Christian anarchism and Christian pacifism

[yourhopeboundheart]

Lack of government is anarchism, right?

not right, in fact.

anarchism, by definition, does not exist (you cant put a name on something that rejects stricture and conformity, once you tell an anarchist that s/he subscribes to anarchism, s/he will reject it instantly [and potentially spray-paint on your garage]). anarchists, however, exist and they are not bound into a group because that would encompass the entirety of humanity. everyone has a different sized anarchist living inside of them because it's a product of being a primate with a large brain. our group mentality and tribal preoccupation has to be countered by something and the desire to be free is what pulls us to be individuals among many. this is part of why we can't get our large numbered groups to work as seamlessly as ants or bees. (and this is a good thing)

anarchy (as someone else pointed out) is a state of being devoid of unnecessary hierarchies. anarchists reject unnecessary hierarchies. government can interfere with anarchy, or your garbage collection service can interfere with anarchy. an anarchist rejects the pope the same way as s/he rejects a drug dealer, or a school teacher, or an astrophysicist - if they stand in the way of hir freedom.

was christ preaching an anarchist message: no.
was christ anti-government: no.
was christ a pacifist: no.
did christ teach non-violent direct action: yes (cleverly, indeed).
was christ anti-roman: yes.

i personally feel that the term "christian" and the term "anarchist" are simply incompatible. "Christian anarchism is 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." this clearly means that xian anarchists are willing to reject all authority figures besides one, they will only allow one boot to be on their throats. as i stated before, everyone is an anarchist to a different degree (every time you run a stop light because it's four in the morning and it just hasn't changed for five straight minutes, but nobody's coming from ANY direction - you become an anarchist for as long as it takes to get through the light.), but the active acceptance of christ as an authority figure is a rejection of anarchy.

christians are christians, anarchists are anarchists. some anarchists might be christians and some christians might be anarchist. some anarchists like grapefruit, some christians like grapefruit. that doesnt make it a movement.

however, christians as pacifists makes plenty of sense. they have to follow a more strict "do as i say not as i do" policy when reading the new testament (cant go throw a tantrum every time someone decides to have a temple garage sale), but it is certainly feasible. the only hang up is that christians who expect god to do their fighting for them are not pacifists, they are simply underlings. saying "my dad can beat up your dad" is not the same thing as saying "nobody needs to beat up anyone, let's just talk about it." if you walk away from non-violence with the image of your opponent burning in eternal damnation you have not been pacifist, you've been passive aggressive. but i think, by and large, the above grapefruit sequence could be applied to pacifism too - the man's not preaching it, but he's not preaching against it.

 

[no-body]

The exception does'nt prove the rule, which is that Christianity has spread through conversions, missionaries, conquests, genocides.

Well sure but that isn't what the OP asked. They just wanted to know about these groups. I think the Quakers don't get enough credit for their part in taking down slavery in America.

 

[Eliot Wild]

not right, in fact.

anarchism, by definition, does not exist (you cant put a name on something that rejects stricture and conformity, once you tell an anarchist that s/he subscribes to anarchism, s/he will reject it instantly [and potentially spray-paint on your garage]). anarchists, however, exist and they are not bound into a group because that would encompass the entirety of humanity. everyone has a different sized anarchist living inside of them because it's a product of being a primate with a large brain. our group mentality and tribal preoccupation has to be countered by something and the desire to be free is what pulls us to be individuals among many. this is part of why we can't get our large numbered groups to work as seamlessly as ants or bees. (and this is a good thing)

anarchy (as someone else pointed out) is a state of being devoid of unnecessary hierarchies . . .

Cool. Thanks for pointing that out.

If I understand your meaning, then of course, relying on the anarchist's rejection of association, I could hope to avoid getting my garage spray-painted by telling the anarchist that he certainly didn't want to be seen as a "graffiti-ist", couldn't I?

 

[dust1n]

I'm interested in both and was wondering if anyone here has views on, or experience of either Christian anarchism and Christian pacifism?

Hey stephenw. From what I understand, Tolstoy is deemed the original Christian anarchist and the first book to capture it in his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, which I think can be read along side the Bible.

The concept is fairly simple. There is only one coherent and good authority, and that is the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus. Therefore, government and organized religion are to be resisted, while religious tolerance and nonviolence are to be embraced.

Some Christian anarchists are also against profit from transaction.

Also, Thomas Haggerty was a Catholic priest in pre-, industrial revolution America, who helped found the infamous IWW, which was prominently the most legitimate union-based organization of it's time, being the only one to denounce all forms of racism and sexism, etc.

IMO, Christianity and Anarchism are completely compatible (in ways)- no form of Anarchism has a desire to suppress personal religion, just organized religion.

Hope this helps.

 

[dust1n]

From what I understand from Wikipedia this goes against God in general. God is a god of order he set rules for a purpose. So he set's up government's for a purpose too. As Jesus said "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar." Meaning Jesus was pro-taxes.

Wasn't Caesar particularly douchey and violent? How are you coming to the conclusion that this line is pro-taxes?

 

[Eliot Wild]

I'm a Christian pacifist. I see nonviolent action as an important dimension of discipleship. I've written a fair bit on nonviolent Christianity at http :// mattstone.blogs.com/nonviolence

In my experience Christian pacifists tend to come to their position from Christocentric readings of the Bible. I know, we're crazy. For some reason Theocentric readings just don't cut it with us.

Now, to join the discussion, Christian pacifism is not synonymous with Christian anarchism, although I'm aware there is some overlap between the two movements. But, you know, I'm hesitant to even use the word 'anarchist' in this forum after reading your understanding of it. Because it is very different to the self understanding of Christian anarchists I've encountered. The stuff you're talking about above sounds more like Christian terrorism to me, not Christian anarchism. To be a Christian anarchist you've got to be, not only anti-government, but also anti-hierarchy. Hierarchy is the antithesis of anarchy. The militias you're invoking are very hierarchial from what I know, so revolutionary but not anarchistic in the true sense of the word. In particular, KuKlux Klan is NOT an example of a Christian anarchist group precisely because it is very hierarchial (and not particularly Christian I might add).

To outline my own position though, just so its clear: I'm pacifist but not anarchist. I'm not anti government per se, only anti idolization of government.

Cool. This must have been the post that yourhopeboundheart was talking about, the one that gives the best definition of "anarchy" or "anarchist".

I tried to relay my respect for this post and the thinking it displays by giving it frubals, but quickly realized there just isn't enough room in the little frubal comment window. I tend to be too longwinded most of the time.

I am certainly no expert on Christ's teachings, though I do have a great deal of respect for what I have read and understand. The thinking above seems to reflect "Christianity" much more truthfully than any Americanized versions I have witnessed.

Although somebody did mention the Quakers, no-body, I believe it was, and from what little I've experienced of them, I would agree that they seem to practice a truly pacificistic form of Christianity.

Most "Christians" I've observed here in the states seem to practice an expedient form of Christianity. In other words, their religion is convenient for them. They cling to those parts that meet their personal agendas, conveniently ignore those parts that conflict with their desired lifestyles, and unashamedly misinterpret the parts of Christ's teachings that don't fit in either of these first two catagories.

For example, though I may have misinterpreted or am just plain ignorant, it seems to me that one of Christ's central themes was peace/nonviolence. However, there is one verse, I believe, in the KJV where Christ says he came to bring a sword into this world, or something like that. Regardless of how many verses suggest Jesus was all about peace and nonviolence, the verse about the sword is the one that many of the American Christians refer to when it comes time to support the next use of military force by our government to achieve some foreign policy goal or another.

 

[no-body]

However, there is one verse, I believe, in the KJV where Christ says he came to bring a sword into this world, or something like that. Regardless of how many verses suggest Jesus was all about peace and nonviolence, the verse about the sword is the one that many of the American Christians refer to when it comes time to support the next use of military force by our government to achieve some foreign policy goal or another.

Interestingly those who quote the "I come not to bring peace but a sword" bit usually ignore the rest of it

"...For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Seems to me that he is talking about ideology, a war of ideas, not actual physical violence.

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

\

If I understand your meaning, then of course, relying on the anarchist's rejection of association, I could hope to avoid getting my garage spray-painted by telling the anarchist that he certainly didn't want to be seen as a "graffiti-ist", couldn't I?

i cant speak for any anarchist besides myself (by definition), and as far as keeping me from spray-painting on your garage the best bet is a motion sensor flood light. those things never cease to freak me out. =)

 

[Caladan]

To be a Christian anarchist you've got to be, not only anti-government, but also anti-hierarchy. Hierarchy is the antithesis of anarchy

How do you conform your political opinions with Jesus' doctrine of "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s", this is a teaching wich educates people to respect the hierarchy and cooperate with it.

 

[dust1n]

How do you conform your political opinions with Jesus' doctrine of "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s", this is a teaching wich educates people to respect the hierarchy and cooperate with it.

Not that I'm arguing for anything in particular; but this might be some explanation -


Ammon Hennacy was on trial for civil disobedience and was asked by the judge to reconcile his tax resistance with Jesus’ instructions. “I told him Caesar was getting too much around here and some one had to stand up for God.” Elsewhere, he interpreted the story in this way:

[Jesus] was asked if He believed in paying taxes to Caesar. In those days different districts had different money and the Jews had to change their money into that of Rome, so Jesus asked, not for a Jewish coin, but for a coin with which tribute was paid, saying “Why tempt me?” Looking at the coin He asked whose image and superscription was there inscribed and was told that it was Caesar’s. Those who tried to trick Him knew that if He said that taxes were to be paid to Caesar He would be attacked by the mobs who hated Caesar, and if He refused to pay taxes there would always be some traitor to turn Him in. His mission was not to fight Caesar as Barabbas had done, but it was to chase the moneychangers out of the Temple and to establish His own Church. Whether He winked as much as to say that any good Jew knew that Caesar did not deserve a thing as He said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s,” or not, no one knows.

…Despite what anyone says each of us has to decide for himself whether to put the emphasis upon pleasing Caesar or pleasing God. We may vary in our reasons for drawing the line here or there as to how much we render unto Caesar. I make my decision when I remember that Christ said to the woman caught in sin, “Let him without sin first cast a stone at her.” I remember His “Forgive seventy times seven,” which means no Caesar at all with his courts, prisons and war.[16]
​

Other anarchist interpretations for this passage include freeing oneself from material attachment and implying that Caesar has rights over the fiat money he produces. As Jacques Ellul puts it:[17]

"Render unto Caesar..." in no way divides the exercise of authority into two realms....They were said in response to another matter: the payment of taxes, and the coin. The mark on the coin is that of Caesar; it is the mark of his property. Therefore give Caesar this money; it is his. It is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. That's all. Let us not forget that money, for Jesus, is the domain of Mammon, a satanic domain!



​

Render unto Caesar... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sandandfoam]

which Christians are you talking about specifically?

I was talking about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade

 

[sandandfoam]

I am highly surprised that no one has mentioned Leo Tolstoy. Didnt he develop initial Christian anarchism and pacifism thought?

I think he was mentioned in an earlier post
His writing on this is fantastic imo.
I'm only beginning to read him online. It's great stuff.
Leo Tolstoy - The Kingdom of God is Within You

 

[Caladan]

I was talking about the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade

Yes, every religion has dark episodes of persecuting its own subjects because of misguided fanaticism, zeal and self righteousness.