Christian anarchism

[Seventeen76]

I think well-meaning Christians have a tendency to project the meaning of scripture beyond the actual context in which it was written and to whom. Many quote Romans, for example, as justification to 'obey' governments.

Lacking any specific clarification that this is an eternal command, it is fair to consider the context....the Christian movement was brand new, highly controversial and in many ways, it was in direct conflict with a pagan Roman culture where political leaders were often viewed as 'gods'.

It is certainly possible that the command to obey authority was given as a DIRECT, SPECIFIC command to the SPECIFIC audience of believers AT THAT TIME. The mission of spreading the gospel, at such an early time after Christ's death, was the sole mission of the new church and to challenge the worlds most powerful government could risk the movement and it's leadership. Given that the majority of the population was NOT following Christ, it would be counterproductive to undermine the legitimacy and values of the movement or to risk imprisonment of the few early church leaders.

To extend that concept of 'obeying the authorities' thousands of years into the future takes some willfull projection. The Scriptures simply dont make that 100% clear.

SOOO...to apply some logic and reason...say, for example, a christian family in China was expecting a second child during the China One Child Policy years and therefore expected to abort that child. Would one expect a christian to 'obey the authorities' in such a situation?

Anarchy? Well, we all exercise governance of some kind. Even if you and a bunch of hippies moved out into the forest, you would have SOME general agreed principles....you would certainly develop SOME manner of resolving conflicts or transgressions....even if it was the informal delegation of one older, wiser member of your 20 large hippie clan as a mediator of sorts.

I don't believe anarchy is realistic in a world of fallen men.

 

[Norman70]

@Seventeen76. You are quite correct, anarchy is not possible in this corrupt world, which for my wife and myself includes all institutional churches as they are part of this world and therefore are also corrupt. Anarchism is a complex and idealistic political ideology but we do as little as possible to support the establishment. God is our only king.

 

[Norman70]

Reading through this thread again I think that those of us who are interested in Christian Anarchism, or even support it to some or even greater extent, perhaps we ought to have responded more strongly to some of the ignorance displayed in it.
There is no disrespect here in suggesting some Christians are ignorant, we are all ignorant in some respects, some here are ignorant concerning Christian Anarchism, and their apparent dismissal of the role of so-called Christianity in so many horrors and wars over the centuries.

 

[Percivale]

I’ve generally understood anarchy to mean the belief that there should be no government, maybe the belief in this thread should be called kingdom separatism, to show that it is not about abolishing governments but about those in the kingdom of God being separate from earthly kingdoms.

 

[Norman70]

@Percivale. You have touched on a sensitive point for me because of the discomfort aroused amongst Christians by the use of the words Anarchism, and anarchy.
However ignorance should not be bliss. Anarchism was a prominent political ideology on a par with Marxism during the 19th century and is still studied at an academic level in political science courses.
My interest in Christian Anarchism remains but I try to avoid using the term with other Christians, and just refer to the many Scriptures which promote the Kingdom of God. If they get really interested they may search out the history of anarchy (including, of course, its violence, of which mainstream Christianity is not innocent either), and begin to turn to the Kingdom of God, and turn away from institutionalised authority (authoritarianism) which would include their Church-going.

 

[Percivale]

From some Wikipedia reading I get the impression that there is quite a variety of anarchism, it includes opposite and all government as well as opposition to specifically centralized top down government and also capitalism.

Are you more interested in the question of whether there should be government, or whether Christians should be part of it?

 

[Norman70]

@Percivale Thank you for your questions and they challenge me to respond. I must first refer you to post 12 in this thread by Aquila0121 where he states quite clearly that Christian Anarchists should have as little to do with civil government as possible. I vote once every five years, its all we have, then put up with rising prices, poor services and undiscovered corruption. Applaud when criminals are caught. We would pay our taxes, but ideally live below the tax threshold. I would refuse military service.
Governments are necessary in this wicked world, but I think the divide between the rich and the poor is leading us all to the end, the Second Coming of Christ. I have to stop for the time being, please try to read post 12.

 

[Percivale]

@Norman70 While I agree with many of the points listed in post to 12, I believe it is appropriate for Christians to take part in government as long as they give it only the level of allegiance you would give to your occupation, not to God. Indeed that’s how I interpret the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation under God:” God’s authority supersedes that of the nation. Politics should not be a religion, but it is a necessary part of human activity, and doing a good job as a county council member is similar to doing a good job as a carpenter, both can be a way of serving God and others. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where someone with a government position, such as Cornelius, was asked to give it up when they converted. But if the government asks you to do something that is wrong, such as fighting in an unjust war, we must obey God rather than man.

I am also interested in intentional community, are you doing anything along those lines?

 

[Norman70]

@Percivale. My situation. at 76 years old and wheelchair bound, is that all I can do now as I see out my life is write, talk, and read. If I had become aware of intentional communities in my twenties I would have been very interested. However I went in for school teaching as an optimist thinking as anarchists we could change the world!!
I read Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" in those early years and I am reading it again now. He outlines the history of non-resistance to evil, and how writers have either been ignored, persecuted or condemned. His book needs to be promoted, at least amongst Christians. I think Tolstoy would say so-called Christians!?

 

[Just Another User]

I think Norman70 has argued quite graciously but I'd like to add something as well.

For those who don't know, a typical anarchist such as a mutualist, collectivist or anarcho communist believe that anarchism means without rulers not without rules. Anyone who claims that traditional anarchist are against rules simply hasn't done an ounce of research. The only person I can think of that was against rules was Max Stirner due to being an Egoist Anarchist and the forerunner to individualist anarchism. Max Stirner was also a moral nihilist which was one of the main components of his ideology believing that morality for example was a "spook". In an anarchist society there would still be rules decided by communes and small autonomous areas but there shall be no unjustified hierarchy like a king or president to enforce these rules with monopolised force e.g. the police.

That being said I wouldn't class myself as a typical anarchist due to the fact that whenever it rose up it was crushed by a capitalist nation such as the fascists in Spain the in 1930s and the Mexican government in the 1990s and societies like the Catalonia anarchists always ended up with centralised authority to enforce the rules (which I'm not necessarily against but it's besides the point).

Christian Anarchism differs because it doesn't even really attempt to establish a state. A great way to understand Christian Anarchist thought would be to read up of Leo Tolstoy.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Anarchy? Well, we all exercise governance of some kind. Even if you and a bunch of hippies moved out into the forest, you would have SOME general agreed principles....you would certainly develop SOME manner of resolving conflicts or transgressions....even if it was the informal delegation of one older, wiser member of your 20 large hippie clan as a mediator of sorts.

I don't believe anarchy is realistic in a world of fallen men.

The Nozick in me agrees. I think some form of a "state" would arise naturally under any circumstances. People naturally band together and self organize.

 

[Norman70]

My problem with Tolstoy's thesis on non-resistance to evil, based on the admonition of Jesus to turn the other cheek, is that how many of us have the spiritual fortitude to do that?
A book by Richard Wurmbrand entitled "The Overcomers" describes how he himself and other prisoners in Russian jails did just that. They suffered the brutality, and actually converted some jailers to Christianity!
Do we have the strength, even to martyrdom?
Does Tolstoy really imply that unless we are prepared to be martyrs like the first Christians we are not true Christians? Are there any Scriptures supporting our reluctance to commit ourselves totally to this, which Tolstoy avoids?

 

[Christopher0121]

It's been a while since I posted on this thread. I pray everyone is well.

Christian anarchism doesn't seek to revolt or abolish human government. It is ordained (permitted) by God. And human governments will continue to rule through coercion and violence until Christ returns to establish His Kingdom.

However, Christian anarchism does embrace the theological reasons for being "separatist" when it comes to human civil governments. We fundamentally embrace the spiritual reality that we are in the world, but not of it. Therefore all participation with it is conditional. When a government would require us to violate Christian faith, conviction, or practice, we peacefully resist or choose peaceful non-compliance. For example, early Quakers believed that marriage was a spiritual covenant between a man, a woman, and God. When the government began licensing marriages, the Quakers refused to comply. They continued marrying without filing their marriages with the state. Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, Anabaptists, and others refused the draft and even voluntary military service. Some Christian sects see voting as an act of violence, or at least participating in it. For voting is deciding which leader will execute force and coercion against the society. Some Christian fellowships do not incorporate with the state, nor do they seek state ministerial licensing. The Christian anarchist isn't about tearing human government down. The Christian anarchist is committed to living as unentangled with the human systems of government as possible, while establishing self-governing Christian families and communities.

Due to the separatist tones of Christian anarchism, Christian anarchists do well in self-governing intentional communities and fellowships that are anti-establishment or that seek to be separate from the establishment. The only human "government" the Christian anarchist seeks is the guidance and government of the Christian community. The cost of not complying with a community's governing authorities (elders) is excommunication. There is no violence in terminating a voluntary association. The Christian anarchist would never seek government that can use force or violence to enforce community standards. So, the Christian anarchist doesn't seek to establish Christian theocracy and would be suspicious of Christian theocracy as well as any other government that maintains power by coercion, force, and violence.

Romans 13 is an oft misunderstood passage. Let's take a look at it in the NLT version:

Romans 13:1-7 (NLT)
1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.
​

Here are the points I take away from this passage:

1.) God has permitted and ordained that human governments should exist. Therefore, seeking to tear them down is to oppose God's presently ordained order.

2.) Governments are permitted to exist that God might use these unsaved machines to curtail and punish wickedness. If we wish to have peace with them, we are to obey their laws and statutes unless they violate Christian faith and practice.

3.) We are to pay taxes. Yes, give them the bribe and allow them to go on their way. Tax money often goes to support the system and many noble things a society has chosen to use such revenue for. This can be law enforcement services, EMS, Fire, trash collection, water services, various welfare programs, healthcare, and the military. So, we pay our taxes and fees.

4.) We are to be respectful to authorities. This isn't blind obedience. Nor is it any kind of allegiance. It is simply human respect for their position in their world.
​

This passage is essentially establishing that we are not a rebellion or a revolution. We embrace government as being permitted by God, respect laws, pay taxes and fees, and respect the offices of authority of this world. This doesn't say anything about buying into their system or ways.

Imagine visiting another country. That country would have its own system of authority, laws, and customs. Of course we'd respect their laws, customs, and offices of authority. But we would not see ourselves as being a part of it. It would be an alien system. And we'd seek to live in peace with them as much as humanly possible during our visit. However, we'd never deny, nor relinquish our foreign citizenship. In this case, our heavenly citizenship.

So, I don't see how some Christians feel that Romans 13 teaches us to be so allegiant or sold out to any body politic or earthly government. It's just about living in peace with this world's authorities.

Christian anarchism isn't about rebellion or revolution. It is about seeing one's self as being a stranger and pilgrim among the nations of this world below. In the world, not of it. At peace with government. But separate. Christian sovereignty. The right to live our lives uninterrupted, coerced, or imposed upon in our own self-governed families or chosen Christian communities.

 

[Christopher0121]

When statist Christians tend to argue that a Christian should be patriotic, give absolute obedience to the American President, a political party, or serve in the military with total allegiance... I answer... do you feel that Christians living in Russia, China, or Palestine should do the same???

They tend to look at me blankly, as though they are not sure what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if Romans 13 teaches us to be all entangled with and allegiant to our earthly governments, that would be true for Christians in every earthly nation state. And sadly, that would imply that two Christians could kill each other on the battlefield as patriots for their respective earthly nations. God forbid!

We are in this world, but not of it.

 

[Norman70]

I am old and infirm, wheelchair bound. All I can do now is read, write and talk. Should I bother to espouse Christian Anarchy here, on secular websites, in fact anywhere if I am able?
I pray to God every day and thank Him for life, and I feel strongly He wants me to do more. Or do I just practice my chess, watch the TV, and enjoy an occasional strong drink?
Many thanks Aquila0121 for your excellent posts.

 

[Christopher0121]

I’ve generally understood anarchy to mean the belief that there should be no government, maybe the belief in this thread should be called kingdom separatism, to show that it is not about abolishing governments but about those in the kingdom of God being separate from earthly kingdoms.

Anarchism has rarely if ever meant having "no government".

Anarchism means "no coercive government".

Anarchists typically advocate for a society wherein individuals are self-governing, or are governed by voluntary associations (communes, guilds, communities, associations, and societies).

Many anarchists have believed such a society could only be possible after violently tearing down civil governments, colluded corporate powers, and any entity that uses coercive means to involuntarily oppress the individual or associations of individuals of like interest. So, they are seen as destructive revolutionaries, vandals, and subversive in their politics. Which is far from what actual anarchism is about.

Christian Anarchism is by and large pacifist, and is focused on self-government and voluntary self-governing communities or bodies (churches).

 

[FireDragon76]

It's been a while since I posted on this thread. I pray everyone is well.

Christian anarchism doesn't seek to revolt or abolish human government. It is ordained (permitted) by God. And human governments will continue to rule through coercion and violence until Christ returns to establish His Kingdom.

However, Christian anarchism does embrace the theological reasons for being "separatist" when it comes to human civil governments. We fundamentally embrace the spiritual reality that we are in the world, but not of it. Therefore all participation with it is conditional. When a government would require us to violate Christian faith, conviction, or practice, we peacefully resist or choose peaceful non-compliance. For example, early Quakers believed that marriage was a spiritual covenant between a man, a woman, and God. When the government began licensing marriages, the Quakers refused to comply. They continued marrying without filing their marriages with the state. Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, Anabaptists, and others refused the draft and even voluntary military service. Some Christian sects see voting as an act of violence, or at least participating in it. For voting is deciding which leader will execute force and coercion against the society. Some Christian fellowships do not incorporate with the state, nor do they seek state ministerial licensing. The Christian anarchist isn't about tearing human government down. The Christian anarchist is committed to living as unentangled with the human systems of government as possible, while establishing self-governing Christian families and communities.

Due to the separatist tones of Christian anarchism, Christian anarchists do well in self-governing intentional communities and fellowships that are anti-establishment or that seek to be separate from the establishment. The only human "government" the Christian anarchist seeks is the guidance and government of the Christian community. The cost of not complying with a community's governing authorities (elders) is excommunication. There is no violence in terminating a voluntary association. The Christian anarchist would never seek government that can use force or violence to enforce community standards. So, the Christian anarchist doesn't seek to establish Christian theocracy and would be suspicious of Christian theocracy as well as any other government that maintains power by coercion, force, and violence.

Romans 13 is an oft misunderstood passage. Let's take a look at it in the NLT version:

Romans 13:1-7 (NLT)
1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.
​

Here are the points I take away from this passage:

1.) God has permitted and ordained that human governments should exist. Therefore, seeking to tear them down is to oppose God's presently ordained order.

2.) Governments are permitted to exist that God might use these unsaved machines to curtail and punish wickedness. If we wish to have peace with them, we are to obey their laws and statutes unless they violate Christian faith and practice.

3.) We are to pay taxes. Yes, give them the bribe and allow them to go on their way. Tax money often goes to support the system and many noble things a society has chosen to use such revenue for. This can be law enforcement services, EMS, Fire, trash collection, water services, various welfare programs, healthcare, and the military. So, we pay our taxes and fees.

4.) We are to be respectful to authorities. This isn't blind obedience. Nor is it any kind of allegiance. It is simply human respect for their position in their world.
​

This passage is essentially establishing that we are not a rebellion or a revolution. We embrace government as being permitted by God, respect laws, pay taxes and fees, and respect the offices of authority of this world. This doesn't say anything about buying into their system or ways.

Imagine visiting another country. That country would have its own system of authority, laws, and customs. Of course we'd respect their laws, customs, and offices of authority. But we would not see ourselves as being a part of it. It would be an alien system. And we'd seek to live in peace with them as much as humanly possible during our visit. However, we'd never deny, nor relinquish our foreign citizenship. In this case, our heavenly citizenship.

So, I don't see how some Christians feel that Romans 13 teaches us to be so allegiant or sold out to any body politic or earthly government. It's just about living in peace with this world's authorities.

Christian anarchism isn't about rebellion or revolution. It is about seeing one's self as being a stranger and pilgrim among the nations of this world below. In the world, not of it. At peace with government. But separate. Christian sovereignty. The right to live our lives uninterrupted, coerced, or imposed upon in our own self-governed families or chosen Christian communities.

I am confused, when you speak of Christian anarchism, are you referring to the philosophy of Jacques Elul, the French protestant philosopher and theologian?

 

[Mark Dohle]

Again, many are not understanding "Christian Anarchism". Christian Anarchism is opposed to any earthly authority claiming ultimate authority over the Christian. As a result, Christian Anarchism is anti-statist in nature, favoring private voluntaryism, mutualism, and the non-aggression principle.

Anarchism isn't against having authority. It is against having an authority one doesn't consent to our voluntarily surrender to. Hence, the Christian Anarchist might very well oppose becoming too entangled with any civil government on earth, while voluntarily giving authority over to the elders of the church as it relates to their spiritual counsel, teaching, and guidance.

Again, one should refer to the works of Leo Tolstoy, especially his work, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, for a more in depth theological explanation of the theology.

In Christian Anarchism, the Christian isn't hostile to the state. However, the Christian Anarchist seeks to minimize, or eliminate, any entanglements with all earthly governments.

First of all the Christian faith today is a hotbed of infighting, judging, and the misuses of the scriptures. Since anyone can line up scriptures to pretty much back up many different points of view, it pretty much waters down the influence it can have on others.. Since we have allowed ourselves to be absorbed by the surrounding secular culture we have pretty much backed ourselves into a corner as well.

The faith versus works (a non-issue I believe) actually shows that the question really can't be answered......or how many are saved etc. The only way we can actually have a good influence on our culture is to stop fighting each other, and live out what we truly believe. And yes, to consciously reject ideas and customs that are actually evil and inhuman. At thlis time, I do not see much difference between Christians and those who have no faith. In fact, nonbelievers can actually be more thoughtful in presenting what they believe.

If we are not united, how can we make any kind of real witness or change, labels and titles about Christian politics of any kind is a road to nowhere.

 

[Norman70]

Vernard Eller and Jaques Elul are foundational reading for Christian Anarchists.
@Mark Dohle. Your post appears to line up very much with my feelings about worldly Christianity, our only solutions will not occur until the Second Coming of Christ. This is why my wife and myself do not attend any established Church. I write that with an upper case C.
The universal church of Christ, as written with a lower case c in a recent SDA Quarterly "Oneness In Christ", and, I believe well described there, is, I think, the anarchical one.

 

[Norman70]

When I first joined CF I intended to open a thread on Christian Anarchism so that I could share my interest in it, and discuss pros and cons with fellow Christians. I would not have placed it in this forum, more likely the Controversial Christian Theology Forum, Christians only of course. However I found this one and have benefitted a lot by reading it and contributing to it.
My resolve now is to post in other threads, and occasionally start one of my own, but not to declare my interest in Christian Anarchism. I find that since the word anarchism is so often used pejoratively my posts may cause disharmony to arise between fellow Christians, and Scripture clearly admonished us not to behave that way.
I have been well-advised by other posters in other threads that if I do say something which produces few or no responses not to be concerned. If God is guiding me to spread the Good News and bring others closer to the Word of God, who is Jesus, then I am slightly fulfilling His admonition to do so. I can continue to discuss the theological implications of Christian Anarchism here if there are posters who may be interested. There's lots about it on the Internet of course. Wiki is a good place to start!