Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Christian Anarchism: Part Three
When talking about Christian Anarchy the issue of violence inevitably comes up. For many anarchists (not Christian Anarchists though), violence is a necessary means to overthrowing authority, and though it may cost human lives, is worth the outcome. Other anarchists are not as violent, but simply believe in living “off the grid.” For the Christian, the issue becomes a bit more convoluted. It is a known fact that Christians have been involved in some of the bloodiest, most gruesome, violent conflicts in history, backing their political or economic aspirations with the “will of God.” For thousands of years both governments and the institution of the Church have invoked the name of God to slaughter thousands upon thousands of those who are “other.”
However, the Christian Anarchy movement believes first and foremost in nonviolence. For the Christian Anarchist also believes in the brotherhood of humanity, believing that though we may disagree with another group of people who hate us, we must not kill them for they are our brothers and sisters, no matter what race, color, or any government, will say. They take Jesus literally when he says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mathew 5:43, 44). And again when Jesus says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also” (Mathew 5:38, 39).
All of these passages utterly shocked me when I started to really read the New Testament for what it was and not for what other people said it was. Christian Anarchy adamantly denies the “redemptive” violence that saturates our world. The term “Myth of Redemptive Violence,” is commonly used to assert that violence is essentially a circle of “You did me wrong and so now I’ll do you wrong,” and pacifists, non-resisters and Christian Anarchists alike refute the idea that more violence is a solution to the problem of violence.
Shane Claiborne, an activist and writer, quotes Mother Theresa in his book, The Irresistible Revolution as saying, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love. It is not how much you do but how much love you put into doing it” (Shane Claiborne 319). Claiborne is a Christian pacifist and non-violent resister who protested the war in Iraq with a team of Christian peacemakers dedicated to telling the Iraqi people that it was not Christians, but the government of America, who was bombing them. The issue of violence is crucial with regards to comprehending the true nature of how Christians are to take part in society. The Christian call is to change the world not through force or through systems of power and law, but through “Small things, with great love.” In The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy quotes a man by the name of Tsceh Heltchitsky, a Czech professor, who goes even so far to say he, “denies completely the right to make war and to inflict punishment of death, every soldier, even the ‘knight’ is only a violent evil doer—a murderer” (17). These are harsh words coming from a Christian man whose religion supposedly has God’s endorsement for war. Tolstoy goes on to say that Helchitsky’s fundamental idea, “is that Christianity, by allying itself with temporal power in the days of Constantine and by continuing to develop in such conditions, has become completely distorted and has ceased to be Christian altogether” (17). This is what the Christian Anarchist revolts against: The adoption of Christianity by the State, or the adoption of the State by Christianity, both of them using each other for power. The Christian Anarchist resists (nonviolently of course) the use of force by governments and the endorsement of the government by the church.
The systems and governments of society are based on power. The strong, the wealthy, those with influence, are those who control the earth. And yet Christ’s central announcement of The Beatitudes (the beginning part of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5) say that the “Meek” will inherit the earth, the “Poor in spirit,” the “Peacemakers.” These are the ones who belong to the Kingdom of God. The Beatitudes are at their core a subversive announcement against the rulers and authorities of the earth. In a brilliant summing up of the true nature of subversive Christianity, Tolstoy says that, “True Christianity puts an end to government. For this reason, Christ was crucified…But no honest, serious-minded person can help seeing the incompatibility of Christ- his teaching of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love-with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars” (213).
The incompatibility of the temporal structures, including the government, with Jesus’ teachings, is the central idea behind Christian Anarchism. The government—with its acts of violence and corruption—has no place with the follower of Jesus. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the two. If one is serious about following Jesus, one cannot follow the government simultaneously. The government has for thousands of years, starting with Constantine who first adopted Christianity for the Roman Empire, used the church to sway the masses. And the Church for thousands of years had let it happen for either two reasons, the first being that of the “Church’s” desire for power, wealth, and status (all things, which ironically, Jesus denied). Jacques Ellul, who is one of the world’s foremost thinkers on technology, theology, Christianity, and Anarchy, says in his article “Christianity and Anarchism” that, “Political Authority cannot recognize the true God for what He is. It can only use Him accidentally for its own reinforcement.” (18). Here, Ellul is saying that government could not accept purely and freely the idea of “God” into its system without some foreknowledge of how it would also benefit from its power. The second reason for the alliance between Church and State stems from a pure intent of “Christianizing” the secular government, and therefore propagating Christianity through a place of power to the masses. The “pure” intentions here get lost, as the Church becomes the State and the State becomes the Church, neither of which seems to be Jesus’ intention.
For many years I never noticed this apparent contradiction between Jesus’ teachings and the Christianity that I grew up with. Now it seems terribly ironic for me to see bumper stickers that say “God Bless America,” or to sing nationalistic American hymns in church on the Fourth of July and get asked to “Pray for our Troops.” Not that I don’t believe in “supporting” the troops. But to pray that they would be victorious over America’s enemies (Or God’s as some might even be so bold to say) seems to cross the line.
In the book of Mathew, a story is told in which the religious leaders of the day, known as the Pharisees, try to trap Jesus in his words, asking whether or not it is the duty of the Jewish people to pay taxes to the Roman Empire. Jesus answers them by saying, “Give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (22:21). Many Christians use this passage to argue that Christians have a duty to the state, but Jesus really says nothing of the sort. The Jews saw the currency of the emperor as deeply offensive because it was not only egotistical on part of the emperor, but a direct violation against God’s commandment to make graven images (Boyd 5). Boyd says that Jesus was “demonstrating once again, that he hadn’t come to resolve the ambiguous and controversial issues that characterize the issues of the world. He rather came to offer a radical alternative way of doing life, answering a completely different set of questions (5). Boyd says that Jesus was more concerned with the preoccupation of people’s hearts—was it in politics and squabbling over the scraps of the Roman Empire—on letting the beauty and image of God reign in their lives? He essentially adopts an attitude of indifference as if to say, “It doesn’t matter, it’s just money. Jacques Ellul says in his article, “Anarchism and Christianity” that all Jesus is saying is that Ceasar made the money and is therefore is its master. That’s it. (Ellul 18) Caesar may be the master of money, but he is not the master of men.
Christianity will never work set up as a Christian nation. Jacques Ellul says that it is impossible to create a “Christian Society” (135) and that the Christian society will only exist in the Kingdom of God. The two very separate ideas of government and Christianity can never be merged. If the government adopts Christianity as its religion it is impossible to “make” people convert to Christianity because it is ultimately a conversion of the heart, and conversions of the heart do not come through force , but through free will. If there is a government that adopts Christianity it will, according to Ellul, only encourage hypocrisy, in his article, “Propositions concerning the Christian Attitude Towards Law,” he says “They have made non-Christian man adopt a Christian way of life…they have encouraged hypocrisy. From the Biblical point of view, the world ought to be the world, and society should not play the game of being the Church or a Kingdom of God on earth…This way things are honest”(135).
Jesus never seemed concerned with politics. One would think that with only so little time on earth, Jesus would be running around creating social reform and passing bills of righteousness, but he never did. Perhaps he did spend his days picketing prostitution in the pagan temples, or passing legislative bills for prohibition and we just never heard about it, but I don’t think so. For some reason the things Jesus talked about never involved the government. They were all a little more personal. Love your neighbor, forgive others, feed the poor, etc. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven, not the kingdom of Israel, or the kingdom of Rome or the kingdom of America. It was as if the whole world lived in this way there would be no need for government. For the Christian and the Christian Anarchist, it’s about resisting the Empire. And so today I do my best to live in such a way that makes government unnecessary. To not participate in the systems of power and support the greed of corporations that runs our world. Sometimes this means living a little more simply, a little more “off the grid” if you will. And other times it simply means to take matters into my own hands. Taking an active role in loving people and taking care of them, before waiting for the government to do so. I think it’s about real change that starts with our hearts and moves to our hands, loving God and others. But this oftentimes includes a “resistance” or a “separation” from government and Empire, and this is what Christian Anarchism is all about.
However, the Christian Anarchy movement believes first and foremost in nonviolence. For the Christian Anarchist also believes in the brotherhood of humanity, believing that though we may disagree with another group of people who hate us, we must not kill them for they are our brothers and sisters, no matter what race, color, or any government, will say. They take Jesus literally when he says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mathew 5:43, 44). And again when Jesus says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also” (Mathew 5:38, 39).
All of these passages utterly shocked me when I started to really read the New Testament for what it was and not for what other people said it was. Christian Anarchy adamantly denies the “redemptive” violence that saturates our world. The term “Myth of Redemptive Violence,” is commonly used to assert that violence is essentially a circle of “You did me wrong and so now I’ll do you wrong,” and pacifists, non-resisters and Christian Anarchists alike refute the idea that more violence is a solution to the problem of violence.
Shane Claiborne, an activist and writer, quotes Mother Theresa in his book, The Irresistible Revolution as saying, “We can do no great things, only small things with great love. It is not how much you do but how much love you put into doing it” (Shane Claiborne 319). Claiborne is a Christian pacifist and non-violent resister who protested the war in Iraq with a team of Christian peacemakers dedicated to telling the Iraqi people that it was not Christians, but the government of America, who was bombing them. The issue of violence is crucial with regards to comprehending the true nature of how Christians are to take part in society. The Christian call is to change the world not through force or through systems of power and law, but through “Small things, with great love.” In The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy quotes a man by the name of Tsceh Heltchitsky, a Czech professor, who goes even so far to say he, “denies completely the right to make war and to inflict punishment of death, every soldier, even the ‘knight’ is only a violent evil doer—a murderer” (17). These are harsh words coming from a Christian man whose religion supposedly has God’s endorsement for war. Tolstoy goes on to say that Helchitsky’s fundamental idea, “is that Christianity, by allying itself with temporal power in the days of Constantine and by continuing to develop in such conditions, has become completely distorted and has ceased to be Christian altogether” (17). This is what the Christian Anarchist revolts against: The adoption of Christianity by the State, or the adoption of the State by Christianity, both of them using each other for power. The Christian Anarchist resists (nonviolently of course) the use of force by governments and the endorsement of the government by the church.
The systems and governments of society are based on power. The strong, the wealthy, those with influence, are those who control the earth. And yet Christ’s central announcement of The Beatitudes (the beginning part of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount in Mathew 5) say that the “Meek” will inherit the earth, the “Poor in spirit,” the “Peacemakers.” These are the ones who belong to the Kingdom of God. The Beatitudes are at their core a subversive announcement against the rulers and authorities of the earth. In a brilliant summing up of the true nature of subversive Christianity, Tolstoy says that, “True Christianity puts an end to government. For this reason, Christ was crucified…But no honest, serious-minded person can help seeing the incompatibility of Christ- his teaching of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love-with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars” (213).
The incompatibility of the temporal structures, including the government, with Jesus’ teachings, is the central idea behind Christian Anarchism. The government—with its acts of violence and corruption—has no place with the follower of Jesus. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the two. If one is serious about following Jesus, one cannot follow the government simultaneously. The government has for thousands of years, starting with Constantine who first adopted Christianity for the Roman Empire, used the church to sway the masses. And the Church for thousands of years had let it happen for either two reasons, the first being that of the “Church’s” desire for power, wealth, and status (all things, which ironically, Jesus denied). Jacques Ellul, who is one of the world’s foremost thinkers on technology, theology, Christianity, and Anarchy, says in his article “Christianity and Anarchism” that, “Political Authority cannot recognize the true God for what He is. It can only use Him accidentally for its own reinforcement.” (18). Here, Ellul is saying that government could not accept purely and freely the idea of “God” into its system without some foreknowledge of how it would also benefit from its power. The second reason for the alliance between Church and State stems from a pure intent of “Christianizing” the secular government, and therefore propagating Christianity through a place of power to the masses. The “pure” intentions here get lost, as the Church becomes the State and the State becomes the Church, neither of which seems to be Jesus’ intention.
For many years I never noticed this apparent contradiction between Jesus’ teachings and the Christianity that I grew up with. Now it seems terribly ironic for me to see bumper stickers that say “God Bless America,” or to sing nationalistic American hymns in church on the Fourth of July and get asked to “Pray for our Troops.” Not that I don’t believe in “supporting” the troops. But to pray that they would be victorious over America’s enemies (Or God’s as some might even be so bold to say) seems to cross the line.
In the book of Mathew, a story is told in which the religious leaders of the day, known as the Pharisees, try to trap Jesus in his words, asking whether or not it is the duty of the Jewish people to pay taxes to the Roman Empire. Jesus answers them by saying, “Give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (22:21). Many Christians use this passage to argue that Christians have a duty to the state, but Jesus really says nothing of the sort. The Jews saw the currency of the emperor as deeply offensive because it was not only egotistical on part of the emperor, but a direct violation against God’s commandment to make graven images (Boyd 5). Boyd says that Jesus was “demonstrating once again, that he hadn’t come to resolve the ambiguous and controversial issues that characterize the issues of the world. He rather came to offer a radical alternative way of doing life, answering a completely different set of questions (5). Boyd says that Jesus was more concerned with the preoccupation of people’s hearts—was it in politics and squabbling over the scraps of the Roman Empire—on letting the beauty and image of God reign in their lives? He essentially adopts an attitude of indifference as if to say, “It doesn’t matter, it’s just money. Jacques Ellul says in his article, “Anarchism and Christianity” that all Jesus is saying is that Ceasar made the money and is therefore is its master. That’s it. (Ellul 18) Caesar may be the master of money, but he is not the master of men.
Christianity will never work set up as a Christian nation. Jacques Ellul says that it is impossible to create a “Christian Society” (135) and that the Christian society will only exist in the Kingdom of God. The two very separate ideas of government and Christianity can never be merged. If the government adopts Christianity as its religion it is impossible to “make” people convert to Christianity because it is ultimately a conversion of the heart, and conversions of the heart do not come through force , but through free will. If there is a government that adopts Christianity it will, according to Ellul, only encourage hypocrisy, in his article, “Propositions concerning the Christian Attitude Towards Law,” he says “They have made non-Christian man adopt a Christian way of life…they have encouraged hypocrisy. From the Biblical point of view, the world ought to be the world, and society should not play the game of being the Church or a Kingdom of God on earth…This way things are honest”(135).
Jesus never seemed concerned with politics. One would think that with only so little time on earth, Jesus would be running around creating social reform and passing bills of righteousness, but he never did. Perhaps he did spend his days picketing prostitution in the pagan temples, or passing legislative bills for prohibition and we just never heard about it, but I don’t think so. For some reason the things Jesus talked about never involved the government. They were all a little more personal. Love your neighbor, forgive others, feed the poor, etc. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven, not the kingdom of Israel, or the kingdom of Rome or the kingdom of America. It was as if the whole world lived in this way there would be no need for government. For the Christian and the Christian Anarchist, it’s about resisting the Empire. And so today I do my best to live in such a way that makes government unnecessary. To not participate in the systems of power and support the greed of corporations that runs our world. Sometimes this means living a little more simply, a little more “off the grid” if you will. And other times it simply means to take matters into my own hands. Taking an active role in loving people and taking care of them, before waiting for the government to do so. I think it’s about real change that starts with our hearts and moves to our hands, loving God and others. But this oftentimes includes a “resistance” or a “separation” from government and Empire, and this is what Christian Anarchism is all about.
Christian Anarchism: Part Two
Essentially the idea of Christian Anarchy begins with a similar slogan to that of the anarchists, only replacing the word “no” with the word “one.” “One God, One master.” The main point of this slogan lies in refusing to be subject to any existing government authority or institution except God himself. Greg Boyd who is a pastor, writer, and philosopher, says in his article, “The Bible, Government, and Christian Anarchy,” that, Christianity is essentially a group of people who belong to the ‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ as Jesus called it (Mathew 4:7) and are therefore called to pledge allegiance to God alone, and not to any nation, government, political party, or ideology (1).
This does not mean Christians can do whatever they want and are free to break the law, because Christians above all are called to live under the “Law of Love” as famous writer and thinker Leo Tolstoy called it (i.e. Jesus’ claim that all of the commandments of scripture are summed up in these two, “Love God, Love others” Mathew 22:36-40). Tolstoy says in his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, that “The Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact that he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of every man” (186). Therefore it is the Christian duty to abstain from following any law that contradicts the law of love and is imposed upon society from the government. The societal philosophy or unspoken “laws” that impede against the law of love could be the use of force or violence against one’s fellow man, war, a military draft, the death penalty, or the exploitation/abuse of others. Whenever these issues are deemed acceptable by society or given exception, they are to be broken by the follower of Jesus. For instance, if Jesus says that we are to love our enemies, then the government’s call for us to take up arms against an enemy cannot be followed out of adherence and respect for the sanctity of life and the law of love (even for one’s enemies) that the Christian believes in. It is not simply pacifism but non-violent resistance.
The Kingdom of God is Within You was one of the major inspirations for Mahatmas Gandhi and his resistance of the British Empire in India, which is also a great example of the non-resistance and non-violence to resist the empire that Christian Anarchy believes in. It was after a brief introduction to these ideas that I began to reexamine the politics of my faith and the nature of faith in relation to politics in general.
The idea of Christian Anarchy can seem a bit off putting. When I first told my parents I was dabbling in ideas of Christian Anarchy I don’t think they knew what to say. I think to placate me they might have said something like, “Oh, well isn’t that neat,” and then went back to discussing the weather, thinking I was off on another one of my ideological torrents. In general my belief system is not that different from my parents, but I think that they thought me being a Christian Anarchist meant that I would start wearing spiked black leather jackets, and get skull tattoos with yellow flames. You see, I grew up believing in God in a mainstream Christian denomination. My parents would cart my brother, my sister, and I off to church every Sunday, dragging us like reluctant Indie rockers to a Britney Spears concert. Both of my parents came from highly involved Christian households, influenced from a variety of church denominations. Both of them went to Bible College and both were Christian counselors. All of my family was Christian—except for maybe one of my uncles (he drank beer and rode motorcycles). Half of them were pastors of some kind. Being a Christian was a part of life; I knew nothing else.
I also grew up Republican in a small, conservative mountain town of Colorado. Slowly I learned that being a Christian in a Republican context meant you supported gun control, the war on terror, lower taxes and the free market system. Why these were Christian issues I wasn’t quite sure, but I was sure it was important. I knew that if we were not allowed to have guns, the government would take over 1984 style and it was our right to protect ourselves from this (I think this is like the twelfth or thirteenth commandment.) I knew that if taxes were raised we would have less money, and this was a bad thing (no one ever told me that it also meant more money could go to public expenditures like better schools and community programs, but why is that important?) Christianity and the Republican Party were like Starsky and Hutch. All the Christian magazines and articles I read wrote support for Republican candidates, and against the Democratic Party because once the Democrats got in, everyone knew that Christian morality would decay like Bruce Willis at a poetry reading. We would sing nationalistic, patriotic hymns during church and ask for God to “Bless America,” which I always considered strange considering we were the richest country in the world (sort of like asking God to bless Bill Gates).
I watched documentaries about the “Christian” foundation of America and even remember taking a Sunday school class about how the Founding Fathers were Christians and started this country as a Christian nation, but that now it was all going to hell because people were having abortions while watching Comedy Central. I also learned growing up that the government was an authority which God had set up and therefore must be obeyed, and in America’s case, supported 100%. I believed that God was on America’s side and that the other people, terrorists or whoever, were “evil” and we, we were, “good,” of course.
This does not mean Christians can do whatever they want and are free to break the law, because Christians above all are called to live under the “Law of Love” as famous writer and thinker Leo Tolstoy called it (i.e. Jesus’ claim that all of the commandments of scripture are summed up in these two, “Love God, Love others” Mathew 22:36-40). Tolstoy says in his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, that “The Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact that he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of every man” (186). Therefore it is the Christian duty to abstain from following any law that contradicts the law of love and is imposed upon society from the government. The societal philosophy or unspoken “laws” that impede against the law of love could be the use of force or violence against one’s fellow man, war, a military draft, the death penalty, or the exploitation/abuse of others. Whenever these issues are deemed acceptable by society or given exception, they are to be broken by the follower of Jesus. For instance, if Jesus says that we are to love our enemies, then the government’s call for us to take up arms against an enemy cannot be followed out of adherence and respect for the sanctity of life and the law of love (even for one’s enemies) that the Christian believes in. It is not simply pacifism but non-violent resistance.
The Kingdom of God is Within You was one of the major inspirations for Mahatmas Gandhi and his resistance of the British Empire in India, which is also a great example of the non-resistance and non-violence to resist the empire that Christian Anarchy believes in. It was after a brief introduction to these ideas that I began to reexamine the politics of my faith and the nature of faith in relation to politics in general.
The idea of Christian Anarchy can seem a bit off putting. When I first told my parents I was dabbling in ideas of Christian Anarchy I don’t think they knew what to say. I think to placate me they might have said something like, “Oh, well isn’t that neat,” and then went back to discussing the weather, thinking I was off on another one of my ideological torrents. In general my belief system is not that different from my parents, but I think that they thought me being a Christian Anarchist meant that I would start wearing spiked black leather jackets, and get skull tattoos with yellow flames. You see, I grew up believing in God in a mainstream Christian denomination. My parents would cart my brother, my sister, and I off to church every Sunday, dragging us like reluctant Indie rockers to a Britney Spears concert. Both of my parents came from highly involved Christian households, influenced from a variety of church denominations. Both of them went to Bible College and both were Christian counselors. All of my family was Christian—except for maybe one of my uncles (he drank beer and rode motorcycles). Half of them were pastors of some kind. Being a Christian was a part of life; I knew nothing else.
I also grew up Republican in a small, conservative mountain town of Colorado. Slowly I learned that being a Christian in a Republican context meant you supported gun control, the war on terror, lower taxes and the free market system. Why these were Christian issues I wasn’t quite sure, but I was sure it was important. I knew that if we were not allowed to have guns, the government would take over 1984 style and it was our right to protect ourselves from this (I think this is like the twelfth or thirteenth commandment.) I knew that if taxes were raised we would have less money, and this was a bad thing (no one ever told me that it also meant more money could go to public expenditures like better schools and community programs, but why is that important?) Christianity and the Republican Party were like Starsky and Hutch. All the Christian magazines and articles I read wrote support for Republican candidates, and against the Democratic Party because once the Democrats got in, everyone knew that Christian morality would decay like Bruce Willis at a poetry reading. We would sing nationalistic, patriotic hymns during church and ask for God to “Bless America,” which I always considered strange considering we were the richest country in the world (sort of like asking God to bless Bill Gates).
I watched documentaries about the “Christian” foundation of America and even remember taking a Sunday school class about how the Founding Fathers were Christians and started this country as a Christian nation, but that now it was all going to hell because people were having abortions while watching Comedy Central. I also learned growing up that the government was an authority which God had set up and therefore must be obeyed, and in America’s case, supported 100%. I believed that God was on America’s side and that the other people, terrorists or whoever, were “evil” and we, we were, “good,” of course.
Christian Anarchism
For anyone interested in the links between Chrisitanity and Anarchism, here is the paper i wrote on it. I broke it up into few sections since it's a bit long.
Christian Anarchism: Part One
I am a Christian Anarchist, well somewhat. However, it was not always this way. I grew up as a “normal” Christian who pledged allegiance to both God and country and gave little thought to the connection between the two. For many the very idea of Christian Anarchism seems to be a paradox of drastic proportions. “Surely the Anarchists are all about chaos and the Christians about order,” you might say. In fact it seems near ludicrous to say that there ever could exist such a thing as a, “Christian Anarchist.” Many people—Christians, Secularists, and Anarchists, would say that the two ideologies of the Christian Faith and the Anarchistic movement are simply incompatible. And while this is true to a certain extent, the two ideologies also have a multitude of common ground between them.
Christianity and Anarchy are similar in some ways and yet wholly different. The hardest part about defining the idea of “Christian Anarchism” is semantics. The ideas of Anarchy and Christianity both mean very different things to a large number of people, and even within each of these categories are more subcategories. However, for a common understanding in this essay, a “Christian” will be defined simply as someone who believes in God and does their best to follow Jesus’ teaching, with no emphasis on particular denominations or theologies. The idea of Anarchy on the other hand, takes a bit more defining, because of the many associations and ideas associated with it.
Anarchists are generally known as a group that attempts to overthrow or subvert government authority and society with no intention of restoring order (usually in a violent manner). The Anarchist movement is an attempt to advocate for a state of natural order with no government or ruling authority in place. Anarchists are usually associated with destructive, dangerous behavior (which is not the case for Christian Anarchists) and even viewed as terrorists. The Anarchist revolts against existing laws, orders, and customs that they believe impedes the freedom of the individual. Sometimes the goal is overthrowing government; sometimes it is simply to abstain from government. The central claim or slogan of the Anarchist movement is, “No gods, no masters,” which means a number of different things, but mainly the belief first and foremost in freedom, which lies not in serving the government and religious institutions, but in the fraternity of the human race. These ideas constitute a general understanding of the Anarchist Movement, and while many years ago I would have been incapable of noticing the connections between this ideology and Christianity, today is a different story.
Christian Anarchy is essentially summed up in the call to “resist the empire,” the empire basically meaning the government and the systems of power within it. There are a surprising number of theological and historical figures who have proposed connections between Christianity and Anarchy, with just a few including renowned Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day of the Catholic Workers movement, Professor Jacques Ellul, and Mennonite John Howard Yoder. They are some of the foremost thinkers on the idea of Christian Anarchy, as well as two contemporary authors and activists, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne. The word anarchy comes from “an” meaning, “without,” and “archy”, meaning “human authority” as writer, professor, and philosopher Jacques Ellul says in his article “Christianity and Anarchy,” (14.) So anarchy essentially means “without human authority.” Now, the idea of Christian Anarchy is not a subcategory of Anarchy, but more a subcategory of Christianity, (though it could be a completely different category altogether). The Christian belief in anarchy stems from the definition of “without human authority,” claiming that Christians are without human authority and subject to God alone. There are a few different branches or strands of Christian Anarchy, and the following are some broad generalizations of each. The first of these is the belief in a complete abstaining from all forms of government—living beneath the tax line, not voting, nomadic living arrangements and some even so far as abstaining from the use of currency.
The next form would be that of the Mennonites or Amish, a group of people by and large separate from society and who have their own way of sustainable living apart from any sort of government. The last form would be a more neutral version, where the Christian takes part in some systems of government—voting, taxes, and such things, but by and large still believes in and does their best to live in such a way that government is both unnecessary and contradictory to the systems of power that it represents. I think I am in the last category, but really I don’t like being thrown in categories.
Christian Anarchism: Part One
I am a Christian Anarchist, well somewhat. However, it was not always this way. I grew up as a “normal” Christian who pledged allegiance to both God and country and gave little thought to the connection between the two. For many the very idea of Christian Anarchism seems to be a paradox of drastic proportions. “Surely the Anarchists are all about chaos and the Christians about order,” you might say. In fact it seems near ludicrous to say that there ever could exist such a thing as a, “Christian Anarchist.” Many people—Christians, Secularists, and Anarchists, would say that the two ideologies of the Christian Faith and the Anarchistic movement are simply incompatible. And while this is true to a certain extent, the two ideologies also have a multitude of common ground between them.
Christianity and Anarchy are similar in some ways and yet wholly different. The hardest part about defining the idea of “Christian Anarchism” is semantics. The ideas of Anarchy and Christianity both mean very different things to a large number of people, and even within each of these categories are more subcategories. However, for a common understanding in this essay, a “Christian” will be defined simply as someone who believes in God and does their best to follow Jesus’ teaching, with no emphasis on particular denominations or theologies. The idea of Anarchy on the other hand, takes a bit more defining, because of the many associations and ideas associated with it.
Anarchists are generally known as a group that attempts to overthrow or subvert government authority and society with no intention of restoring order (usually in a violent manner). The Anarchist movement is an attempt to advocate for a state of natural order with no government or ruling authority in place. Anarchists are usually associated with destructive, dangerous behavior (which is not the case for Christian Anarchists) and even viewed as terrorists. The Anarchist revolts against existing laws, orders, and customs that they believe impedes the freedom of the individual. Sometimes the goal is overthrowing government; sometimes it is simply to abstain from government. The central claim or slogan of the Anarchist movement is, “No gods, no masters,” which means a number of different things, but mainly the belief first and foremost in freedom, which lies not in serving the government and religious institutions, but in the fraternity of the human race. These ideas constitute a general understanding of the Anarchist Movement, and while many years ago I would have been incapable of noticing the connections between this ideology and Christianity, today is a different story.
Christian Anarchy is essentially summed up in the call to “resist the empire,” the empire basically meaning the government and the systems of power within it. There are a surprising number of theological and historical figures who have proposed connections between Christianity and Anarchy, with just a few including renowned Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, Dorothy Day of the Catholic Workers movement, Professor Jacques Ellul, and Mennonite John Howard Yoder. They are some of the foremost thinkers on the idea of Christian Anarchy, as well as two contemporary authors and activists, Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne. The word anarchy comes from “an” meaning, “without,” and “archy”, meaning “human authority” as writer, professor, and philosopher Jacques Ellul says in his article “Christianity and Anarchy,” (14.) So anarchy essentially means “without human authority.” Now, the idea of Christian Anarchy is not a subcategory of Anarchy, but more a subcategory of Christianity, (though it could be a completely different category altogether). The Christian belief in anarchy stems from the definition of “without human authority,” claiming that Christians are without human authority and subject to God alone. There are a few different branches or strands of Christian Anarchy, and the following are some broad generalizations of each. The first of these is the belief in a complete abstaining from all forms of government—living beneath the tax line, not voting, nomadic living arrangements and some even so far as abstaining from the use of currency.
The next form would be that of the Mennonites or Amish, a group of people by and large separate from society and who have their own way of sustainable living apart from any sort of government. The last form would be a more neutral version, where the Christian takes part in some systems of government—voting, taxes, and such things, but by and large still believes in and does their best to live in such a way that government is both unnecessary and contradictory to the systems of power that it represents. I think I am in the last category, but really I don’t like being thrown in categories.
The Sun was Driving Hot nails Through our Underwear: A poem for you
This poem is dedicated to you:
Whoever you are
I am going to try and blog more this year and part of that will be poetry.
So here's the first:
The Sun Was Driving Hot Nails Through Our Underwear
The sun was driving hot nails through our underwear
And we laughed at the thought of
Crying pillows over the beds on our cheeks.
Singing songs of suffering we drank joy like juice
Gyrating the eyes of brilliance
Till you shook like a candle and burned wax down your ear lobes like
cool water
and it—
felt good.
The distances in your eyes is like mars
Multiplying microcosms of moths
Fluttering loneliness like
Plates of Mr. butterscotch
Looking for Mrs. Butterscotch.
Who’s out cheating on him
The Pilates you do in the morning is the
Pitch perfect desperation
Of a middle aged housewife.
And like vases
The vultures circle and grow
As transparent trapeze artists.
Trapping our insides
Suffering at dawn
The circus is all we know
Till the robin rings
I’ll sit in the rocking chair
Plotting his death
And youll know it when you see it
The orange breast
With a clue knife.
Whoever you are
I am going to try and blog more this year and part of that will be poetry.
So here's the first:
The Sun Was Driving Hot Nails Through Our Underwear
The sun was driving hot nails through our underwear
And we laughed at the thought of
Crying pillows over the beds on our cheeks.
Singing songs of suffering we drank joy like juice
Gyrating the eyes of brilliance
Till you shook like a candle and burned wax down your ear lobes like
cool water
and it—
felt good.
The distances in your eyes is like mars
Multiplying microcosms of moths
Fluttering loneliness like
Plates of Mr. butterscotch
Looking for Mrs. Butterscotch.
Who’s out cheating on him
The Pilates you do in the morning is the
Pitch perfect desperation
Of a middle aged housewife.
And like vases
The vultures circle and grow
As transparent trapeze artists.
Trapping our insides
Suffering at dawn
The circus is all we know
Till the robin rings
I’ll sit in the rocking chair
Plotting his death
And youll know it when you see it
The orange breast
With a clue knife.
I'm Moving To Salt Lake City
So for those of you who don't know. I shall be moving this spring to one the snowboard/Mormon/Utah capital, Salt Lake City. It is part of a church plant collaboration between the Orchard Group and Imago Dei Community in Portland, Or. I shall be going with many friends, including my friend Kyle Costello who is heading this thing up, and his wife Joy. Also going is my uncle Kevin who is on stafff with Imago, and his wife Karen and their son Braden, who when i babysat him recently pooped in the bathtub. Also my fellow social justice and simplicty friend Jeremy Cox and his family and lots more people.
Below is the link to a video interview between Rick Mckinley and Kyle and Joy and Kevin and Karen.
Its good stuff. Let me know if you have any questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)