Christian Anarchism

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It seems like Christian anarchism is more of a Christian philosophy that focuses on the defiance of the want of power, whether it be political, social, or personal.

Imo it's being above the law only if one is in the law of the Spirit. A cop can pull a person over for driving above the speed limit but that law doesn't apply to birds or balloons or those things that are not placed within that law. So it is with those who claim miracles in their lives, however small, they see the manifestation of the law of the Spirit working in their lives. They also are working within their own set of laws.

Christian Anarchy as a religion is imo just another organization that is an oxymoran to the term they are using tho.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Imo it's being above the law only if one is in the law of the Spirit. A cop can pull a person over for driving above the speed limit but that law doesn't apply to birds or balloons or those things that are not placed within that law. So it is with those who claim miracles in their lives, however small, they see the manifestation of the law of the Spirit working in their lives. They also are working within their own set of laws.

Christian Anarchy as a religion is imo just another organization that is an oxymoran to the term they are using tho.

Rephrase~ you are subject to the laws you place yourself under.

The big picture looks much different because that involves dealing with others , I think that inkfingers described it well in a world that is already anarchaic as far as everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

 

[Nanopants]

Hmm. But if totalitarianism is not 100% achievable, it's terrifyingly close to that--and we've witnessed it in operation. Anarchism, on the other hand, is only a concept, never has existed in human history, and probably cannot.

Well, bear in mind I'm only referring to the ideologies. I think it's obvious that anarchy, as a state of social order, has existed. That doesn't mean it's sustainable. Totalitarianism on the other hand doesn't seem to be sustainable either. Take North Korea for example: those people are suffering, and prosperity seems nowhere in sight. Give it enough time, and if their government doesn't change course, I'd expect human nature to dictate at some point, resulting in either collapse and/or revolution.

Well,... I think one principle of it might be that God did not give man dominion over other men.
For that reason we have covenants... contracts, if you will, whereby we surrender some portion of our freedom from dominion, in pursuit of value attainable only by co-operation.
Upon that, we impose that contracts must be by informed consent lest fraud and coercion occur. So lawful government is by consent.

Yeah I'd say that's the dividing line between a government for the people, and a dictatorship, but there's much more to social contracts such as our own constitution, than legal agreements.

None of us ever actually signed on the dotted line, so consent isn't really an issue here. But here's where the brilliance of the enlightenment philosophers and framers comes into play (in my opinion): the social contract (constitution) isn't just a legal document to be agreed with, it's a legally binding recognition of reality itself, or something close to our "natural state," if you prefer to call it that. In other words, the framers knew that if government crosses lines x, y or z, as defined by reality itself, it will lead to rebellion and/or revolution, and then they armed us. So really, nobody can change or ignore the constitution too drastically without facing the real potential for real-life consequences from us. The legal framework it provides only enables the government to mitigate those consequences (or really, to obey us) in an orderly way. That's my understanding of the reason for the appeals process, anyways.

We haven't had lawful gov. In America since the Civil War. Federal and State governments were incorporated, and the Uniform Commercial Code has replaced the constitution in our courtrooms. Our ignorance keeps us manageable by our economic shepherds, the central bankers who shear us every year, and have bankrupted us twice in order to buy up everything we create, for pennies on the dollar.
Rant over.
lol

While I'm not so inclined to jump on the anti-Federal bus, unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does seem to be incomplete in the area of economics. I really don't think that the framers, being pre-industrial era Europeans staring into a virtually untouched land of tremendous opportunity, really had our specific consequences at the forefront of their minds.

 

[Albion]

Well, bear in mind I'm only referring to the ideologies. I think it's obvious that anarchy, as a state of social order, has existed.

In some Hobbesian "state of nature" you mean? I said, not in human history, and that's correct, I believe.

 

[Nanopants]

In some Hobbesian "state of nature" you mean? I said, not in human history, and that's correct, I believe.

There's too many terms flying around. As a form of government, there is no such thing as anarchy. There has never been a sustainable, utopian society ruled through anarchistic ideals, or at least that's how I understood you.

 

[listed]

Imo it's being above the law only if one is in the law of the Spirit. A cop can pull a person over for driving above the speed limit but that law doesn't apply to birds or balloons or those things that are not placed within that law. So it is with those who claim miracles in their lives, however small, they see the manifestation of the law of the Spirit working in their lives. They also are working within their own set of laws.

Christian Anarchy as a religion is imo just another organization that is an oxymoran to the term they are using tho.

That is a new one for me. I never heard of a religion or a denomination called Christian Anarchy. Maybe it is on another page. I will look.

 

[listed]

What's the "it" there again?

Must learn not to use pronouns.

The first it is Christianity.

The it in the sentence with the word sympathy is the organized church, religion loosely called Christianity.

The last it is about what is happening to the organized church.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think the notion that anarchy involves a lack of self government is a result of imperfect human attempts at it, not a part of its definitive characteristics except in a "hyper" sense.

I agree a lot with how Cassia is viewing it and I see her point about the oxymoron side of it.
As a matter of fact, that seems to be maybe the biggest problem with it and what I like about it. It seems to beg for a balance of tensions between license and liberty.

At any rate, I'm still pretty astonished at how well the description of it seems to fit me.
Maybe I should start wearing that as a label and request a special icon?
Interesting.

 

[listed]

Do you think Amish fall under the christian anarchy umbrella? They deal with all problems within the community 99% of the time and never use higher courts of the city/county/state/federal. They are fairly autonomous from the state. I do not think christian anarchy to the point of individual rule is possible. If God wanted it to that point he wouldn't have created community rules for the Hebrews. Small communities or church level as rule might be the lowest level, but the idea of such a thing in today's world smells of cultish whims, but then again.. we have the Amish.

Interesting. I do not think the Amish are bothered with it all. Basically they are religious hermits if you will. They have kind of dropped out of society. I am more interest in their ways all the time.

 

[Rick Otto]

There's too many terms flying around. As a form of government, there is no such thing as anarchy. There has never been a sustainable, utopian society ruled through anarchistic ideals, or at least that's how I understood you.

He must mean in an institutional sense, but then I don't think anarchy would survive institutionalization, rather I think it is a description of the world throughOUT history, where more than one instituted social order exists more in conflict with another, than in civil competition.

It may not be possible to have peaceful anarchy until violence is permanently defeated.

 

[listed]

Well, no.

But maybe we need a more exact definition.

The Amish are among the most controlling of all groups and denominations within Christendom. But you will probably say that you were referring to how they stand with regard to the US government inside which they operate...and that they stand apart from state and federal law.

Except that they don't. Yes, they have exceptional religious liberty, but they are controlled to a certain extent, no less than are the American Indians operating reservations and casinos off-reservation, perhaps moreso. For example, the Amish pay the same income, property, sales, and other taxes as everyone else.

So, I'd say that if we are speaking of Christian Anarchism, we have to speak of real Anarchism, i.e. NO government. Otherwise, it's just a discussion about the size of government, a matter of degree, not really Anarchism.

As a group they participate in as little as they have to. As a result they basically are left alone to their thing. Not a bad approach to life.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I think the notion that anarchy involves a lack of self government is a result of imperfect human attempts at it, not a part of its definitive characteristics except in a "hyper" sense.

I agree a lot with how Cassia is viewing it and I see her point about the oxymoron side of it.
As a matter of fact, that seems to be maybe the biggest problem with it and what I like about it. It seems to beg for a balance of tensions between license and liberty.

At any rate, I'm still pretty astonished at how well the description of it seems to fit me.
Maybe I should start wearing that as a label and request a special icon?
Interesting.

I think 'Christian Archy' or 'Archy of God' would be a great icon!

https://books.google.ca/books?id=jB...=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Archy of God&f=false

ETA The argument here that makes for a balance of tensions between license and liberty imo is that Christians (according to Christian archy) shouldn't renounce or fight against or for powers, but should "speak the truth with love." and that isn't the way traditional Anarchy is viewed. Archy of God (I like that term best ) is separated from other archys that would have them forget that God's own Archy is more important, whatever that other archy may be.

-archy

1.
a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,” forming abstract nouns usually corresponding to personal nouns ending in -arch:
monarchy; oligarchy.

combining form
1.
government; rule: anarchy, monarchy
Derived Forms
-archic, combining_form:in_adjective
-archist, combining_form:in_noun:countable
Word Origin
from Greek -arkhia; see -arch
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition

 

[Rick Otto]

Wow, Cassia... That is great! The book introduction that the link allows us to read looks like exactly what I'm talking about and you have summarized very well. How did you find that book?

 

[sdowney717]

Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that claims anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels.[1][2] It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies.

Christian anarchists denounce the state as they claim it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous.[3][4]

"Christian anarchists denounce the state"

However scriptures tells us governments are ordained of God.

Romans 13

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.



For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.


2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.



3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.


And for confirmation consider that Peter tells us to also honor and that also means to acknowledge the power God has places over you in the government of men.



1 Peter 2

17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king (emperor).

I was not sure if I could add anything to the thread till I gave it some thought.
But reading the manifesto saying "Christian anarchists denounce the state", I just could not more strongly disagree. Only when the state seeks to exercise authority against the freedom of God's people as in to worship and obey God, can a believer be standing on good ground to resist the government. A clear example is Exodus, where Moses and Aaron come before Pharoah to tell him to let the people go that they may serve God in the wilderness. And in that case, it was God doing a new thing to separate his people from the world who were chosen to be His own special people. And that according to His word He has spoken to Abraham centuries earlier.



Exodus 5:1
[ First Encounter with Pharaoh ] Afterward Moses and Aaron went in and told Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Let My people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness.’”

 

[Albion]

As a group they participate in as little as they have to. As a result they basically are left alone to their thing. Not a bad approach to life.

Thanks. I should probably leave this topic alone because others have much more enthusiasm for it, but I still feel--and more than ever--that we need to have an agreed-upon definition if we're to discuss this. I see several different concepts being debated at once as I look at the most recent posts. I had initially looked at it as Anarchism being admired by Christians, but maybe that's not it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Wow, Cassia... That is great! The book introduction that the link allows us to read looks like exactly what I'm talking about and you have summarized very well. How did you find that book?

Just from Googling. It looks like this book was the originator
https://archive.org/stream/ChristianAnarchy#page/n33/mode/2up
and not having looked thru it myself but briefly I can see that he moved from words like revolutionary onward to anarchist in the descriptions of Christ. Every good read has it's beginnings but is never the final word, and always arguably missing the mark at some points.

The subject has piqued my interest, especially as to the responses required of us to follow Christ as our example. He was innocent at His death, yet lived freely among those who's systems He opposed.

There is no blanket statement to be made that one needs to follow manmade authority when under the authority of God. Honor due is to God, fear due is due to God etc, and that really brings it to the spiritual and would never be in conflict with what God has set in place.

I kinda look at human law as the wife and husband. The wife represents the church, and she is to follow as long as the husband is under Christ, but not so if outside of the spiritual law she is following anyway.

I'm far more interested in the teachings ( sermon on mount) that this would apply to tho because it does get bogged down in the perimeters of the outline.

 

[sdowney717]

Just from Googling. It looks like this book was the originator
https://archive.org/stream/ChristianAnarchy#page/n33/mode/2up
and not having looked thru it myself but briefly I can see that he moved from words like revolutionary onward to anarchist in the descriptions of Christ. Every good read has it's beginnings but is never the final word, and always arguably missing the mark at some points.

The subject has piqued my interest, especially as to the responses required of us to follow Christ as our example. He was innocent at His death, yet lived freely among those who's systems He opposed.

There is no blanket statement to be made that one needs to follow manmade authority when under the authority of God. Honor due is to God, fear due is due to God etc, and that really brings it to the spiritual and would never be in conflict with what God has set in place.

I kinda look at human law as the wife and husband. The wife represents the church, and she is to follow as long as the husband is under Christ, but not so if outside of the spiritual law she is following anyway.

I'm far more interested in the teachings ( sermon on mount) that this would apply to tho because it does get bogged down in the perimeters of the outline.

Recall what Jesus tells Peter about taxes.

24 When they had come to Capernaum,[g] those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”
25 He said, “Yes.”
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”
26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”
Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.



27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money;[h] take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

Jesus says the sons are free, but we dont want them to take offence so pay the tax. Nice thing is God paid the tax here.

So we are free but God says we are to obey the laws regardless. And Paul in Romans 13 tells us that as well. Otherwise as Paul says it will go badly.

2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Whether you like it or not, so as for them to not take offence, follow the rules. Except of course if they go against the commandments of God.

As when the apostles were arrested and told not to preach Jesus to the people,

18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”
26 Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”
Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.



27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money;...

That is exactly the example that applies here, thank you very much for that because it expands the teaching of Jesus so much imo. We are the kings, children of the King of Kings. We are above the law yet the law of love limits us to not offend, and reasons are given in other verses so as to keep others from coming to God.

Otoh it exemplifies the miracles that happen when following the law of God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My interests are admittedly in seeing people move away from Gentile thinking and into the thoughts of God, that I've been
searching out the last while and posted in this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7853161-2/

The miracles of the new birth, sanctification, onward to 'from glory to glory', that isn't accomplished in a surface commitment to doctrine.

The need for a stand on a commitment to God is crucial, be it in developing a new concept/icon or better yet a personal commitment to follow where one is responsable to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

But I will leave off commenting in this thread to listen to what others say.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Jacques Ellul notes that the final verse of the Book of Judges (Judges 21:25) states that there was no king in Israel and that "everyone did as they saw fit".[7][8][9] Subsequently, as recorded in the first Book of Samuel (1 Samuel 8) the people of Israel wanted a king "so as to be like other nations".[10][11] God declared that the people had rejected him as their king. He warned that a human king would lead to militarism, conscription and taxation, and that their pleas for mercy from the king's demands would go unanswered. Samuel passed on God's warning to the Israelites but they still demanded a king, and Saul became their ruler.[12][13] Much of the subsequent Old Testament chronicles the Israelites trying to live with this decision.[14]

More than any other Bible source, the Sermon on the Mount is used as the basis for Christian anarchism.[5] Alexandre Christoyannopoulos explains that the Sermon perfectly illustrates Jesus' central teaching of love and forgiveness. Christian anarchists claim that the state, founded on violence, contravenes the Sermon and Jesus' call to love our enemies.[5]

The gospels tell of Jesus' temptation in the desert. For the final temptation, Jesus is taken up to a high mountain by Satan and told that if he bows down to Satan he will give him all the kingdoms of the world.[15] Christian anarchists use this as evidence that all Earthly kingdoms and governments are ruled by Satan, otherwise they would not be Satan's to give.[16] Jesus refuses the temptation, choosing to serve God instead, implying that Jesus is aware of the corrupting nature of Earthly power.[17]

Christian eschatology and various Christian anarchists, such as Jacques Ellul, have identified the state and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.[18][19]

-Wiki

uhh yes, and of course, Rick, this is a must read

http://harrykatz.com/Sermon/Sermon_On_The_Mount_eBook.pdf

I just gave that book to my grandson/