I doubt the very existence of that idea ('church would remain non-political'). GOC has never been non-political. I don't think they know how to function without political actorness

It depends how you define a crisis.

7/ Where else is religion transforming?
Migration. Immigrant faith isn’t just about survival. It’s innovation. Think: Thai Buddhist women in Norway or Georgian Orthodox women in Italy. They’re not anomalies. They’re models of how religion actually works. Read more on the link!

6/ We assumed secular platforms were neutral. They’re not.
Algorithms shape spiritual journeys. Platforms don’t just distribute religion—they’re becoming religious spaces themselves. We’re only starting to grasp what that means.

5/ And in stranger corners of the internet, we find a new kind of preacher: Enter Andrew Tate, and the rise of “political male wellness influencers.” They blend masculinity, theology, algorithms, and grievance.
It’s not just content. It’s a new kind of digital religion.

4/ What’s blowing up old theories fastest? 👉 Digital religion. Research shows Gen Z Muslims creating augmented faith experiences online—not replacing their religion but amplifying it.

3/ Religious people aren't withdrawing—they're reading the room. They know when to speak religiously and when to code-switch. This isn’t weak faith—it’s social intelligence.
Maybe secularization theory has been asking the wrong question all along.

2/ We’ve long assumed religion was something you could contain—in private life, church buildings, or personal beliefs.

But new research shows religion doesn’t stay put. It flows, shifts, and adapts—not by fading, but by becoming smarter.

Research unpacks:
1. Theological reframing of sovereignty: How ecclesiastical claims to authority transcend territorial borders;
2. Operationalization into politics: Mechanisms translating doctrinal positions into policy advocacy (e.g., migration, human rights, diaspora engagement).

Update: Bachiashvili was arrested
www.rferl.org/amp/bidzina-...

Putin's nostalgia - in his own words on numerous occasions - for the Soviet Union is not an explanatory factor which I find both bizarre and pathetic at the same time

13/ The article ultimately offers a sobering implication: explaining strategic motives is not the same as excusing aggression, but ignoring them may hinder both deterrence and diplomacy.

12/ But how do we distinguish between defensive “windows of vulnerability” and opportunistic wars of conquest cloaked in security language?

11/ Further, “strategic empathy” becomes a retroactive justification: the West should have understood Russia’s fears even if those fears were exaggerated, aggressive, or manipulative.

10/ This makes the analysis circular: the case doesn’t test the theory; the theory frames the case. Alternative motives (imperial nostalgia, domestic legitimation, ideology) are waved off, not refuted. Why so?

9/ The article’s strength—coherent theory + lots of data—is also its weakness. It assumes the preventive war theory is valid and uses it to interpret the facts.