Christian Anarchism

[Rick Otto]

Thanks, I'm really enjoying it so far.This guy says Jesus was anti-ecclesiastical and that the Bible doesn't teach theology.

It looks like the "Law of Love", or at least the application of the principle of love, is what keeps men at peace. so I see now the term anarchy is descriptive of a lack of leadership by men and their systems of control in general, but the term lacks any indication of the situation being under God's control.

I respect Paul's wanting Christians to be law abiding, but I have what is probably generic a lyrics to broad of a definition of terms for most people.
I have a birth certificate, marriage license, driver's license, social security card, and I pay the totally unconstitutional income taxes, but I recognize that these contracts are foisted upon us legally by statute, but unlawfully by constitution.
In fact, because t he only lawful government is by consent, we have had legal, but not lawful government since the Civil War. Lincoln produced the first executive order placing the country under a state of emergency suspending the constitution and he didn't live to rescind it. So our federal and state governments were made into corporations and the constitution has been replaced with the Uniform Commercial Code, which is martial law with a civil mask on it. So I see Paul's remarks about respecting the Law in a different colour on the word "respect".
It is not unlike the command to honor your parents... how do we do that when our parents are being themselves dishonorable?

 

[Thekla]

I haven't much time, nor have I read much on the thread (sorry) but couldn't help but look in ...

One of my long-time favorite authors, Alfred Doblin (for whom one of our cats is named), was for a time at least associated with the Christian Anarchists. He was influenced by, among others, Erich Muhsam and the aforementioned Landauer:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.341666032659416.1073742198.119499071542781&type=1

Anarchism (as you point out) has largely in the vernacular usage been associated with violent extremism, which as some Anarchists have noted is the polar opposite of Anarchist thought.

Nor is it exclusively associated with non-governance, or even knee-jerk anti heirarchy. Instead, the focus is moreso on voluntary collectives (at least in some contemporary camps). In this last iteration, it is similar to but not quite the same as (early) Christianity.

This may be more easily explained in the term "ekklesia", though aside the references previously made in this thread. As bishop Maxim states (introduction to The Meaning of Reality, Christos Yannaras) " ... in the NT, ekklesia was the Greek term used to denote the early believers; it refers to an assembly or gathering. But unlike our English understanding (italics mine) that an assembly could be temporary and involve people unrelated to each other except for the fact that they are physically in the same place at the same time, ekklesia was used precisely because of its contex: a gathering or assembly living together in truth, reflecting the immediacy of the resurrectional experience ... and not for utilitarian purposes."

Or, as Yannaras notes, the ekklesia is the working out/living in practice the affirmation of the truth, Truth which is also affirmation/concretization of this truth (my awkward sum).

Of course, this does not ineluctably jettison theology (at least the eastern definition of it) nor even some sort of heirarchy (or taksis, to use Paul's term); instead, the taksis is one of order and diversity of talents vs. rank per se.

This is also akin to the root of the collegial structure of the EO.

Always the problem of "Anarchy" is that it is an ideal - whatever one might think of it, the model was result in a more flawed expression in life. (This means in part that in looking for examples, one tends to critique existing communities against an impossibility.)

And, as Yannaras points out, metaphysics without ontology is ideology; and ideologies are (typically) destructive ... to persons, to truth.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

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.’”

Seems like a biblical excuse for these Christian anarchists to snub "the man", if the government keeps taking but not giving in return are we to ignore or revolt against them as Christians? Then again, what exactly is truly valuable for a Christian to revolt over to begin with? Temporary material loss, or worldly power? it is easy for me to say, as an american in a first world country, it is unimportant to me isn't it?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I wonder how many Christian anarchists live in first world countries whose government's grievances against them are considered so minor, they would be laughed at as serious issues else where in the world.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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/

Thanks, I'm really enjoying it so far.This guy says Jesus was anti-ecclesiastical and that the Bible doesn't teach theology.

It looks like the "Law of Love", or at least the application of the principle of love, is what keeps men at peace. so I see now the term anarchy is descriptive of a lack of leadership by men and their systems of control in general, but the term lacks any indication of the situation being under God's control.

I respect Paul's wanting Christians to be law abiding, but I have what is probably generic a lyrics to broad of a definition of terms for most people.
I have a birth certificate, marriage license, driver's license, social security card, and I pay the totally unconstitutional income taxes, but I recognize that these contracts are foisted upon us legally by statute, but unlawfully by constitution.
In fact, because t he only lawful government is by consent, we have had legal, but not lawful government since the Civil War. Lincoln produced the first executive order placing the country under a state of emergency suspending the constitution and he didn't live to rescind it. So our federal and state governments were made into corporations and the constitution has been replaced with the Uniform Commercial Code, which is martial law with a civil mask on it. So I see Paul's remarks about respecting the Law in a different colour on the word "respect".
It is not unlike the command to honor your parents... how do we do that when our parents are being themselves dishonorable?

I think that the ebook "Sermon on the Mount' ~Emmet Fox' is best summarized on pg 17-18
Not teaching theology is replaced instead with teaching principles of life to follow.

 

[Thekla]

I think that the ebook "Sermon on the Mount' ~Emmet Fox' is best summarized on pg 17-18
Not teaching theology is replaced instead with teaching principles of life to follow.

Hope it's okay to use this post as a 'jumping off' point, not as a response in particular, but here the notion of "theology" might be defined.

For there is the notion of theology as rational exploration and speculation, but there is the other (likely among others) notion of theology as arising from relationship with God and describing revelation and relationship.

As for teaching principles, what is meant by "principles" ... is it a moral category, praxis/practice, or something else ?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hope it's okay to use this post as a 'jumping off' point, not as a response in particular, but here the notion of "theology" might be defined.

For there is the notion of theology as rational exploration and speculation, but there is the other (likely among others) notion of theology as arising from relationship with God and describing revelation and relationship.

As for teaching principles, what is meant by "principles" ... is it a moral category, praxis/practice, or something else ?

Principles as described in the Sermon on the mount would be a task set before a person,
that is accomplishable, that exacts the price of actually carrying out the principles
that constitute the Kingdom. Liberation is in breaking free of the old nature and
doing the work needed to bring into full being the new creation.

That is not a theology it is a working principle.

 

[Thekla]

Principles as described in the Sermon on the mount would be a task set before a person,
that is accomplishable, that exacts the price of actually carrying out the principles
that constitute the Kingdom. Liberation is in breaking free of the old nature and
doing the work needed to bring into full being the new creation.

That is not a theology it is a working principle.

Thanks, that helps
But then, the principles in this case are 'theological'.

 

[listed]

Thanks, I'm really enjoying it so far.This guy says Jesus was anti-ecclesiastical and that the Bible doesn't teach theology.

It looks like the "Law of Love", or at least the application of the principle of love, is what keeps men at peace. so I see now the term anarchy is descriptive of a lack of leadership by men and their systems of control in general, but the term lacks any indication of the situation being under God's control.

I respect Paul's wanting Christians to be law abiding, but I have what is probably generic a lyrics to broad of a definition of terms for most people.
I have a birth certificate, marriage license, driver's license, social security card, and I pay the totally unconstitutional income taxes, but I recognize that these contracts are foisted upon us legally by statute, but unlawfully by constitution.
In fact, because t he only lawful government is by consent, we have had legal, but not lawful government since the Civil War. Lincoln produced the first executive order placing the country under a state of emergency suspending the constitution and he didn't live to rescind it. So our federal and state governments were made into corporations and the constitution has been replaced with the Uniform Commercial Code, which is martial law with a civil mask on it. So I see Paul's remarks about respecting the Law in a different colour on the word "respect".
It is not unlike the command to honor your parents... how do we do that when our parents are being themselves dishonorable?

Excellent question.

 

[Rick Otto]

Excellent question.

I default to honoring my spiritual parent, and hopefully this honor my parents, even if it is to their disdain or horror.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks, that helps
But then, the principles in this case are 'theological'.

Except, I would expect, they ignore all the mental constructs that don't have immediate practical value in following the two greatest commandments.

 

[Thekla]

Except, I would expect, they ignore all the mental constructs that don't have immediate practical value in following the two greatest commandments.

So I guess my query applies ... how exactly do you define or understand the term 'theology' ?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I haven't much time, nor have I read much on the thread (sorry) but couldn't help but look in ...

One of my long-time favorite authors, Alfred Doblin (for whom one of our cats is named), was for a time at least associated with the Christian Anarchists. He was influenced by, among others, Erich Muhsam and the aforementioned Landauer:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.341666032659416.1073742198.119499071542781&type=1

Anarchism (as you point out) has largely in the vernacular usage been associated with violent extremism, which as some Anarchists have noted is the polar opposite of Anarchist thought.

Nor is it exclusively associated with non-governance, or even knee-jerk anti heirarchy. Instead, the focus is moreso on voluntary collectives (at least in some contemporary camps). In this last iteration, it is similar to but not quite the same as (early) Christianity.

This may be more easily explained in the term "ekklesia", though aside the references previously made in this thread. As bishop Maxim states (introduction to The Meaning of Reality, Christos Yannaras) " ... in the NT, ekklesia was the Greek term used to denote the early believers; it refers to an assembly or gathering. But unlike our English understanding (italics mine) that an assembly could be temporary and involve people unrelated to each other except for the fact that they are physically in the same place at the same time, ekklesia was used precisely because of its contex: a gathering or assembly living together in truth, reflecting the immediacy of the resurrectional experience ... and not for utilitarian purposes."

Or, as Yannaras notes, the ekklesia is the working out/living in practice the affirmation of the truth, Truth which is also affirmation/concretization of this truth (my awkward sum).

Of course, this does not ineluctably jettison theology (at least the eastern definition of it) nor even some sort of heirarchy (or taksis, to use Paul's term); instead, the taksis is one of order and diversity of talents vs. rank per se.

This is also akin to the root of the collegial structure of the EO.

Always the problem of "Anarchy" is that it is an ideal - whatever one might think of it, the model was result in a more flawed expression in life. (This means in part that in looking for examples, one tends to critique existing communities against an impossibility.)

And, as Yannaras points out, metaphysics without ontology is ideology; and ideologies are (typically) destructive ... to persons, to truth.

So I guess my query applies ... how exactly do you define or understand the term 'theology' ?

I would like to hear your definition based on the what you have posted as to what ekklesia is and in comparison to the wiki definition

"Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary or school of divinity"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah the government is the beast, who can take it down? those with the sword of the spirit! hehe .

 

[Rick Otto]

s

So I guess my query applies ... how exactly do you define or understand the term 'theology' ?

Study about God.
I try to keep my definitions as broad as possible until context requires more specificity, which a modifying adjective could describe.
Does that sound like a good operating procedure to you?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Study about God.
I try to keep my definitions as broad as possible until context requires more specificity, which a modifying adjective could describe.
Does that sound like a good operating procedure to you?

I've always been a fan of Ernest Hemmingway`s writings that were devoid of adjectives ..

 

[listed]

I would like to hear your definition based on the what you have posted as to what ekklesia is and in comparison to the wiki definition

"Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary or school of divinity"

Could the trouble theology is just that and not applied to anything but control of others? To many here are practicing monkey see, monkey do not do. Is the real issue to avoid what 1 is not comfortable with? Why will most refuse to examine carefully what they believe and practice? It is because it gets them out of their comfort zone and if practiced could lead to shunning by others? Those relationships worthless.

 

[listed]

I've always been a fan of Ernest Hemmingway`s writings that were devoid of adjectives ..

Yeah adjectives do not allow for bush beating and playing ring-around-the-roses.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Could the trouble theology is just that and not applied to anything but control of others? To many here are practicing monkey see, monkey do not do. Is the real issue to avoid what 1 is not comfortable with? Why will most refuse to examine carefully what they believe and practice? It is because it gets them out of their comfort zone and if practiced could lead to shunning by others? Those relationships worthless.

I think it`s pretty hard to put into practise what one preaches. All of us are Christians under construction and the road gets consistantly harder it seems the more that we stay with it. The struggle is not to take the security blanket of religion over that which should be an individual task. Also the difficulty may be in knowing what is principle and applying it as precept...
In religion, precepts are usually commands respecting moral conduct and governing behavior.
Principles are inward; precepts are outward;
principles promote inwardly the beliefs and motivations for behavior;
precepts train the mind in order to regulate behavior.

“You have heard it said, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery (precept),’ ‘but I say to you, ‘if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery in his heart (violation of principle).’” What are the principles underlying the precept? Covenant faithfulness and love. The precept defines the appropriate behavior as an outworking of the faithfulness principle.

The pharisees absolutized Old Testament laws in order to construct and reinforce their religious system. But this and many other examples in scripture demonstrate that there are exceptions to legalisms that love, nurture and common sense can override. Why? Because precepts recognize exceptions.

The heart of the Sabbath, the principle of the Sabbath, is spiritual rest in Christ. The Old Testament foreshadowing was one day a week, commanded by God, for the good of His people. The principle of rest in Christ underlays the command. But the Pharisees, twisting the scriptures as they did, absolutized the precept and made it all external, with hundreds legal fences around the law in order to protect its “sacredness.”

So, here’s the deal. Institutions, organizations and denominations miss the boat. In allowing the creeping in of institutionalism to overtake initual moves of the Holy Spirit, they absolutize their faulty interpretations of scripture in order to define who they are and what they believe. In this absolutizing they have, step-by-step, excluded the living God in the person of the Holy Spirit, the One who leads us in "in upon line, precept upon precept" revelation and obedience.


It’s like the difference between mis-reading a road map, getting lost, then settling down in a town you really didn't want to live in; or journeying together with the One who knows the end from the beginning who promises us that we will arrive safely at our destination as we are taught by Him from the scriptures.

Principles are living things, expressions of the Father’s heart and nature. Precepts are laws that conform our thoughts, motivations and behaviors to the image of Christ. Exceptions are expressions of freedom that only those freed from legalism and living as bondslaves of Christ can experience.

above were exerpts from:

inJesus.com - Kingdom Understanding (part 2): The Difference between Precepts, Principles and Exceptions to the Rule


Principles are naturally supported by scripture w/o having to force an interpretation upon it.
Looking at the historical background helps to proceed from then to now in application.
The more common ground that exists between interpretation and application, the more likely it is that we should follow the directive as a precept, (theological practice) and not just as a principle.(inward application)

for instance:
In 3 John 6-8, the apostle John discusses financial support for traveling preachers and teachers. Gaius, to whom the letter was written, was commended for his faithful hospitality and support of these early traveling evangelists and itinerant teachers of the Word. The “Gentiles” or “pagans” mentioned in verse 7 were unbelievers who followed the pagan religions and worshiped the Greek and Roman gods. It was very important that the traveling evangelists not solicit or receive any money from pagan people, lest there be confusion about the freesalvation that was being offered in Christ. It was therefore very important for believers to supply the financial needs of the traveling servants of the Lord, so they could continue to teach and preach the gospel without having to worry about finances.
The application of 3 John 6-8 today is pretty straight-forward. The more common ground that exists between the “then” and the “now”, the more we are on safe hermeneutical grounds to move from principle to precept. For example, 3 John 6-8 should obviously be followed as a precept if a Christian ministry is offered funds from a pagan religious source! It would certainly be unbiblical for a Christian ministry to accept any kind of financial support from a Hindu or Buddhist source, because of the close parallel with 3 John 6-8. On the other hand, a Christian college might consider that 3 John 6-8 allows it to accept a grant from a secular source in some cases, and with great caution! In this case, it could be argued that the principles found in 3 John 6-8 would be followed by avoiding binding agreements, or deals with “strings attached,” or any “gift” that would taint the reputation of the Christian college.

exerpt from:
https://www.growingchristians.org/devotions/precept-or-principle/

 

[FredVB]

Yahweh God still has commands that are for us. Anarchism would mean having no one ruling, that would not mean the same thing. There is something in common, the view that no rulership from any of humanity should be considered as absolute, they can be overridden. But the Christian view is to be that when it is that must be from some thing that Yahweh our God has said for that, and it is God's rulership we observe then, rather than observing any other rule. And this rule continues for us through Christ.