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.
No comments:
Post a Comment