Christian Anarchism

[listed]

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...

I do not think so. If 1 is unwilling to follow what they preach perhaps they should consider what they are preaching. Doing as you suggest only creates trouble. I believe I practice what I preach. Anyone is free to contest such.

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.

Yes the opposite sex can not understand my behavior. I am not like most other men. Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is about the easiest thing I have ever done.

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 law is absolute. Legalism is about loop holes (how wicked can I be without getting in trouble).

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.

Perhaps that is partially why I have dropped out of their silly circus.

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.

I will buy several boat loads of that.

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/

 

[listed]

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.

The use of the basic word anarchy is probably being abused and misused in this thread.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

Thank you, I mostly agree with what you have said about Anarchism.

Now if you have the time, please say something about:

Christian Anarchism.

I think we have already mentioned some of the problems with terminology in earlier posts, in case you're interested. A link to the Wikipedia definition is in one of the first two posts I think, and a good description along with some hstorical background is there.

 

[FredVB]

Rick, I just got around to it and looked at the Wikipedia article that was linked to in your original post of this thread. I found that it has just been edited, and there was very little there. But the impression I have is that Christian anarchism isn't really anarchism, and I can see that if it was really Christian it wouldn't be anarchism. That which is called Christian anarchism is based on sermon from Jesus, that was just about all still left about it in the Wikipedia article that was just edited. Then what the apostles that had been with Jesus wrote would then not be observed. I would promote all of what was written for believers in the new testament of the Bible, while not excluding the rest of the Bible, either, over teachings from others that need to exclude any of it.

From the outside there might be seen something resembling anarchy in some ways in all Christian movements. This may be with all involved in that having worldly influence that taints Christianity. We may know that not all that identity themselves as Christian are true believers who are in Christ. This is really not a true Scotsman argument. I use the term for those who really follow Christ with having come in repentance to Christ in faith for salvation following him in his authority with trust, for being restored in relationship to Yahweh God. That already is a mouthful for a definition, I could say even more for being definite, but this already is enough to set apart true believers who are in Christ from any otherwise who identify themselves as Christian.

So there are some movements within Christianity that help it to resemble anarchy in ways. But much of that would be apart from Christ, with mostly being even just of human origins. It is still true that God works even apart from hierarchy among his people, for God's own orderliness. And there are many problems from human hierarchies, as it can be shown. Problems to this world will come from it. So I do see there are systems in this world that God would call any of us out from who are following Christ with that needed faith.

Edit: The article was not showing anything but the start, with my device, I went back to look and saw there were headings without the text, but I could click on them to see text. It still has been edited so might be different from what you saw. I will still go over it fully when I have time, I think soon enough. I do agree that a problem with a systematic state is that it is generally deceitful, often needlessly violent, and there can be idolatrous glorification of it. God being the overriding authority is not really anarchy for us, not even what I could call Christian anarchism, but it is a spiritual theocracy, distinct from human hierarchies designed to be theocracies.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks Fred, yeah Cydebot edited out the description that I said d fit me.,

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Christian Anarchism means you still pray for your leaders .. just for their chastisement

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

ahh, but that would still be considered an act of resistance according to the book put forth by the revised wiki ... or would it

Leo Tolskey | The Kingdom of Heaven is within you

http://aren.org/prison/documents/religion/Misc/The Kingdom of God is Within You--Tolstoy.pdf

``Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You is often regarded as a key text for modern Christian anarchism.[3][6]``wiki

 

[Gregory Thompson]

well so would turning the other cheek as an offensive weapon . but it's still godly behavior .

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

well so would turning the other cheek as an offensive weapon . but it's still godly behavior .

oh ya I meant non-resistance. What I was wondering is if prayer for leadership chastisement and turning the other cheek were both the same thing. But according to question 3 fi, it would seem to be that they are.

example from book

And here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:

CATECHISM OF NON−RESISTANCE.
1) Q. Whence is the word "non−resistance" derived?
A. From the command, "Resist not evil." (M. v. 39.)

2) Q. What does this word express?
A. It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.

3)Q. Ought the word "non−resistance" to be taken in its widest sensethat is to say, as intending that we should
not offer any resistance of any kind to evil?
A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's teachingthat is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.

4)Q. What is there to show that Christ enjoined non−resistance in that sense?
A. It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said: "Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right
cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

5)Q. Of whom was he speaking in the words, "Ye have heard it was said of old"?
A. Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.

6)Q. What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, "It was said of old"?
A. The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm, so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.

7)Q. Quote such utterances.
A. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."GEN. ix. 6

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

.....He said: "Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

......."Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."GEN. ix. 6

It would seem to me that only God would have the rightful place to change principles that are considered law in the OT and spiritual law in the NT. And that the spiritual law that He now commands are also physical laws for us now in carrying them out .....

 

[Gregory Thompson]

oh ya I meant non-resistance. What I was wondering is if prayer for leadership chastisement and turning the other cheek were both the same thing. But according to question 3 fi, it would seem to be that they are.

example from book

And here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his flock:

CATECHISM OF NON−RESISTANCE.
1) Q. Whence is the word "non−resistance" derived?
A. From the command, "Resist not evil." (M. v. 39.)

2) Q. What does this word express?
A. It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.

3)Q. Ought the word "non−resistance" to be taken in its widest sensethat is to say, as intending that we should
not offer any resistance of any kind to evil?
A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's teachingthat is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.

4)Q. What is there to show that Christ enjoined non−resistance in that sense?
A. It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said: "Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right
cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also."

5)Q. Of whom was he speaking in the words, "Ye have heard it was said of old"?
A. Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.

6)Q. What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, "It was said of old"?
A. The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm, so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.

7)Q. Quote such utterances.
A. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."GEN. ix. 6

because of supernatural principles behind the concepts . non-violent resistance is actually very violent supernaturally . thanks for the quote .

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

because of supernatural principles behind the concepts . non-violent resistance is actually very violent supernaturally . thanks for the quote .

Matt 11:12 And 1161 from 575 the days 2250 of John 2491 the Baptist 910 until 2193 now 737 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772 suffereth violence 971 5743, and 2532 the violent 973 take 726 0 it 846 by force 726 5719.(suffereth…: or, is gotten by force, and they that thrust men) Thank you

 

[FredVB]

Now if you have the time, please say something about:
Christian Anarchism.
I think we have already mentioned some of the problems with terminology in earlier posts, in case you're interested.

I have now come to seeing that there are great problems and trouble coming from human leadership, with our world worsening from it. It won't get better from them. Yahweh can be trusted, but then we should obey Yahweh. If Yahweh should destroy those who are destructive to the earth, we should not follow them or obey them over what Yahweh shows. Our responsibility with stewardship that there is supposed to be should have us living differently than those, who are not turning from that, as they should. There are ways to live with not contributing to what is destructive to this world or any of its environments, which Yahweh created and owns, we should look at those ways, to learn them and do so. This involves not living according to systems under leaders that do what is contrary to it, it is called for to be separate from such, in what ways are possible for that, with submitting to Yahweh being in Christ for such reconciliation to Yahweh with faith having repentance for wrongs we have done, to turn from such.

 

[fhansen]

The only way Christian anarchism could work, where authority or dominion of man over man could be done away with, is if everyone loved each other, in which case there'd be no reason for either: authority or anarchy. Meanwhile Paul tells us to recognize the need for rightful authority; chaos results without it. Its sort of a necessary evil in a fallen world.

 

[Rick Otto]

The only way Christian anarchism could work, where authority or dominion of man over man could be done away with, is if everyone loved each other, in which case there'd be no reason for either: authority or anarchy. Meanwhile Paul tells us to recognize the need for rightful authority; chaos results without it. Its sort of a necessary evil in a fallen world.

Well, looking at it now, it does seem like an oxymoron.
God didn't give man dominion over man, but that doesn't make it inherently evil or rener it unnecessary. Contract is the language that enables it. Contracts are only lawful if they are made under full disclosure (no fraud) and executed without coercion.
Because lawyers perversely redefine common language for courtroom use, fraud is epidemic.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I had to reread this whole thread, firstly to remind me what it was we were talking about almost a year ago, and then because the whole thing was so interesting. It really fits with a lot of the discussions of late. Thanks for bringing it up again FredVB

I have now come to seeing that there are great problems and trouble coming from human leadership, with our world worsening from it. It won't get better from them. Yahweh can be trusted, but then we should obey Yahweh. If Yahweh should destroy those who are destructive to the earth, we should not follow them or obey them over what Yahweh shows. Our responsibility with stewardship that there is supposed to be should have us living differently than those, who are not turning from that, as they should. There are ways to live with not contributing to what is destructive to this world or any of its environments, which Yahweh created and owns, we should look at those ways, to learn them and do so. This involves not living according to systems under leaders that do what is contrary to it, it is called for to be separate from such, in what ways are possible for that, with submitting to Yahweh being in Christ for such reconciliation to Yahweh with faith having repentance for wrongs we have done, to turn from such.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I ran across this term while doing some wiki searching about Bogumils and how heresies in general were mixed up with political contentions that mixed in with what became religious differences between East and West. (My wife is reading some enormous book called The History of Europe, and keeps teasing me with incredibly interesting stuff)

And it makes sense to me that something political was going on when I look at what seems petty reasons to schism over.

At any rate, when I back away from Christianity far enough to see all of it from its schismed core to its fuzzy edges, I see a semi-unruly community only God could ride herd on. So I was both a little pleased and alarmed when the description I was reading seemed to fit me to a "T".
I say "alarmed" simply because of the popular negative slant on the word "anarchy", especially its association with poorly focused and violently angry discontent. I may indulge in occasional smack talk, but I think violence is counterproductive in the long view.

So before I dive down this rabbit hole to find out what it's about, I thought i'd ask all my fine forum colleagues to weigh with whatever fact, opinion, rumor or innuendo they might wish to throw at this thread.

As always, ... have fun, but be nice!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

If I may say...


I'd lean toward the version of anarchism that is geared toward not needing governments imposed on others in order to truly survive and thrive as a society since it has been done before where others (changed in their thinking) treated others properly - and I'd also lean toward the view that advocates for resistance toward oppression in any form (more discussed here and Iconocast Episode 30: James H. Cone and here in Christian Anarchism: A Revolutionary Reading of Scripture and Experimental Theology: Christian Anarchism & Atheism ). Yet I don't agree with the ideology that those in power are automatically a negative....

​

Many of the Barbarian societies were what you'd call Anarchists in many respects - with others in history going so far as to suggest that even Christ Himself supported certain forms of anarchism - in light of the fact that the purpose and goal of anarchism is to separate ourselves from the violent state which constantly uses force to murder and oppress people all over the world for the crime of not agreeing with its moral values....anarcho-pacifist systems come to mind. Christ did not follow the religious rulers in his day and there seem to be several instances where the governing ways & authorities didn't have his full support. One of such the currency "But to satisfy them..." (Matthew 17:27) and "Who's face do you see..." (Matthew 22) - and "The only authority you have over me is that which my father gave you" (John 18-19), as that was sort of a circumvention of governing authority. Christ said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's", clearly demarcating a separation between the two and an indifference between them. ...and when the State was wrong, he had no issue speaking out against it and challenging it in multiple ways - in the same way that Anarchists do.

And I do feel it's possible that one can be both an Orthodox individual and an Anarchist (more in Russian orthodox anarchism in the 21st century ). In my mind, it'd be no different than when CHristians were deemed "atheists" by the Roman State for not worshiping their gods or supporting the monarchy when it was in idolatry - with it being striking that early Christians were in fact called atheists because they refused to participate in the "religion" of the day, with the followers of Jesus being blamed for Rome's woesand how Justin responded to that....and yet even being willing to be labeled as "atheists" for not worshiping the Roman gods or the Emperor, they understood that accepting being seen as atheists did not mean automatically that faith in God was up for grabs. But they had no problem with accepting the title when it was in its proper nuance...

And the same can go for anarchy being a term believers can accept. Of course, , there are differing variations of anarchist thought. For a nuanced look on civilization and anarchy, one may go either here or here:​

Rethinking Civilization - Crash Course World History 201 - YouTube​

Others are of the mindset that it's okay to be anarchist in the sense that one is for a primitive style of live (agricultural, simple, no worship of the state, etc.) that other cultures had

There was an interesting review on the matter that I came across which seemed to suggest that it was not possible - as seen in Seraphim's Rose "Youth of the Apocalypse and the Last True Rebellion" and NIHILISM : The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age where he claimed that all forms of anarchism were automatically based in the spirit of Nihilism and violence Others have echoed his thoughts on how monarchy is the natural order man was meant to live - as seen in MUST AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BE A MONARCHIST? (Written by Vladimir Moss) and Biblical Monarchy and the book of Judges | The Orthodox Life

Others who have accepted that God can appoint Orthodox Monarchs and yet feel their authority is not absolute/above being challenged would fall under the category of what's known as Anarcho-Monarchism - people that "believe in the existence of a King or leader, but advocate this leader as a voluntary individual whose sole existence is meant to represent a sense of celebration and kinship in the souls of the men" - and if you violated the people, you were no longer supported without challenge. In the system of Anarcho-Monarchism, any relationship with the king would be completely voluntary in nature rather than forced upon others simply because of his being King, In example, if you wanted to show him monetary support, you would do so because you want to and because of how he connects others with the community - in the same way that kings and leaders in the Old Testament had to be in line with God's Laws per Deuteronomy 17 in order to be valid and could not oppress the people with God's Blessing. Anarcho-Monarchism isanthropologically proven and it exists in the real world as expressed by the theocratic Papacy and the former caesaropapist Byzantine Empire - and the Catholic Church (separate from the papal states) can be seen as a worldwide Anarcho-Monarchy, as is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

• Anarcho-Monarchism | David Bentley Hart | First Things

• Toward a Pansemiotic Politics: The Wind in the Willows and Our Nixon |

• • The Young Monarchist: Anarcho-Monarchism - the Details
  • Fourth of July Reflection: Holy Kingship and Ecology | Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Of course, others have the mindset that advocating for living under allegiance to the Lord doesn't automatically mean having a monarchy that is equivalent with the State - similar to how Native Americans and other Indigenous Peoplegroups operated when it came to believing in one Supreme Being (Great Spirit) over all and yet having a very simple lifestyle that was based in the anarchy mindset...and yet being distinct from other forms of anarchy that were advocated by others like Marx which ofte neglected groups who were impacted by colonial thoughts or imperialism (more shared in Anti-Colonial Anarchism vs Decolonization | Unsettling America).

 

[FredVB]

The only way Christian anarchism could work, where authority or dominion of man over man could be done away with, is if everyone loved each other, in which case there'd be no reason for either: authority or anarchy. Meanwhile Paul tells us to recognize the need for rightful authority; chaos results without it. Its sort of a necessary evil in a fallen world.

There are assumptions made with this response. Though some dismiss some statements in the Bible, and even some dismissing certain books of the Bible, or larger sections of the Bible, I can see there isn't basis for that, contradictions that such doing that see is from their own interpretations, not necessarily there when I see how all the Bible works together revealing truth. So though there were those basing Christian anarchism on what Jesus showed, such neglecting the things said about authority in the epistles, I am not dismissing any of it. But what was written was during certain conditions, and those things were not viewing this contemporary world with our issues now in those explicit things said. But there are general principles in the Bible that apply. Such would be the world being created by Yahweh God who still owns it, stewardship to this world required of us, being responsible to that, and as Yahweh should destroy those who are destructive to this earth, we should not stay with such that are having that continue, but come out from such, as Yahweh's people. This chaos assumed with loss of authority would happen with big populations in civilization such as the empire that was there when those things about authority were written. It is not about just any community of people such as there might be among believers somewhere.

Well, looking at it now, it does seem like an oxymoron.
God didn't give man dominion over man, but that doesn't make it inherently evil or rener it unnecessary. Contract is the language that enables it. Contracts are only lawful if they are made under full disclosure (no fraud) and executed without coercion.
Because lawyers perversely redefine common language for courtroom use, fraud is epidemic.

That perversion and fraud is basis to depart from this, in what ways are possible, as unfaithfulness to responsibilities to large segments of humanity, other creatures, environments, and more in this world, with recklessness and destructiveness, continue. And most certainly there is coercion happening, where you can see it if you would. So what I can speak for is not general anarchy, but departure to live separately from such with those in power, with that abuse, if in small communities which it would almost certainly be without these sorts of institutions of authority needed among them. It would not approach trying to rid the world of such institutions, but those are not truly stable, with sustainability that there should be, but there isn't, so they aren't. Trouble will come with greater instability as that grows, it will be well for many to have departed from where those troubles come. If we wait to be taken out to be with the Lord, while still staying with this recklessness there is with those we are with, we can experience disappointment, as the Lord taking those who are his to be with him will be not to remove them from troubles coming in the world, as has been happening in many places, but to not leave them where God's judgment will be coming, which are on the unrepentant, not God's people.

I had to reread this whole thread, firstly to remind me what it was we were talking about almost a year ago, and then because the whole thing was so interesting. It really fits with a lot of the discussions of late. Thanks for bringing it up again FredVB

Of course the issues for considering these things are not new, even with more current awareness making this seem more relevant. It is already quite relevant, and it shouldn't be forgotten when such awareness might slip away generally from where we hear such. The issues still there call for responsiveness more. There should be more communication for this, to have some having discussion of these things and finding what there is to do about any of it, even for them.

Many of the Barbarian societies were what you'd call Anarchists in many respects - with others in history going so far as to suggest that even Christ Himself supported certain forms of anarchism - in light of the fact that the purpose and goal of anarchism is to separate ourselves from the violent state which constantly uses force to murder and oppress people all over the world for the crime of not agreeing with its moral values... Others are of the mindset that it's okay to be anarchist in the sense that one is for a primitive style of live (agricultural, simple, no worship of the state, etc.) that other cultures had.

This is rather what I am posting about. Not just to generally label such that we would call anarchists in a certain time in history Barbarians, there were many groups of people living successfully without civilization with the institutions of authority there is there. What I post is not to return to what would be viewed as the most primitive way to live, this is for Christian believers that could consider doing such, with some advantages from what they have for it having been kept in civilization from what knowledge they would have had among societies apart from civilization which were very successful. So in some sense there may be what is called by some anarcho-primitivism to this consideration. It might be with coming to more simplicity. But as there is such oppression, and even killing that happens, and really with disinformation that there is, with lessening of respect to any believers that differ in any thing, there is such call to come out of that, to something better in what we can do for that.

 

[Bible2+]

Rick Otto quoted wiki in post #2:

Christian anarchists claim that the state, founded on violence, contravenes the Sermon and Jesus' call to love our enemies.

Matthew 5:43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you . . .

Note that Christians can obey this command without disobeying other New Testament commands, such as:

Romans 13:1 ¶Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 ¶Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

1 Peter 2:13 ¶Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

-

Such verses as these apply to every case in which human rulers (whether secular or religious) aren't commanding believers to do something contrary to what God commands (Acts 5:29, Daniel 3:18, Galatians 2:5,11-14).

-

Regarding Romans 13:4, it shows that God does permit capital punishment by civil authorities. For to execute wrath against an evildoer with a sword would mean to kill the evildoer.

This, of course, doesn't require that everything a government does it moral or right, for innocent people are sometimes killed by police by mistake, for example, if the police think a person is pointing a gun at them when in fact he is just holding a hair brush.

And even when people are tried and found guilty of a capital crime and have sat on death row for many years, new evidence can come to light which proves that in fact they are innocent. There is even a group of lawyers who run something called "The Innocence Project" who repeatedly have been able to prove that an innocent person is sitting on death row, and they get that person set free.

This is one of the biggest problems with the death penalty: innocent people can be killed because they get railroaded through the justice system by overzealous police, prosecutors, judges, and juries who are just chomping at the bit to quickly solve a horrible capital crime and see that the ultimate punishment is meted out.

So the very fact that a government can make mistakes is one very good reason for it to never employ the death penalty, even though it has the God-given right to do so.

And when we Christians are the government, for example, if we are sitting on a jury for a capital crime and must decide whether or not to vote for the death penalty, we shouldn't vote for it. For as Christians we should extend God's mercy to the criminal instead of God's wrath, even if the criminal legally deserves death. We should follow Jesus' example in John 8:3-11 in dealing with criminals worthy of death. For if we reject such mercy and are chomping at the bit to "mete out some justice!", then we should subsequently expect God to mete out his justice toward us for our own sins, instead of his mercy (Matthew 7:1-2, Matthew 6:14-15). We must never forget that we Christians were all under God's death penalty before he had mercy on us (Romans 6:23). We should show people the same mercy that God has shown us (Ephesians 4:32).

-

Someone might ask: "Does Jesus himself ever employ the death penalty?"

The answer would be yes, and he has the right to do so as the ultimate judge of everyone (John 5:22). He has even killed women and children as judgment for unrepentant sin (Revelation 2:21-23). And he will kill many unrepentant people at his 2nd coming (Revelation 19:11-21).

But no Christian should ever kill, or even harm, anyone:

Under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), but killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3).

But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded to never harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They are to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means that they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).

It is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).

Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus at his 1st coming set the example for what believers are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient believers don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient believers know that death is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this world (Philippians 1:23).

During the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, believers (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as believers have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).

Daniel 12:7b shows that at Jesus' 2nd coming, he will come to a church which has been completely defeated physically by the Antichrist. For during the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign, he will be allowed to make war against the church and to overcome it physically in every nation (Revelation 13:5-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). It is only when the Antichrist has completely broken all the physical power of the church that the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 will end (Daniel 12:7b), and Jesus' 2nd coming will immediately occur, at which time he will physically resurrect and rapture (gather together) the church (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). And at his 2nd coming, Jesus will tread the winepress of God's wrath alone (Isaiah 63:3, Revelation 19:15-21), and so he/God will get all the glory for defeating the power of evil on the earth (Deuteronomy 32:39-43). For he/God won't share this glory with the church (cf. Isaiah 42:8-14, Isaiah 26:18).

 

[Bible2+]

Nanopants said in post #23:

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 U.S.'s founding fathers rebelled against YHWH when they rebelled against the King of England. For YHWH has commanded people not to rebel against established governmental authorities (Romans 13). If the people of America had only been more patient, like, for example, the people of Canada and Australia were more patient, they could have obtained liberty from the King of England without having to have waged war against him, and without having to have caused the completely unnecessary early deaths of so many people during the American Revolutionary War, and then the War of 1812.

And now it is America's own government that wants to restore George III's tyranny, by trashing the 4th Amendment Constitutional right to privacy from unreasonable searches. I.e., it wants to continually spy on everyone without a warrant, just like ol' George wanted to do.

And now the U.S. government is going after the 1st amendment's freedom of religion by requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Also, the government will also probably, eventually, outlaw even speaking against homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", thereby further trashing the 1st amendment.

Could then the war-makers among the U.S. populace (i.e. as opposed to its pacifists) call for a Second Revolution, this time a violent overthrowing of the federal government (especially its Supreme Court) in order to restore freedom of religion and speech and privacy to Americans?

Or the war-makers could just be more patient, and wait a little bit longer (peacefully), for Jesus to return and rule the world (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

For any violent rebellion against the federal government will simply be quashed. For Obama's firing of hundreds of generals, and now the JADE HELM exercises, could all be precisely to prepare for the day when the U.S.'s own federal military forces will be ordered to wipe out all armed militias throughout the U.S. (thereby trashing yet another amendment, the 2nd), calling the militias "an imminent threat to national security", that is, an imminent threat to the anti-Christian federal government, which will want to help prepare the way for the future Antichrist's world takeover (Revelation 13:7-18).

But before the Antichrist takes over the world and makes armed rebellion against him impossible (Revelation 13:4b,7), and even before the U.S.'s federal government has wiped out all armed militias in the U.S., could such militias unite across the country and rise up together at the same time, declaring their all-out rebellion against the federal government because of its tyranny? And could they try to justify their rebellion in a document, which could have points laid out in a structure and wording similar to the Declaration of Independence, which they could call the:

"Second Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the People of a great nation to dissolve the political bands which have being placed upon them by a single federal power, and to restore the freedoms which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God have entitled the People, it is reasonable to expect the People to declare the specific causes which have impelled them to violent rebellion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Freedom and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government, and to provide new guards for their Freedom and Happiness.

"Such has been the patient suffering of the People of these United States, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to abolish their former system of federal government. The recent history of this government, especially in its Executive and Judicial Branches, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People of these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

"The Executive has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. For the Executive has trampled on even the highest laws of these United States, embodied in our Constitution. For the 4th Amendment declares the right of the People to be free from all unreasonable searches, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause. Yet the Executive now continually spies upon all the People, and without any probable cause. It tracks everywhere they go through their cell phones; it tracks everything they say on the internet; it tracks every letter, magazine, catalog, or package that they send or receive through the U.S. Mail, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, or any other courier; it tracks everything they buy in any store with a credit card or debit card; it tracks their Ad Choices and Catalog lists, and even sometimes makes insulting additions to them. It tracks everything they watch on cable TV or the internet; it tracks every site and page they view or read on the internet; it tracks every phone call they make; it tracks everything they say and hear on every phone call; it tracks everything they do in public places by employing facial recognition and spy cameras in almost every store and restaurant, and while walking along public streets. It listens in on everything they say in their homes, cars, or anywhere else, by remotely and secretly tapping into the microphones on their cell phones, computers, televisions, navigation devices, etc., so that the right to Privacy for the People has been completely obliterated.

"Also, the Executive has secretly handed over the personal information of some U.S. citizens to friendly foreign intelligence agencies who see these citizens as potential threats to their national interests. In this way, the Executive has exposed these citizens to surveillance and possibly even murder by foreign intelligence agents operating (with the knowledge and consent of the Executive) on U.S. soil. The Executive allows such a setup as this so that it can, in turn, if deemed necessary, surveil and murder citizens of foreign friendly nations, in their own countries, if it deems these foreigners to be dangerously hostile to U.S. national interests.

"Also, the Executive and the Judiciary at its highest level have trampled upon the 1st Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion. For they have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy now has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery now has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

"Also, the Executive and the Judiciary at its highest level [will] have trampled upon the 1st Amendment's declaration that the Government shall institute no law which abridges the freedom of speech. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any speech which denigrates homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", even though the Bible itself shows that homosexual practices are sinful (Romans 1:26-27) and that unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41).

"Also, the Executive and the Judiciary at its highest level [will] have trampled upon the 2nd Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which infringes upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any civilian to own or use any firearm at any time.

"In every stage of these Oppressions, we the People have petitioned for redress. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, which is thus marked by every act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to rule a free people.

"We, therefore, the People of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, the Almighty God, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the People, solemnly publish and declare the Freedom of the People, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the federal government. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

At some point in our future, could millions of patriots in armed militias in the U.S. add their John Hancock to such a document as this, knowing that by doing so they will make themselves liable to being arrested, tortured, and executed by the federal government?

Better to leave politics alone, and be arrested, tortured, and executed not for being violent, or for promoting violence, but rather for being a pacifist, and promoting the peace, love and faith of Jesus Christ and his Biblical gospel (Matthew 24:9, Mark 8:34-38).

Maranatha, Come, Lord Jesus Christ, and rule upon this earth (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 22:17a,20).