terms.
If they join one of the non-corrupt denominations which have Christian (rather than Leftist) leaders, they will often find that denomination to be small and weak - capable of great good in a small way but in no wise capable of turning the tide of Leftism.
This does not change Christian strategy. I think we still must seek alliances with those who are working for good, and (as far as possible) stop supporting strategic evil.
But good tending initiatives will often be at the personal and individual level, or in small and self-selected groups; and autonomous from official and leadership-driven changes.
This means that 'judgmentalism' is absolutely vital to the modern Christian.
Christians cannot allow themselves systematically to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to organizations and leaders who are very likely working for the destruction of Christianity and all Good. Instead Christians must use all their powers of discernment to detect evil intentions, especially when these are concealed behind fair words, smiling faces and acts of manipulative kindness.
(Most of the servants of strategic evil are consciously unaware of their tendency - for most of the time, anyway; they believe themselves to be 'on the side of the angels' while operating under orders from demons. They are quite happy, for the time being, to be 85 percent in service to Good; so long as the 15 percent of destructive evil has a greater pay-off and ratchets the world towards even greater destruction - the sexual revolution (aka sexual 'liberation') being the major conduit for strategic destruction.)
I think Christians must be absolutely explicit, in their own minds and among themselves, about the identity of strategic evil, and that this is the majority dominant tendency in the world.
Active resistance may be impossible. Passive resistance may be the only option - and (lacking a leadership) this must generally be at the individual level.
In so far as is possible, probably in multiple tiny ways, Christians need to withdraw all possible forms of support from strategic evil - labour, funding, rhetoric, approving nods of the head... Refusing funding/ subsidy/ subversive control, declining to participate in evil-tending activities, not putting significant amounts of money into the collection tins of evil-tending charities.
(i.e. most of them. Ask yourself - is any charity actively supported - nay, rammed down your throat! - by the BBC, or the NYT, or any major media organization likely to have an overall tendency to promote good, or evil?)
Do individual acts of allocation of support/ withdrawal of support make any difference?
Apparently yes - otherwise individuals would not be harassed and persecuted for doing them.
But how could such microscopic things ever be known about or ever have the slightest benefit?
Easy - we are engaged not in a worldly battle but spiritual warfare.
Whereas worldly powers may not detect micro-behaviours; spiritual powers (powers of evil, as well as good) can and do detect pretty much everything that happens - and perceive covert causal links and tendencies which we cannot detect.
Micro-alliances and micro-allocations are noticed, are known, and have an effect in the spiritual realm - for good or for ill.