Christian Anarchism

[Anonymoose]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchy

--------------------------------------------------------------
Petr Chelčický

The man who obeys God needs no other authority (over him).

Ammon Hennacy

An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do.

Oh, judge, your damn laws: the good people don't need them and the bad people don't follow them, so what good are they?

Being a pacifist between wars is as easy as being a vegetarian between meals.

David Lipscomb

The people of Maine and Texas, of England and India, could never become enemies or be involved in strife and war, save through the intervention of human government to spread enmity and excite to war. […] Whatever tends to wean men from this government of God, and to substitute other governments for it, brings confusion and strife (95).

Leo Tolstoy

All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful.

Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.

In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you.

Jacques Ellul

There are different forms of anarchy and different currents in it. I must, first say very simply what anarchy I have in view. By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence.

What seems to be one of the disasters of our time is that we all appear to agree that the nation-state is the norm. […] Whether the state be Marxist or capitalist, it makes no difference. The dominant ideology is that of sovereignty. (Anarchy and Christianity, 104–5.)

So I can very well say without hesitation that all those who have political power, even if they use it well have acquired it by demonic mediation and even if they are not conscious of it, they are worshippers of diabolos. (Si tu es le Fils de Dieu, 76)

Nicolas Berdyaev

It is beyond dispute that the state exercises very great power over human life and it always shows a tendency to go beyond the limits laid down for it. (Slavery and Freedom, 145)

There is absolute truth in anarchism and it is to be seen in its attitude to the sovereignty of the state and to every form of state absolutism. […] The religious truth of anarchism consists in this, that power over man is bound up with sin and evil, that a state of perfection is a state where there is no power of man over man, that is to say, anarchy. The Kingdom of God is freedom and the absence of such power … the Kingdom of God is anarchy. (Slavery and Freedom, 147–8)
----------------------------------------------

I sometimes find stuff like this to be fascinating. I suppose this could be biblical interpretation meant for General or a political thing as well...

[DepthsofSpace]

I like parts of the idea, namely the anarchism and the interpretation of Christ as an anarchist. However, the finer points, namely non-violence against the state for any reason, I've seen go badly for several Christian individualist/anarchist in the free state project.

Sometimes you have to eff' things up. Even Christ went in and cleaned house on the religious leaders and money lenders, aye?


If interested, read the Kingdom of God is in You by Leo Tolstoy.

[Anonymoose]

Yeah, it's delightful.


I especially like what they say about the only authorities are the ones that god appoints.

Cool thing about that is, god is pretty damn silent if you think about it.

[JCC]

Yeah, only problem being that not everyone is a Christian, and since an Anarchist state is founded on the opinions of the majority, if an Anarchist state is decided to be Christian it doesn't bode well for others. Since I fit firmly into said others, Christian Anarchism is a shitty idea.

[Anonymoose]

NNNooo....

If a Christian Anarchist state stays Christian, than for them to respect your autonomy, they have to respect that you're not a christian.

Hey, at least your not a potential tyrant or miscreant in the Anarcho-Christian state.

[HumanePain]

A pleasing ideal, but in practice, a human somewhere decides to tell the masses what God said, and therein lies the danger, the "slavering wolves" who will claim to work in His name will seek to enslave the world. The way to discern the Holy from the Hellish is to observe: does what the religious leaders say and do free the masses, or enslave them? If it frees them, then "Christian anarchy" could be said to exist in its true form.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

NNNooo....

If a Christian Anarchist state stays Christian, than for them to respect your autonomy, they have to respect that you're not a christian.

Hey, at least your not a potential tyrant or miscreant in the Anarcho-Christian state.

Then why would it be Christian Anarchy rather than just Anarchy? Why can't Anarchy be secular? Why does religion have to be pervasive in everything, especially in a political ideology as opposed to the establishment ethos of religion as Anarchism is?

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by JCC

Then why would it be Christian Anarchy rather than just Anarchy? Why can't Anarchy be secular? Why does religion have to be pervasive in everything, especially in a political ideology as opposed to the establishment ethos of religion as Anarchism is?

You miss the point. It's an adherence to the word of Jesus Christ. So in practice, it's a form of anarcho-passivism. Turn the other cheeck, treat others as you would want to be treated, cast no stone unless you're perfect, don't judge unless ye be judged? Are these really so polarized against anyone who desires an anarcho-pacifist society?

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

A pleasing ideal, but in practice, a human somewhere decides to tell the masses what God said, and therein lies the danger, the "slavering wolves" who will claim to work in His name will seek to enslave the world. The way to discern the Holy from the Hellish is to observe: does what the religious leaders say and do free the masses, or enslave them? If it frees them, then "Christian anarchy" could be said to exist in its true form.

I would actually say look onto the words of Christ and see what your heart tells you and then respect that and hold it to yourself.

I would imagine that one who follows the philosophies of christ would be pacifists by nature.

Read the whole thing again. A lot of it is vehemently against any organized church.

[HumanePain]

I have read it, and what I take away from it is that if everyone obeys God, then secular governments become unnecessary because everyone follows a higher calling.

[Anonymoose]

Essentially, we're at the crux of the understanding of Anarcho-Christianity.

You know, in those regards, I'm not a christian, but I don't think it would bother me to live in an anarcho-christian society.

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

You know, in those regards, I'm not a christian, but I don't think it would bother me to live in an anarcho-christian society.

Why not just anarchy? Why tag one religion to it? What if I wanted to be a pagan, or a Muslim in such a society?

And by the way, I am a Christian.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by JCC

Then why would it be Christian Anarchy rather than just Anarchy? Why can't Anarchy be secular?

Because Christian Anarchists do not attempt to create Christianity through Anarchy. They try to create Anarchy through Christianity.
By the Christian Anarchist code, we really don't need to respond to anyone but "our personal savior"
Sure, I'm an atheist, but I like Christian Anarchists. They are one of the best representations of what Jesus really stood up for; although I would argue Jesus would have prefer communism.
Anyway, most Christian Anarchists don't even respond to the Bible the same way most Christians do. Some don't believe in heaven and hell for example. A Christian Anarchist chooses to follow the teachings of Jesus more than accepting him as a Restart button.
Christian Anarchists are more like Jews than Christians: it's more of a covenant than a means of salvation.

[Catch]

Christian Anarchy doesn't even make sense, because people are supposed to observe and respect the laws of all nations.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by Catch

Christian Anarchy doesn't even make sense, because people are supposed to observe and respect the laws of all nations.

Did Jesus say that or Paul?

Christian Anarchist apparently think Paul was either misguided or an asshole.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

Why not just anarchy? Why tag one religion to it? What if I wanted to be a pagan, or a Muslim in such a society?

And by the way, I am a Christian.

Because for anarchy to work it almost demands that everyone realize that there's a driving force or idea that brings people together for the greater good.

Sure, some people can be pure anarchists, but who are we to determine what the best route is for someone to embrace autonomy and freedom?

If they find Christ's teachings to be a liberating, anarchist ideal, then why not let them take that course of action? Would it really be so bad? They've come to the same conclusion that you have through faith or what have you.

I've met a few people who came to anarchy through spirituality. It's interesting. They find a near divinity in it. Kind of admirable, really.

[CptSternn]

The whole idea seems a bit off. The title itself is an oxymoron. Think about it.

Christian anarchist.

Christians follow a set path. Anarchists don't. How can you conform to the standards of a religion but yet not conform to any standards at all?

As far as the argument of using the word of the Lord as your guide, I ask - whose version of His word will you be following? Will you be reading the standard Bible or a protestant King James version? Or will you be using the NIB - New International Bible? What about the mormon version with its follow ups? Or the one the jehovas witnesses claim is the real translation? Which translation does a Christian without any affiliation follow? See, depending on which one you choose - you have already chosen a sect, a path, which is against the idea of being Christian anarchist without engaging in such.

In fact, by choosing any of those, then claiming you are not following that groups teachings or methods, you have just become an evangelical - a protestant who has created yet another new sect - something we see in America every few months.

[Tea and Cake or Death]

..... Well, let them do their thing and we will see how it all works out.

[LiUsAiDh]

It sounds good, but it would never work, there would always be some person who didn't obey the rules, and knackers up the whole system (even though there would be no 'systems'. o_0 gah?) You get what I'm saying.

Good in theory, bad in practice, a little like communism.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

It sounds good, but it would never work, there would always be some person who didn't obey the rules, and knackers up the whole system (even though there would be no 'systems'. o_0 gah?) You get what I'm saying.

Good in theory, bad in practice, a little like communism.

Or any other system humans have made.

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Christians follow a set path. Anarchists don't. How can you conform to the standards of a religion but yet not conform to any standards at all?

Because you're not following another man's standard's but God's and your own individual judgment, which differ from following the standard that men have created and tried countless times.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

As far as the argument of using the word of the Lord as your guide, I ask - whose version of His word will you be following? Will you be reading the standard Bible or a protestant King James version? Or will you be using the NIB - New International Bible? What about the mormon version with its follow ups? Or the one the jehovas witnesses claim is the real translation? Which translation does a Christian without any affiliation follow? See, depending on which one you choose - you have already chosen a sect, a path, which is against the idea of being Christian anarchist without engaging in such.

They follow the version that they make their own judgment on, depending on how free they are to make that choice. For me it is the latter and last time I checked Jehovah's Witnesses are ethically Anarchists because they don't believe that a system created by Man will ever work. That being said, I never got to know a Jehovah Witness congregation long enough to see how true that was.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Anyway, most Christian Anarchists don't even respond to the Bible the same way most Christians do. Some don't believe in heaven and hell for example. A Christian Anarchist chooses to follow the teachings of Jesus more than accepting him as a Restart button.
Christian Anarchists are more like Jews than Christians: it's more of a covenant than a means of salvation.

Quite the truth; I myself don't believe in a Hell.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

It sounds good, but it would never work, there would always be some person who didn't obey the rules,

In the spirit of Emma Goldman, I have to say that for this exact reason we should live in Anarchy.
Sure, if property is collectivized some people will take advantage of the system and take more than they put in, but just because this sporadically happens under an anarchist non-state is not an excuse for not trying it.
After all, it's this system that glorifies this kind of human being that gives nothing to society but takes everything from it.
The argument about some people taking advantage under anarchy always ignores the system we live in today.
It's just like when people decry anarchists for this occasional bomb or the other, when for some reason they do not compare it to this system that continually and systematically goes to war and kills off seditionists.

[HumanePain]

In terms of application, the problem is in the "trying it", as it is an all or nothing approach that has the best chance to succeed. If only the United States for example tries it, then the U.S., lacking a cohesive and organized military and government would be vulnerable to attack by non-anarchy nations.

Either the whole world becomes anarchy, or forget it.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

In terms of application, the problem is in the "trying it", as it is an all or nothing approach that has the best chance to succeed. If only the United States for example tries it, then the U.S., lacking a cohesive and organized military and government would be vulnerable to attack by non-anarchy nations.

Either the whole world becomes anarchy, or forget it.

This is sadly true.

The world is full of anarchists who hope for more liberty and freedom. A friend of mine and myself talked of a global collective succession where a piece of land was bought and the anarchist nation would simply be "left alone" by the world. That would, however, be a far cry from practical.

Yes, a single anarchist nation would be under attack from other nations all the time. But if anything, it would prove that it's not the anarchists society that's at fault, but the aggressors and not only that, the anarchist nation would be a mirror to the nature of every nation that invaded. Be if for land, resources, or slaves.

But I'd be willing to bet that any nation that invaded for any reason at all, might find that it'd be bad for their image and public opinion.

[Godslayer Jillian]

This is the reason I'm not a pacifist.
The Spanish anarchist regions, like Catalonia, the Asturias, and Aragon survived because they fought for the land.
We can also put Cuba as an example. They weren't anarchist, but the United States didn't overthrow Cuba even though they once became the highest threat of "the free world."
While Castro stayed to manage his nation, Che left to help communist uprisings all over the world, just like Trotsky would have liked.
This would also work with Anarchism, never attacking, but only defending, while still spreading the spirit of anarchism all throughout the world. Thanks to the globalization of information, and because in this scenario anarchism has proven to work in at least one region, many dissenters and, I'm willing to bet, a huge portion of intellectuals, would support the movement, making it hard for other countries to attack.
It would be like executing Chomsky on public television.