Christian Anarchist

[Razare]

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

"Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that claims anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels. 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."

Yep, this describes me.

"Most Christian anarchists are pacifists and reject the use of violence, such as war."

This does not describe me, but anyone I might shoot as part of a moral argument, I am doing them a favor. If for example, I wanted to do something evil to other people. If someone shot me, they are doing me a favor even if I remain ignorant of this. Golden rule.

So I pray for government leaders 1 Timothy 2:1-2

But on the other hand, I understand that many of them should be tried for war crimes and executed as modern day war criminals. And many others should be jailed for things like national public interest treason by selling themselves for money / power.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/dcs-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#War_on_Terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA

http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml


Politically, I lean libertarian, though. I'm for a government existing, and it is intrinsically evil, but the evil can be minimized, and the bare-bones operation of justice and civil defense is a good establishment for the people to live under.

Any other Christians like this here?
---------------------------------------

And it's rough in the USA because all Christians I know are basically USA nationalistic to some degree. Somehow it gets intertwined with their religion, and then we have to look the other way when the system breaks down... like sure, I'm for a military. I am not in favor of a Military Industrial Complex which operates that military. Militaries are not virtues in and of themselves, intrinsically moral in behavior as a byproduct of them defending you. If you're in the wrong, then them defending (attacking for you) is evil and not good.

It grates on me because other Christians just seem silly when I listen to them about this stuff. War crimes are good and commendable, so long as it's your side doing them... because our nation is founded on the Christian ideal after all. God and country, and all that.

 

[Albion]

There's no basis for it. However, we need to recognize that someone or other has tried to "baptize" any number of secular movements in order have them seem moral or in order to gain a following. Thus, we have seen groups espousing, for example, "Christian Socialism" or "Christian Humanism." There's probably room for "Christian Anarchism" as well. None are actually compatible with Christian theology, though, which probably explains why they never really caught on.

 

[aieyiamfu]

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

"Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology that claims anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels. 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."

Yep, this describes me.

"Most Christian anarchists are pacifists and reject the use of violence, such as war."

This does not describe me, but anyone I might shoot as part of a moral argument, I am doing them a favor. If for example, I wanted to do something evil to other people. If someone shot me, they are doing me a favor even if I remain ignorant of this. Golden rule.

So I pray for government leaders 1 Timothy 2:1-2

But on the other hand, I understand that many of them should be tried for war crimes and executed as modern day war criminals. And many others should be jailed for things like national public interest treason by selling themselves for money / power.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/dcs-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#War_on_Terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA

http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml


Politically, I lean libertarian, though. I'm for a government existing, and it is intrinsically evil, but the evil can be minimized, and the bare-bones operation of justice and civil defense is a good establishment for the people to live under.

Any other Christians like this here?
---------------------------------------

And it's rough in the USA because all Christians I know are basically USA nationalistic to some degree. Somehow it gets intertwined with their religion, and then we have to look the other way when the system breaks down... like sure, I'm for a military. I am not in favor of a Military Industrial Complex which operates that military. Militaries are not virtues in and of themselves, intrinsically moral in behavior as a byproduct of them defending you. If you're in the wrong, then them defending (attacking for you) is evil and not good.

It grates on me because other Christians just seem silly when I listen to them about this stuff. War crimes are good and commendable, so long as it's your side doing them... because our nation is founded on the Christian ideal after all. God and country, and all that.

My political leanings would be described as Anarchist by a statist but an Anarchist would denounce me as statist because I believe in a social hierarchy. I would describe myself as Anarcho Tribalist, a label I created as none I found quite fit my views. Don't confuse me with Anarcho Primativist as I have nothing against technology per se. I used to be a nutty nationalist flag waving fool, a tour in Iraq cured me of that, although it was not a night and day change, it has been an evolution, faster at some times than others. I believe in the NAP and I am not sure how you identify as an Anarchist if you do not, but that is not my call, I impose nothing on my fellow human beings (although I have been known to yell loudly about stuff). We are all war criminals by condoning the destructive policies of this country throughout the world, although there is certainly more blood on some hands than others.

You ending paragraph is exactly where I stand, I can't manage to stay in a church because of the hate.

 

[aieyiamfu]

There's no basis for it. However, we need to recognize that someone or other has tried to "baptize" any number of secular movements in order have them seem moral or in order to gain a following. Thus, we have seen groups espousing, for example, "Christian Socialism" or "Christian Humanism." There's probably room for "Christian Anarchism" as well. None are actually compatible with Christian theology, though, which probably explains why they never really caught on.

There is actually a sizable basis for it, the core values in the Bible and Anarchism in general are closer together than the core values of most churches and the Bible.

 

[Albion]

There is actually a sizable basis for it, the core values in the Bible and Anarchism in general are closer together than the core values of most churches and the Bible.

A few people can be counted upon to make up some new philosophy and give it a name. Of course, they will cite some existing ideas and claim to have amalgamated them into something new and wonderful. But most of these--this one included--are oxymorons and never catch on with any appreciable number of people anyway.

 

[chess123mate]

Does not the Bible state that God put the leaders where they are (see below)? This conflicts with anarchy.

Does not the Bible state to love your enemies? This means you shouldn't shoot them, even if you are okay with them shooting back. The greatest commandment trumps the first (that is, love God first, then love others as yourself. Just because you're okay with others killing you is not justification to kill others.)

Source for initial claim: Romans 13:1-2 " 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

 

[aieyiamfu]

Does not the Bible state that God put the leaders where they are (see below)? This conflicts with anarchy.

Does not the Bible state to love your enemies? This means you shouldn't shoot them, even if you are okay with them shooting back. The greatest commandment trumps the first (that is, love God first, then love others as yourself. Just because you're okay with others killing you is not justification to kill others.)

Source for initial claim: Romans 13:1-2 " 1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves."

Under that logic I owe my obedience to the queen of England, but God would not set someone so evil to rule would he? As clever as it is to take a couple of verses out of context it doesn't sway me in the least. How about I just go with Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered,"We must obey God rather than men.
Anarchists generally abide by the NAP and as such would not kill except in last resort defense.

 

[aieyiamfu]

A few people can be counted upon to make up some new philosophy and give it a name. Of course, they will cite some existing ideas and claim to have amalgamated them into something new and wonderful. But most of these--this one included--are oxymorons and never catch on with any appreciable number of people anyway.

There really is nothing new under the sun (a wise man once said that). There is nothing more amalgamated than the state worshiping flag waving nationalist corporate slaves that represent the vast majority of American Christians today.

 

[chess123mate]

By "NAP" you mean "Non-aggression pact"? (Can you explain what you mean by this?) And besides that, you already said you aren't a traditional anarchist. You said you were willing to kill people if you disagreed with them on a moral issue. Perhaps I missed some context of what you meant?

Acts 5:29 simply says to take God's word over man's word. However, if God then tells us to listen to government authorities (aside from when they command you to do something that would be sinful), then God's word is to listen to government. No contradiction! (Acts 5:29, in context, even establishes the idea that we should not listen to authority when they ask us to do something that would be sinful.)

Kindly explain how I took Romans 13:2 out of context or retract your accusation!
-Romans 12 is not talking about government
-Romans 13:1-7 talks about following the government and paying taxes (it says to do these things)
-Romans 13:8+ is not talking about government

Under that logic I owe my obedience to the queen of England, but God would not set someone so evil to rule would he?

I can't tell what you're saying, exactly, since I don't know if you live in England or not. Regardless, you do realize that the queen doesn't dictate what everyone else does? She is not the head of the government!

I have no desire to start researching how evil people are. All people are sinful! Looking at "how much" is a waste of time (unless I'm going to be voting on who to put into power, for instance.)

I also want to object to anarchy on a philosophical level, but while researching (in case my questions already have good answers), I discovered these things:
-Anarchy has many different meanings; thus, I know almost nothing about what you believe when it comes to "anarchy" except that you dislike the current government (where-ever you happen to live)
-A lot of the answers to "What about this problem?" are answered essentially by saying "People will organize and do it". I suppose if people executed anyone who didn't cooperate, this would work (otherwise what will you do with the increasing number of freeloaders?), but then I argue you've lost anarchy again and gone into a very violent "mini government".

Anyway, God says to respect authority (think of what Jesus did when they asked "should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?" and He essentially said "Pay them"). Since this is a Christian forum, the discussion should end at that (unless you have a reason to believe Jesus meant the opposite of what He said, or if you have reason to think that Romans 13 should be ignored or actually says something else.... somehow).



...Oh, I looked at the wikipedia article. Under criticism, it explains your reaction:
"Christians often cite Romans 13 as evidence that the State should be obeyed,[98] while secular anarchists do not believe in any authority including God as per the slogan "no gods, no masters".[99] Christian anarchists often believe Romans 13 is taken out of context,[100] emphasizing that Revelation 13 and Isaiah 13, among other passages, are needed to fully understand Romans 13 text.[101]"
I looked up Revelation 13 and Isaiah 13 and found no reference to government at all, much less a reason to disbelieve the entire 7 verses (and what Jesus said). Elsewhere in the wikipedia article, they mention the argument that Christians should oppose violent dictators as evidence that Romans 13 shouldn't be taken literally, but I disagree -- assuming Christians should oppose them (a reasonable stance imo), that only means we should be willing to take a stand against violent/evil leaders, not leaders in general. But to call all the world's leaders as evil is ridiculous. Sure they are sinful, they may make mistakes, etc, but I don't think they're all trying to commit genocide.

 

[Razare]

I believe in the NAP and I am not sure how you identify as an Anarchist if you do not, but that is not my call,

Capital punishment is a core teaching in Christ's atonement. God authorized the use of lethal punishment upon Christ for our sin, which is the definition of capital punishment. So I believe in capital punishment.

However, I also believe in mercy, and if I were a governor of a state for example, I would keep a capital punishment law, but I might also pardon everyone subject to it no matter how bad the crime.

I also believe mercy is not something anyone deserves, so pleas to the effect of how bad someone's crime was, vs. how light their crime was to receive capital punishment is somewhat irrelevant in that way. Perhaps it is not completely irrelevant to God who did differentiate in the OT, but I also see that manner of differentiation as a form of mercy since they all deserved death. At one point God was to kill the whole Jewish nation until they were interceded for. It was God's will to stay their destruction by intercession.

And then there is also the problem of my inability to make choices for other individuals as to why I would support capital punishment and lethal force.

Certainly if someone is attacking a mature Christian to kill them, I can decide, "You're a mature Christian, you know what you signed up for in terms of persecution and giving your life up for the world." A biblical example is when Peter tries to defend Christ. Christ stopped him.

However, what if Peter was defending a baby from death?

I agree that infant should grow up, become a mature Christian, and then willingly decide, "I'm willing to lose my life for love." But I can't skip to the end of that and just conclude they made that decision when they have not made it.

Then also, if I am obligated in some way to protect that baby, we have an issue of responsibility.

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. - Romans 13:4

So God's morality includes differentiation of people in terms of obligation, and whom God defends vs. who his wrath is delivered to, even though God loves all equally.

Love includes the fulfillment of responsibility, even if that means one person receives death, and another life.

 

[Razare]

Under that logic I owe my obedience to the queen of England, but God would not set someone so evil to rule would he? As clever as it is to take a couple of verses out of context it doesn't sway me in the least. How about I just go with Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered,"We must obey God rather than men.
Anarchists generally abide by the NAP and as such would not kill except in last resort defense.

I interpret that Romans 13 verse to include when governing authorities are on the side of God in terms of dispensing reasonable justice according to God's word... that's why it brings a concept like "evil" into the verse, which can only be defined by God, not a government.

There is also the notion in Christianity, we are not revolutionaries to incite civil revolt. Civil disobedience, sure. Christianity is essentially civil disobedience in many ways.

So when Peter and others were told not to preach in the name of Jesus, they exercised civil disobedience, but also did not start a civil revolt as a way to usurp authority. Civil disobedience respects authority while it may behave in a way contrary to what authority desires.

With any law, there is the right of those under its jurisdiction to abide by it, or not abide by it with the consequences which ensue. I do not believe Christianity mandates we follow a given law, but rather submit ourselves to God's word with the realization if we choose to break a human law according to faith, hope and love, we do so as subjects to the authorities that enforce those laws. And if God desires we do not pay the consequence, then that is God's domain to enforce, not our domain as human actors rebelling against that authority through physical means.

How to apply all this to international politics and world affairs? It gets messy because the Bible teaches that all human governments of men are corrupt, and even in-spite of their corruptness, they are instituted by God's will. What I mean is that just as God ordained Adam and Eve rule Earth, it was never God's will they sin. Likewise, God invented governance, but it was never his will it be corrupt. Yet, just because it contains corruptness does not mean God is completely opposed to the idea of a government existing.

So I am personally for governments even for this practical application of God's word... I just think maybe people take it too far, and esteem their government a little too highly. Our governments are beasts in Daniel's visions. We can put Christians at the helm of these beasts and they'll remain beasts.

Abraham Lincoln from the sound of it seems like he was a better Christian than me. He wouldn't even conduct state business until he had spent an hour a day in prayer. And yet we can find that the underlying premise of the North's response to the Southern succession from the Union is that the Southern states were obligated to remain in the Union despite this opposing the foundation concepts of how the union originally formed, where states voluntarily joined it and retained certain rights. Once joined, they lost most of those rights, and also lost their ability to consent to belonging to it.

And maybe Abe was right, because there is always idealism vs. the practical world, and an ideal may not achieve what is best in the real world.

The simplified version of defending a baby, becomes very unsimplified in large governments. And, furthermore, when can the Winston Churchill argument apply? Churchill was right in the beginning, Nazi Germany should have been opposed from the onset, if we value the notion of protecting the innocent we are obligated to protect.

But how do you know when the innocent we're obligated to are in danger, when this requires telling the future? If they are not threatened, what basis do we have for intervention? If they are threatened, then I see a course to say we should intervene. It is clear that this has been abused in the last 100 years or more. But what of the instances where it was not abused but accurate? It's hard to tell.

Ideally, I'd probably lean as a neutrality leader. Make no deals for protection with other parties. However, once the deals are made, honoring them becomes a requirement morally. We are obligated to Iraq, I believe (if they even want us there). We were not obligated originally, but once we created their government by wrongfully invading, we become obligated.

And we have built an empire around the world. If you just fold-up an Empire overnight as Ron Paul always suggested, I think ideally he was right, but I also believe practically he was wrong. You would just cause a great deal of war and bloodshed as the power-vacuum is filled by China & Russia.

And if their filling the power-vacuum leads to future WWIII problems, then maintaining the empire was better. Is being ruled by Babylon or Persians better? They're both corrupt governments.