christian anarchism
Christian Anarchism – A Political Commentary on the Gospel – (2011) by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos via 255 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-christian-anarchism]
@alex_christoy: Reader in Politics & International Relations. Editor @jpacnv. Consumer/sharer of politics. Foreigner everywhere. Views my own. @alex_christoy@mastodon.social.. Leicestershire, UK, Europe
notes/quotes:
10
intro
Christian anarchism, therefore, is not about forcing together two very different systems of thought — it is about pursuing the radical political implications of Christianity to the fullest extent..t
if only.. ie: p 38 et al.. if anti ness not fullest
14
..anarchists and Christians alike who are “making monarchical language the primary descriptor of God” in fact “misrepresent” his “full character.” Ellul similarly argues that even in the Old Testament, “the first aspect of God is never that of the absolute Master,” and that human beings are always free to act or not according to his commandments (this is clarified further in Chapter 2). Therefore, in response to this anarchist complaint, Christian anarchists contend that much is misunderstood about the nature of God if he is just seen as an autocratic ruler or as some sort of “Super Santa-Claus” or “Benevolent Despot,” as Hennacy puts it.
18
To refer to a previous analogy, their distinct melodies would most probably fit the symphony rather than force a major rewrite of it.
we need a major unwritable rewrite.. part\ial ness is killing us.. for (blank)’s sake
most of the critical and reflective input has gone into drawing out the overall coherence of the many Christian anarchist voices, methodically weaving them together, and presenting Christian anarchism as a coherent perspective rather than critiquing it. To paraphrase Darrell J. Fasching, with this book, “I do not so much attempt to stand outside of [Christian anarchism] and judge it as to get inside it and clarify it.”
great.. but in whole realm.. neither that helpful.. need to try something legit diff..
19
On language, no definitions of the words “state,” “government,” “power” or “authority” are presented in this book. This is mainly because Christian anarchists do not all refer to them in exactly the same way, and since extensive use of quotations is made throughout the book, any strict definition would regularly need to be qualified to reflect the slightly different meaning attributed by different Christian anarchists. A fairly clear sense of what is being criticised by Christian anarchists does nevertheless emerge in the first t hree Chapters anyway, and Chapter 3 does briefly revisit this question of the terminology employed by Christian anarchists.
The words “non-violence,” “non-resistance” and “pacifism” are also not defined in this book, again because individual Christian anarchists can sometimes have slightly different meanings in mind when using them. Nonetheless, a tension between the first two words, and specifically between the different understandings of Jesus’ teaching which their choice betrays, becomes evident by Chapter 4, where it is discussed in more detail.
again.. to.. defining/clarifying ness as cancerous distraction
Another key word for which a definition is avoided is the word “church,” because usually, what is being said in the text about the existing church refers not to one particular church or denomination but to almost all churches in Christianity, to the Christian church generically-speaking. A clearer picture of what it is about the existing church that Christian anarchists dislike is drawn in Chapter 3, and Chapter 5 portrays the “true,” ideal church or community which they understand Jesus’ teaching to have implied.
While on language, it is worth confessing that the language of several of the quotations in this book is clearly male-centric, especially from authors who wrote prior to the feminist revolution. Although it is impossible to assert with certainty whether these authors meant their words to apply to both genders, it goes without saying that in quoting their words in this book, my intentions are for these to be interpreted as applying to all, in a gender-neutral way.
20
Not all Christian anarchists agree on the value of other parts of the New Testament, but this is noted where relevant. The Old Testament is mostly ignored, partly because the New Testament is traditionally understood to fulfil it, but mainly simply because Christian anarchists generally have very little to say about it.
The main body of the book consists of six Chapters, split into two main Parts. Part I describes the Christian anarchist critique of the state, and Part II, the Christian anarchist response.
21
In a sense, whereas Chapter 4 outlines the negative response to the state, Chapter 5 outlines the positive response as the “true” church. Chapter 6 then lists the examples of individual and collective witness which are either praised or inspired directly by Christian anarchist thinkers — examples, therefore, of the Christian anarchist response.
What is of interest here is not their particular life or social context, or even how solid a commitment they might have made to Christian anarchism, but that at the level of ideas, they contribute to a generic outline of Christian anarchism. That their writings on this particular issue combine to produce a fairly coherent body of thought is both assumed and demonstrated by the remainder of this book
zoom dance ish
as org for graeber quotes project.. using make diff as thread..? [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KR_YhegUeKsUsul1Wvvxy2sS_jgxvoTrDnm5_Qkl1BY/edit?usp=sharing]
leo tolstoy
22
His rationalistic take on Christianity is rarely shared by other Christian anarchists, but it is not necessary to agree with his dislike of the supernatural to be able to follow his powerful arguments on Jesus’ teaching and example. It was the development of these arguments that led him to become such a bitter critic of church and state. That is, as Chapter 1 makes clear, Tolstoy’s Christian anarchism follows from his rationalistic interpretation of Jesus’ teaching, especially as summarised in the Sermon on the Mount. He wrote countless essays and books on the topic, but the most often cited one among anarchists is The Kingdom of God Is within You (although What I Believe is just as good and comprehensive)
kingdom is within you.. can’t find what i believe in anarchist library
23
Like several of these classic thinkers, however, Tolstoy himself avoided the word “anarchism” to describe his thought, because he associated the word with the violent revolutionaries which he strongly disagreed with. His understanding of anarchism as an intellectual position improved over time, however, and he eventually accepted this term to describe his position as long as it was understood that his anarchism was strictly non-violent and based on the Sermon on the Mount.
Among Christian anarchists, Tolstoy is also generally acknowledged as the best known Christian anarchist thinker…further investigation into Christian anarchism quickly reveals that there are actually quite a few other thinkers who have developed a similar position, and most of them approach Christianity in much less rigidly rationalistic a way than Tolstoy.
jacques ellul
Perhaps the most important of these other Christian anarchist thinkers is French scholar Jacques Ellul (1912–1994). Ellul is known today mostly for his critical work on technology and the technological society, of which the modern state is just another symptom. He wrote extensively, usually covering each given topic from both a theological and a sociological perspective, clearly distinguishing the two approaches. Comparatively few of his writings, however, are targeted specifically at the state itself. The most directly relevant for this book is his Anarchy and Christianity, but several other books of his are also relied upon where appropriate.
read a and c – (have now on kindle)
Unlike Tolstoy, Ellul happily employed the word “anarchism” as a thoughtful political position to hold, and certainly demonstrated his familiarity with thinkers like Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin. At times, he even suggests an awareness of Christian anarchist thinkers. He himself maintained that he did not believe a true anarchist society could ever come about, but he just as adamantly insisted that “the anarchist position [is] the only acceptable stance in the modern world.” For him, even though “the realizing” of “an anarchist society” is “impossible,” the “anarchist fight,” the “struggle” for such a society is nonetheless “essential.” This ambivalence is explained further below in the book.
What Ellul adds to Tolstoy is his anarchist exegesis of many more passages from the Bible, including the Old Testament. His work therefore complements Tolstoy’s narrower focus on the Sermon on the Mount. Besides, Ellul’s approach to Christianity was not as unusual as Tolstoy’s, being grounded instead in traditional Protestant (especially Calvinist) theology. His approach may therefore be more comfortable than Tolstoy’s for Christians who belong to that tradition. Ellul’s contribution to Christian anarchist thought is therefore an important one. His work is certainly praised by several other Christian anarchists.
24
vernard eller
One author who makes clear his appreciation of Ellul is American academic Vernard Eller (1927–2007), author of a book published around the same time as Ellul’s and titled Christian Anarchy. In that book, he repeatedly associates himself with the Christian anarchist position which he elaborates. His own Christian background is that of the Anabaptist/Brethren tradition — again therefore a position which some Christians might find more sensible than Tolstoy’s.
can’t find in anarchist library
His contribution to Christian anarchism, however, is somewhat contentious. Because of the submissive response which he advocates to the state, those Christian anarchists who are inclined to more confrontational activism have been very critical of Eller’s views. Yet Eller’s input is valuable precisely for his exegesis of Romans 13 and the “render unto Caesar” passage, on which his advocacy of such submission (which he sees as subversive in a peculiar way, as explained in Chapter 4) is based. The disagreement between him and such activists on how to respond to the state touches on a topic important enough to constitute the main theme of Chapter 4, so it will not be resolved here.
michael c elliott
Another important contribution to Christian anarchist thought comes from Michael C. Elliott’s Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture — a book for which “Christianarchy” was at some point contemplated as an alternative title. In that book, Elliott provides an anarchist interpretation of a number of Biblical passages, reinforcing therefore the input of the Christian anarchist thinkers mentioned above.
.. It reads more as a call for Christians to embody this Christian “counter-culture,” introducing them to communist and anarchist thinking and drawing parallels with Jesus’ teaching and example as narrated in the Bible. Elliott himself seems to have studied a number of other Christian anarchist thinkers, but aside from the odd reference, they do not figure much in that book.
25
dave andrews
Australian thinker Dave Andrews (born 1951) did name one his books by the title which Elliott briefly considered: Christi-Anarchy.
can’t find in anarchist library
Andrews’ writings are more pragmatic than those penned by most Christian anarchist thinkers. He repeatedly encourages Christians to reflect on some of the most challenging political passages in the Gospels and, crucially, to act upon them in their own community, to put Jesus’ teaching to practice. His books and essays therefore blend reflections on Gospel passages with a considerable number of moving examples of community life and personal sacrifice which illustrate the politically revolutionary potential of Jesus’ teaching when taken literally. He also often refers to work which he has been involved with in his own community in Brisbane.
26
dorothy day
One of the two main founders of the (catholic worker) movement is Dorothy Day (1897–1980), who by the time of her death had, according to Ellsberg, “achieved iconic status as the ‘radical conscience’ of the Catholic church in America.” In her autobiography, she explains how she was always concerned about social injustice and quickly found herself frequenting socialist and anarchist circles, including the Industrial Workers of the World.
peter maurin
The other main founder of the Catholic Worker movement is Frenchman Peter Maurin (1877–1949), who quickly became Day’s partner, lover and “master.” (she insisted on that title) Maurin saw himself as a thinker, expressing his thought in scores of short “easy essays” which he saw the Catholic Worker as an essential vehicle for.
Maurin advocated a revolution based on roundtable discussions, houses of hospitality and farming communes (as explained in more detail in Chapter 6).
not deep/diff enough.. hospitality.. et al.. consensus ness et al
27
ammon hennacy
The third main figure of the Catholic Worker movement is American campaigner Ammon Hennacy (1893–1970). ..he concurred with Tolstoy, in particular his focus on the Sermon on the Mount, his suspicious hermeneutics and his distrust of institutional churches. Hennacy later explained his temporary conversion to Catholicism as motivated mostly by his love and admiration for Day, and once he recanted from it, he resumed his fierce criticism of all churches.
His book (remembering forgetting non violent e timor endnote 63) also demonstrates his knowledge of anarchist thinkers such as Berkman (whom he met in prison), Goldman, Malatesta, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Godwin, Bakunin, and — above all — Tolstoy.
ciaron o’reilly
An equally active but present-day Catholic Worker activist is Ciaron O’Reilly (born 1960), who has been engaged in various recent protests, acts of civil disobedience and trials in England, Ireland, and his native Australia. ..he figures in this book partly thanks to some of his reflections on Christian anarchism, and partly for his example in putting these reflection to practice, as described in Chapter 6.
28
stephen hancock (pinch of salt)
One such publication was A Pinch of Salt, fourteen issues of which were published in England in the late 1980s. 800 to 1000 copies of the paper were usually printed and then mailed out and distributed across the island and beyond.
endnote 64: https://www.apinchofsalt.org/ (latest post 2018)
kenneth hone (digger)
Around the same time in Canada, Kenneth C. Hone was publishing a Christian anarchist paper eventually called The Digger and Christian Anarchist. It ran to a total of 36 issues, but the paper’s style was less rigorous, less colourful and less humorous than Pinch — which is perhaps why it usually printed only around 150 copies. The editors of the two papers corresponded, met and sometimes reprinted one another’s articles,
29
andy and nekeisha alexis-baker (jesus radicals)
A vibrant, mostly American Christian anarchist online community has gathered under the auspices of the Jesus Radicals website, the prime movers behind which seem to be Andy and Nekeisha Alexis-Baker. A section of the website contains short essays by its members, some of which have been useful for this book. The website also hosts a discussion forum and includes videos and links to other texts and websites.
bas moreel (religious anarchism newsletters)
A final regular publication worth mentioning here is the Religious Anarchism newsletter published online by Dutchman Bas Moreel, three issues of which so far have discussed Christian anarchism. Moreel started these newsletters in reaction to what he saw as the poor treatment of religion in anarchist and atheist papers.
william lloyd garrison
One such writer is William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879), one of the most famous champions of the abolition of slavery in the United States. What makes him slightly problematic is that his full commitment to Christian anarchism only lasted for a few years, when he drifted away from his otherwise fairly tight focus on slavery and towards a more general critique of all government. ..Garrison was always an agitator, concerned more often with agitating as such rather than with intellectual consistency. Nonetheless, he drafted, during his Christian anarchist phase, one of the most passionate summaries of Christian anarchism, a declaration which Tolstoy later reprinted in The Kingdom of God Is within You.
30
hugh o. pentecost
American pastor Hugh O. Pentecost (1848–1907) is similar to Garrison in promoting Christian anarchism only for a few years. .. Where Garrison preached through his newspaper columns, Pentecost preached through sermons to his congregation ..Like Garrison, however, he later renounced and even dismissed his Christian anarchist phase, and found work as a District Attorney.
nicolas berdyaev
Russian philosopher Nicolas Berdyaev (1874–1948) is sometimes quoted as a Christian anarchist. ..His writings are much more abstract than other Christian anarchists’, relying more on Christian dogma than Biblical passages and criticising what he saw as dangerous monist and collectivist philosophies. ..he did accept that the kingdom of God which he longed for could “only be envisaged in terms of anarchism.”
william t. cavanaugh
William T. Cavanaugh is a contemporary Catholic American theologian belonging to the school of thought known as Radical Orthodoxy. He is critical of the state’s violent and jealous expropriation of power and authority from the church and speaks of the eucharistic church as an alternative to the state.
31
jonathan bartley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Bartley: Jonathan Charles Bartley (born 16 October 1971) is a British politician and was Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.. Bartley is the founder and was (until 2016) co-director of Ekklesia, an independent think tank looking at the role of religion in public life and appears regularly on UK radio and television programmes. He is a member of the blues rock band The Mustangs.
Aside from that book, Bartley is Co-Director of Ekklesia, a Christian think-thank that carries forward some of what he advocates in his book and brings together several commentators who share that perspective. Bartley also does a lot of work with the media, appearing regularly on television and on the radio.
james redford
Perhaps the most systematic defence of Christian anarcho-capitalism is James Redford’s “Jesus Is an Anarchist.”
32
kevin craig (vine and fig tree)
The case for Christian anarcho-capitalism is also made by Kevin Craig in a number of interlinked internet pages, which are usually anonymous and officially published by “Vine and Fig Tree.” Craig describes himself as belonging to both the radical Left (illustrated, he argues, by his stay in a Catholic Worker community for ten years) and the radical Right (for his anarcho-capitalism, that is). .. Craig’s pages are a mixed bag of thoughtful reflections and rather crude rants.
strike the root, lew rockwell and libertarian nation essayists
The Strike the Root, Lew Rockwell and Libertarian Nation Foundation websites all describe themselves as against the state and for the free market.
george tarleton
The last author for whom the title “Christian anarchist” seems applicable is Great Briton George Tarleton, because he published a book titled Birth of a Christian Anarchist. .. No scholarly argument is presented for why Christianity would imply anarchism, no mention is made of any Christian anarchist, and in the end, one is left with the feeling that the word “anarchism” was chosen mainly to describe Tarleton’s eccentric and perhaps indeed somewhat anarchic practice of Christianity.
endnote 70 – tarleton involved in ‘house church movement’ which he describes as anarchic
33
On top of the Christian anarchist thinkers introduced thus far, the case for Christian anarchism sometimes finds support in arguments put forward by a number of thinkers who do not themselves reach the anarchist conclusions that these arguments could lead them to.
to me .. that’s everyone.. nothing yet to date legit diff et al
peter chelčický
Starting with the oldest, the one thinker prior to the nineteenth century whose thought has been weaved into this book is Czech reformer Peter Chelčický (c.1390-c.1460). As he preceded by several centuries both the rise to power of the state (as explained in Chapter 3) and the very adoption of the term “anarchism” as a thoughtful political position, he could not really fully develop his argument towards the explicitly anarchist conclusions reached by later Christian anarchists. .his lines of argument go a long way towards such conclusions. ..he has been noted and praised by other Christian anarchists, especially Tolstoy. Indeed, Chelčický’s style is very similar to Tolstoy’s and his argument sometimes frequently echoes Tolstoy’s. Thirdly, he is described by many of the scholars who have written about him as one of the clearest example of an anarchist avant la lettre.
adin ballou
Another supportive writer is American Adin Ballou (1803–1890), a staunch pacifist — his preferred term was “non-resistant” — who preached and wrote some of the most moving and compelling arguments for Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount to be taken literally. ..always rejected anarchism both as a label and as a theory or as a possibility. Nonetheless, he was extremely critical of “human government.”.
34
ched myers
Another American author whose writings bring him close to Christian anarchism is Ched Myers, who wrote an impressive political exegesis of the whole of Mark’s Gospel… locating himself instead in Marxist liberation theology. Apart perhaps from his criticism of “leaderless groups,” however, there is little in his book that separates him from Christian anarchism.
walter wink
The logic with acclaimed American theologian Walter Wink (born 1935) is fairly similar: like Myers, his work is admired by a few Christian anarchists, he locates himself in liberation theology rather than Christian anarchism, and he advocates a sort of activism that is at odds with Eller’s understanding of Christian anarchism. His work on a political interpretation of Jesus’ teaching and of Paul’s “powers,” however, does sometimes lend support to Christian anarchist thought
john howard yoder
Another American scholar whose work is pertinent to this book is John Howard Yoder (1927–1997), a famous Mennonite and pacifist ..he made it clear that he did not advocate Christian anarchism, mainly by defending the police function of the state.
archie penner
The same applies to (considerably less famous) Canadian Mennonite Archie Penner. That is, his Christian study of the state repeatedly makes arguments that run parallel to Christian anarchist thought, though ultimately he stops short of any clearly anarchist conclusions.
Now that the context, the originality, and the thinkers who inform this book have been introduced, the generic outline of Christian anarchism can begin. The next Chapter embarks on this task by pulling together the Christian anarchist exegesis of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.
36
Part I — The Christian Anarchist Critique of the State
37
Chapter 1 — The Sermon on the Mount: A Manifesto for Christian Anarchism
.. For Tolstoy as well, the Sermon on the Mount stands out as the most pertinent summary of this teaching: “In no other place does Jesus speak with such solemnity; nowhere else does he enunciate so many moral, clear, and comprehensible rules, appealing so straight to the heart of every man; nowhere else does he speak to a greater or more various mass .. t of simple folk.”
huge.. what happens when problem deep enough
we need a problem deep enough to resonate w/8bn today.. a mechanism simple enough to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough to set/keep 8bn legit free
ie: org around a problem deep enough (aka: org around legit needs) to resonate w/8bn today.. via a mechanism simple enough (aka: tech as it could be) to be accessible/usable to 8bn today.. and an ecosystem open enough (aka: sans any form of m\a\p) to set/keep 8bn legit free
endnote 2 dave andrews book.. not religion but love: practicing a radical spirituality of compassion
via amazon [https://www.amazon.com/Not-Religion-but-Love-Spirituality/dp/161097851X]: In his acclaimed book Christi-Anarchy, Dave Andrews explored the ugly ruins of Christian history, and outlined the radical vision of Jesus for personal and community renewal. In ‘Not Religion but Love’ he shows how that vision can become a reality. With poignant, real-life stories drawn form his Brisbane backyard, Dave Andrews gives us a practical guide to working out Jesus’ agenda for love and justice in our own lives and neighborhoods. Complete with group exercises and an ample collection of extra resources for study, Not Religion but Love is a book to read at your own risk: it might change your life.
can’t find in library/hoopla/anarchist library
via wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Andrews_(activist)]: David Frank Andrews (born 20 May 1951) is an Australian Christian anarchist author, speaker, social activist, community worker, and a founder of the Waiters’ Union, an inner city Christian community network working with Aboriginals, refugees and people with disabilities in Brisbane, Australia. In India at the time of Indira Gandhi’s 1984 assassination, he helped protect Sikhs from the backlash through non-violent intervention. Andrews and his wife were forced to leave that year. Andrew works to advance Christian-Muslim relations, quotes Islamic leaders, and counts many Muslims as colleagues. He released a statement of regret when Maulana Wahiduddin Khan died in Delhi in April 2021 of COVID-1
38
For Tolstoy — the most cited exemplar of a Christian anarchist thinker — the Sermon on the Mount held a very special place. Tolstoy had struggled with a deep existential crisis for years when, while pondering a specific verse of this Sermon, suddenly came “a clear comprehension of all the teaching of Jesus,” and “all that before had seemed obscure became intelligible.” This understanding brought his existential torment to a close, it unlocked for him the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and it was based on this understanding of Christianity that he began launching his bitter attacks on the state and on the church. That crucial verse which Tolstoy saw as the key to Christianity is the famous verse where Jesus invites his disciples not to resist evil, but to turn the other cheek instead..t
to me.. not about anti ness but about irrelevant ness.. won’t get to fullest ness of p 10 if still being cancerously distracted by some/any finite set of choices
Not all Christian anarchists follow Tolstoy in elevating that single verse as high as he does, but all see in it and in the Sermon on the Mount a moving articulation of Jesus’ central teaching of love and forgiveness. Most would agree that the Sermon on the Mount forms an ideal blueprint, a manifesto, as it were, for any truly authentic Christian community. And even if they do not all see the passage on not resisting evil as the absolute essence of Christianity, most Christian anarchists share the analysis of human society which Tolstoy develops from his exegesis of that passage. Moreover, just as with Tolstoy, the starting point for most Christian anarchists is not so much a critique of the state as an understanding of Jesus’ radical teaching on love and forgiveness which, when then contrasted to the state, leads them to their anarchist conclusion.
The most important passage to examine from the Sermon on the Mount is therefore the one where Jesus calls for his disciples not to resist evil. The first and biggest section of this Chapter reviews, in detail, the various clusters of interpretation made by Christian anarchists (and selected pacifists) on this passage in order to draw out its anarchist implications. The second section considers the instruction not to judge; the third, that to love our enemies; and the fourth, that not to swear oaths. The fifth section briefly mentions the Golden Rule. The sixth relays the few and rather less relevant reflections of Christian anarchists on the remaining passages of the Sermon, except the passage where Jesus claims not to be destroying but fulfilling the Old Law, which is examined in more detail in the seventh section. The Chapter is then brought to a close by the eighth and final section, which returns to the idea that the Sermon on the Mount should guide the practice of the Christian community.
1.1 — Resist not evil
The instruction not to resist evil, a defining passage in the Christian Bible, comes in verses thirty-eight to forty-two of the fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus tells his disciples:
- Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
- But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
- And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
- Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
The subsections which follow elaborate the main sets of comments Christian anarchists make about these verses, beginning with a closer look at Jesus’ three illustrations of non-resistance to show why these are politically significant. The second subsection introduces the view that what Jesus demands is not unresponsive passivity but a very purposeful reaction. The third shows that Jesus is calling for his disciples to rise above the law of retaliation, and thus prepares the ground for the fourth subsection, which discusses Christian anarchist reflections on the cycle of violence, and the fifth, which explains why Christian anarchists believe Jesus to be proposing a method to overcome it. The sixth and final subsection then clarifies why the preceding exegesis drives Christian anarchists to their anarchism, to their criticism of the state.
perhaps even more about cancerous distractions and irrelevant s (aka: reaction ness and anti ness)
40
The response Jesus recommends, however, goes against these local expectations. For Elliott, what Jesus is saying is: “Don’t retaliate. Don’t behave in the way your enemy expects you to behave. Do what your attacker least expects: behave in the *opposite way.” In effect, by turning the other cheek, “the cycle of violence is unexpectedly **interrupted.” This, Elliott contends, confuses the attacker, who now “is no longer in control of the process he initiated. He is, in a very real sense, disarmed!” Similarly, Wink claims that turning the other cheek “robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate,” which forces the attacker to regard the victim “as an equal human being.” Both Elliott and Wink therefore agree that Jesus’ surprising response in this first illustration disempowers the attacker and forces him to regard the victim in a different light.
*opposite is still part of the cancerous distraction
**interruption ness is part\ial ness.. we need to try something legit diff..
Elliott and Wink bring a similar perspective to the other two responses illustrated by Jesus. In the second one, they note that by pointedly handing over his cloak in response to being sued for his coat, the victim would end up naked. Yet Elliott argues that nakedness in that context would be offensive, and that the community would blame the person who brought this about more than the actual victim. Along the same lines, Wink contends that this nakedness would register “a stunning protest” against the social and legal system that brought this about; that the “entire system” would thus be “publicly unmasked;” but that this unmasking “offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his practice causes, and to repent.” So, again, Jesus’ recommendation in this illustration would be “a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed” against, in this case, such unfair use of the legal system
but if response/against/protest/strategic.. perpetuating same song
Regarding the third illustration, both Elliott and Wink agree that Jesus is here making a reference to a then established military practice, whereby a soldier could force a civilian to carry his pack, but for one mile only. Once again, here, Jesus’ proposed response throws the soldier “off-balance,” by depriving him “of the *predictability of your response.” Doing twice as much as what is usually allowed, Elliott argues, is “a way of subverting authority” in that “the victim is claiming the power to **determine for himself the lengths to which he is prepared to go.” So yet again, Jesus’ illustration of non-resistance implies a critique of the expectations of his contemporary society and seeks to empower the victim through a ***counter-intuitive response.
*if response.. always predictable .. now? we need something legit diff..
**determine for self lengths.. but w/in finite set of choices.. if anti ness
***i think we’re missing the essence.. big time.. slight diff.. huge miss
Elliott further argues that the three illustrations cover the three “strategies which the enemy is most likely to employ” against followers of Jesus: “physical intimidation, manipulation of the legal system, and military co-option,” each of which “involves a form of violence.” According to Elliott, therefore, Jesus’ examples have immediate political significance: they illustrate three typical kinds of violence within that political context and three unexpected, subversive yet non-violent responses to it.
1.1.2 — A purposeful reaction
Moreover, a point which Christian anarchists (and pacifists) are keen to emphasise is that Jesus’ non-resistance is not just some completely inactive, uncaring acceptance of evil, but a very specific, strategic response — a response which Jesus illustrates clearly with his three examples. Here, however, views diverge among Christian anarchists as to exactly what kind of action is allowed and what kind of resistance is forbidden: resistance to certain types of evil, resistance by evil, or any resistance at all. These very important disagreements are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Here, what should be noted is that non-resistance as it is illustrated by Jesus is a purposeful and determined type of response.
again.. hugely missing it.. talk to author?
41
There are three possible responses to evil: passive “flight,” violent “fight,” or “militant nonviolence.” For Wink, a correct translation of the Greek verb shows that Jesus was rejecting the first two options and recommending the third. He was not preaching inaction, but a very radical type of reaction.
again.. response ness.. anti ness.. as cancerous distraction.. irrelevant s if legit free to love
not deep enough.. adding re ness as well
43
1.1.4 — The cycle of violence
Christian anarchists interpret Jesus’ instruction as a comment not just on the Old Law, but also on human practice past and present. This subsection and the next therefore convey, in considerable detail, Christian anarchist reflections on the potential cycle of violence inherent in lex talionis, and their understanding of Jesus’ non-resistance in light of that.
gershenfeld something else law as best break in cycle
44
This method, *however, only multiplies evil. Because human beings often fail to see that another’s violence was to him only fair retaliation for an original offence, they get caught in an unending cycle of vendettas. If the justice of the retaliation is not recognised by its victim, what to one party is only fair retaliation becomes unjustified aggression to the other. **Reciprocating evil with evil may sometimes appear just, but more often than not, it is thereby multiplying evil. Intrinsic to lex talionis, therefore, is the risk of it sparking a cycle of violence. Tolstoy quotes Ballou’s explanation
**any reciprocity as re ness.. so as cancerous distraction
Countless human goals have been fatally compromised by the violent means which were adopted in an attempt to reach them..t but which ended up taking centre stage while the original goal became more and more distant and elusive.
45
Nonetheless, moral aims are necessary preconditions for violent means to be adopted in the first place. As another of Ellul’s laws of violence highlights, proponents of violence always try to justify it both to others and to themselves by evoking venerable goals: “Violence is so unappealing that every user of it has produced lengthy apologies to demonstrate to the people that it is just and morally warranted.” This is understandable, and proponents of violence can rarely be accused of evil intentions: they usually genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that the superior ends they long for can be achieved by the violent means they succumb to. Berdyaev remarks that “no one ever proposes evil ends: evil is always disguised as good, and detracts from the good.” Yet the resort to violence is precisely where evil seeps in.
Besides, using violence or coercion to impose a social vision upon rebellious minorities is bound to fail. Tolstoy argues that since “there is in human society an endless variety of opinions as to what constitutes wrong and oppression,” authorising violence for any one cause inevitably guarantees a vicious cycle of evil tit-for-tat, “a universal reign of violence.” Those who are coerced will only obey while they are weaker than the tyrants, under fear of threats. However “As soon as they grow stronger they naturally not only cease to do what they do not want to do, but, embittered by the struggle against their oppressors and everything they have had to suffer from them, they […], in their turn, force their opponents to do what they regard as good and necessary.” Revolutionary violence promises counter-revolutionary violence.
One of the fundamental problems with violent methods, Christian anarchists argue, is that “once we consent to use violence ourselves, we have to consent to our adversary’s using it, too.” This is because, Ellul continues, “We cannot demand to receive treatment different from that we mete out. We must understand that our own violence necessarily justifies the enemy’s, and we cannot object to his violence.” Adopting violence as a method to attain one’s goals implies the recognition of violence as an acceptable method in the first place. Thus in responding to violence with violence, says Yoder, “We agree with the other party that his weapons are right and thereby really loose our right to tell him that what he is doing is wrong.” According to Tolstoy, that is precisely “where the danger of employing violence lies: all the arguments put forward by those who employ it can with equal or even greater justification be used against them.” By smiting back when smitten on the right cheek, one is conceding that smiting is an acceptable type of action. One side’s violence will always be seen by the other side as legitimising its own choice of violent methods.
Worse, the use of violence creates justifications for further violence. On top of implicitly conceding that violence is an acceptable method, the use of violence actually becomes a justification, almost an invitation, as it were, for a violent reply. This is another of Ellul’s laws of violence, that “violence creates violence.” That is, “every act of violence can explain and seek to justify itself as a response to an earlier act of violence” — ..t hence the danger inherent in lex talionis. Violent acts aggrieve those who are targeted, as well as their families and friends. These people will typically seek justice in violent retaliation. Hence using violence gives the opponent good reasons for more violence in return. Conversely, this violent retaliation “makes the attacker feel he is right, that all humans are just the same, they must always use weapons to defend themselves,” says pacifist Richard Gregg. In short, violence obscures its initial aim, validates itself as a method, and justifies more violence in return.
46
Moreover, Ellul’s first law declares that “Violence becomes a habit of simplification of situations,..t political, social, or human. And a habit cannot quickly be broken.” Evil overcomes us, and we are “led to play evil’s game — to respond by using evil’s means, to do evil.” The world is accustomed to this game, caught in the delusional habit of the efficacy of violence (this is further discussed in the Conclusion). Yoder puts it succinctly: “Violence is always, apparently, the shortest and surest way;” but he immediately adds: “And in the long run that appearance always deceives.” We have a habit of thinking that violence can help us achieve our aims, but in the long run, all it does is add momentum to the destructive cycle of violence.
spiritual violence et al
“As fire will not put out fire,” Tolstoy therefore believes, “so evil will not destroy evil.” Even if we think we are right, we must resist the temptation to force others to obey our will. As Garrison explains, “physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration;” evil means do not teach moral virtues. Besides, according to Tolstoy’s Jesus, “every man is full of faults and incapable of guiding others. By taking revenge, we only teach others to do the same.” The very fact that violence sometimes appears to works in the short run only teaches exactly that — that violence appears to work, not that the user of violence was correct.
Christian anarchists urge every human being to decide where they stand on this. The question of how to respond to evil cannot be avoided. Lex talionis appears to offer a solution, but inherent in it is a tendency for reciprocal violence to spiral out of control. Jesus indirectly exposed this logic by advising to go beyond it. On the face of it, however, *humanity has so far declined to heed this advice. Yet by opting for violent means either to respond to violence or to try to reach at times admittedly very worthy goals, the world has ensnared itself in a self-reinforcing cycle of violence and resistance. For Christian anarchists, Jesus makes clear that it is in the choice of means that the fatal mistake is committed. For the vicious cycle of violence to be broken, humanity needs an *alternative method for responding to injustice and reaching moral aims..t
*need to give gershenfeld something else law a go
47
1.1.5 — Overcoming of the cycle of violence
Christian anarchists firmly believe Jesus both taught and lived out such an alternative, and that he best expressed it in those verses counselling non-resistance: “the sub-principle of Christian Non-Resistance,” Ballou maintains, is that *“Evil can be overcome only with good.” It is not an easy method, and at first, it can appear counterintuitive: Ellul indeed stresses that non-resistance implies “seeking another kind of victory, renouncing the marks of victory” (more on this in Chapter 4 and in the Conclusion). Christian anarchists however believe it is the only real alternative for humankind, “the only possible way of breaking the chain of violence, of rupturing the circle of fear and hate.”
*but not true.. good ness isn’t enough..
At the same time, no Christian anarchist pretends it is painless. Overcoming evil with love requires a willingness to endure violence or evil without doing violence or evil in return, even — in fact, especially — when treated unjustly. Hence it requires forgiveness since “by definition,” explains Andrews, it “means making the sacrifice that is necessary to accept an injustice without demanding satisfaction in return.” That sacrifice is precisely the “relinquishing [of a person’s] right to restitution or retaliation in order to restore a relationship.”
we have no idea what love is.. so we just do ‘good deeds’ and perform help\ing ness.. to me.. that’s where all the pain and takes a lot of work ness comes in..
Returning good for evil, Andrews says, “may not transform every bad relationship into a good friendship; but […] is the only thing that ever has or ever will.” Only such an attitude of love, non-violence and forgiveness makes *healing possible. It forces “the oppressor to see you in a new light” and to reconsider the situation. This opens “the possibility of the enemy’s becoming just as well,” which is important because as Wink continues, “Both sides must win.” Non-resistance, and its concomitant willingness to suffer unjustly, clears the ground for reconciliation because it exposes the destructive violence of the situation and makes a moving plea to overcome it. **It lays bare the cycle of violence and it refuses to prolong it.
*we have no idea of healing (roots of).. because even the ‘good’ we do is a re ness
**still prolonging/perpetuating as long as any form of m\a\p .. any form of re ness
Some might object that non-resistance is contrary to human nature in that it goes against the natural instinct of self-preservation. Ballou replies that actually, non-resistance is “the true method of self-preservation.” He recalls that resistance always tend to be justified by self-defence:
It professes to eschew all aggression, but invariably runs into it. It promises personal security, but exposes its subjects not only to aggravated assaults, but to every species of danger, sacrifice and calamity. It shakes the fist, brandishes the sword, and holds up the rod in terrorem to keep the peace, but constantly excites, provokes, and perpetuates war. It has been a liar from the beginning. It has been a Satan professing to cast out Satan, yet confirming the power and multiplying the number of demons which possess our unfortunate race. It does not conduce to self-preservation, but to self-destruction, and ought therefore to be discarded
need.. gershenfeld something else law
48
The usual method of self-preservation “constantly [runs] into the very wrongs it aimed to prevent.” Like begets like, therefore “the disposition to injure begets a disposition to injure.” In other words, resistance divides and actually destroys humanity — whereas non-resistance actually preserves it. Accordingly, Ballou concludes that non-resistance is not contrary but “in perfect accordance with” the “laws of nature.” It is the only method which can preserve humanity in the long run.
Christian anarchists thus firmly believe in a strict continuity between ends and means. They believe these cannot be separated because the means eventually become the ends. Violence leads to violence, resistance to resistance. By the same token, peace, love and forgiveness can only begin with peaceful, loving and forgiving pioneers. The cycle of violence cannot be broken by cathartic or exemplary acts of violence; it can only be overcome by love and non-resistance. “[That] there may not be violence,” Tolstoy insists, “it is necessary that no-one under any pretext whatever should use violence, especially under the most usual pretext of retribution.” The only means to reduce violence in the world, Tolstoy deduces, “is the submissive peaceful endurance of all violence whatever.”
yet graeber violence in care law et al.. need deeper..
Of course, such non-resistance is *not easy. In the words of an Indian poet, “True love is not for the faint-hearted.” Non-resistance requires an absolute commitment, and this means a willingness to suffer, even to die, rather than to resist. Thus non-resistance is not cowardly; it requires courage. Gandhi observed that “bravery consists in dying, not in killing.” (This readiness to pay the ultimate price is discussed in more detail later, notably in Chapters 2 and 5.) Non-resistance involves courage because it demands a willingness to suffer, perhaps even to die (but not kill).
*again.. takes a lot of work as red flag
Besides, non-resistance is what Jesus commands, and Tolstoy is adamant that “Jesus really means what he says.” Indeed, Tolstoy only made sense of these verses when “he admitted to himself that perhaps Jesus meant that saying literally.” He explains that he had been distracted by trying to explain the passage allegorically, even though, deep down, he knew that it expressed “the vital principle of Christianity.” The teaching, however, could not be clearer:
49
It may be affirmed that the constant fulfilment of this rule is difficult, and that not every man will find his happiness in obeying it. It may be said that it is foolish; that, as unbelievers pretend, Jesus was a visionary, an idealist, whose impracticable rules were only followed because of the stupidity of his disciples. But it is impossible not to admit that Jesus did say very clearly and definitely that which he intended to say: namely, that men should not resist evil; and that therefore he who accepts his teaching cannot resist.
When he asked his disciples not to resist evil, Jesus meant it. Moreover, as Chapter 2 illustrates, Jesus practiced what he preached both throughout his life and in his very death.
So, to repeat and sum up, Jesus says (according to Tolstoy): “The teaching of the world is that men should do evil to one another, but my teaching is that they should love one another.” Jesus rejects the violence of the world by preaching non-resistance. His teaching overcomes the cycle of violence by refusing to resist. A faithful follower of Jesus — a Christian — therefore cannot resist, cannot participate in violence, and only by thus following Jesus’ instruction might help overcome the world’s vicious cycle of violence.
resist – to fight against or oppose something or someone: [ T ] Students want to discover the truth themselves, and they resist having conclusions forced upon them. To resist is also to keep or stop yourself from doing something: [ T ] I couldn’t resist laughing at him.
not just resist.. but any form of re ness.. need.. curiosity over decision making
ie: imagine if we listened to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & used that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness as nonjudgmental expo labeling)
50
The resulting tragedy is that although the state promises to protect from evil, it itself “produces evil and extends it,” says Berdyaev. Civil law, according to Chelčický, “encourages a continuing fall of man,” because it “perpetuates lawsuits, punishments, and revenge: it returns evil for evil.” For Christian anarchists, law is thus an inadequate and unchristian response to violence since it is itself another form of violence.
How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men acting on their own responsibility must not kill. If they do it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as it pleases and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right..t Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many men does it take?
this is ridiculous ness et al
Both at home and abroad, then, the state directly contravenes the related commandments not to kill and not to resist evil. Hennacy affirms that “all government denies the Sermon on the Mount by a return of evil for evil in legislatures, courts, prisons, and war.” Of his own (American) government, he says that it “represents the largest single example of the organised return of evil for evil, both in foreign relations and in domestic affairs.” Through war and capital punishment, the state responds to evil with murder. A Christian should neither kill nor resist evil, yet the state does both.
51
According to Tolstoy, if any use of force is forbidden, then so are “all legal proceedings in which force is actually or implicitly employed to oblige any of those concerned […] to be present and take part.” Aylmer Maude (Tolstoy’s friend, biographer and translator) thus concludes that “This teaching involves nothing less than the entire abolition of all compulsory legislation, Law Courts, police, and prisons, as well as all forcible restraint of man by man.” Christianity, that is, involves anarchism.
Hennacy therefore concludes that “Anarchism is the negative side” of “Pacifism and the Sermon on the Mount.” According to Christian anarchists, anarchism is closer to the “social order” envisaged by Jesus than any alternative “of which force is a component.” They believe Christian anarchism to be “an inevitable corollary of Christian pacifism.” It is because it returns evil for evil that Hennacy would abolish the state. It is because he thought that “the very existence of governments and state apparatuses [make] domestic violence and international war inevitable” that Tolstoy was an anarchist. It is because they take Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount literally, and because they consider the state to be, both in theory and practice, in flagrant contravention of these, that Christian anarchists believe anarchism to be an inevitable corollary of Christianity.
52
Brock explains that, “like other anarchists,” Christian anarchists such as Tolstoy “wished to base the organization of society on consent, on cooperation, and not on force.” Christian anarchists do not envision a chaotic society, but an organised one based on real consent, love and mutual help rather than the fictional granting of the legitimacy of violence to some monstrous Leviathan. Quite what such a society would look like is discussed in Chapter 5.
Guseinov observes about Tolstoy’s anarchism that “one cannot deny his consistency.” Christian anarchists move in consistent logical steps from Jesus’ command not to resist evil, through their assessment of state violence in both theory and practice, to their ultimate rejection of the state. Tolstoy encapsulates the apparent simplicity of this logic in an often quoted syllogism of his: “Government is violence, Christianity is meekness, non-resistance, love. And, therefore, government cannot be Christian, and a man who wishes to be a Christian must not serve government.”
53
1.2 — Judge not
Anarchism follows not just from non-resistance to evil, but also from other key passages in the Sermon on the Mount. One such passage, which Tolstoy frequently analyses alongside the commandment not to resist evil, is where Jesus says the following:
- Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.
- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
- Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
- Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Tolstoy explains Jesus to here be saying to his disciples: “You cannot judge, for all men are blind and do not see the truth. […] And those who judge and punish are like blind men leading the blind.” Moreover, “[men] cannot judge one another’s faults because they are themselves full of wickedness.” Since no human being is faultless, castigating other persons for their faults is both ill-advised and hypocritical.
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p (aka: any form of judge\ment ness)
the little prince – see with your heart ness et al
54
The Christian who has faith in God must also have faith in God’s judgement and in his execution of justice, which is also why he should abstain from impersonating God and judging his fellow human beings.
However startling this may seem, Tolstoy therefore insists that Jesus’ instruction not to judge further condemns all earthly tribunals: if we are not supposed to judge and condemn our fellows, then neither can that be done through courts of justice. Our judicial system is unchristian not only because it resists evil, but also because it involves judging — both forbidden by Jesus. As a result, a Christian can neither be a judge, nor take part in any trial, nor take a fellow human being to court. Christians must stay clear of human courts.
1.3 — Love your enemies
Another instruction from the Sermon on the Mount which Christian anarchists interpret as implying a critique of the state comes right after the verses on non-resistance. Here, Jesus says:
- Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
- But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
- That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
- For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
- And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
- Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Christian anarchists and pacifists develop two overlapping lines of interpretation on these verses: one of these focuses on the implied condemnation of patriotism and war; the other argues that loving one’s enemy is the litmus test of Christianity.
55
The “snare,” Tolstoy explains, arises from the “false belief” that one’s good is bound up with the good of one’s countrymen, “and not, as it is really, with the good of all men on earth.”..t
if us & them ness.. none of us are free ness
has to be all of us for the dance to dance
Yet if the new rule is “to make no difference between our own and other nations,” then this rule also requires “never to act in conformity with such a difference, that is, never to provoke or take part in war, and to treat all men of what nationality soever as though they belonged to our own.” Any manifestation of lower feelings towards foreigners compared to one’s own nationals being outlawed, anything that incites such differentiation must also be forbidden. Hence, to the extent that the state takes part in war, provokes it or otherwise differentiates between “us” and “them,” it is behaving in an unchristian manner.
For Tolstoy, therefore, Jesus is also ultimately outlawing patriotism. As Chapter 3 discusses in more detail, Tolstoy refuses to accept that there might be a good kind of patriotism, because Jesus’ teaching unequivocally condemns all favouritism towards one’s countrymen. For Tolstoy, Jesus says: “Treat foreigners as I have told you to treat one another. To the Father of all men there are no separate nations or separate kingdoms: all are brothers, all sons of one Father. Make no distinctions among people as to nations and kingdoms.” Tolstoy interprets the Parable of the Good Samaritan as being precisely about treating foreigners as neighbours. A Christian should “do good to all men without distinction.” Whenever the state stirs up patriotism and national preferences, it is thereby disobeying yet another of Jesus’ instructions.
56
Many Christian theologians have tried to argue that love of enemy does not prevent killing, as long as one’s inner disposition is one of love and charity; but as Chapter 3 shows, Christian anarchists have no time for these arguments, which they consider to be both pure hypocrisy and a betrayal of Jesus. For them, conflicts continue to plague the world “because men do not trust the Son of God enough to abide by his commandments.”
That, Yoder argues, is the sense in which Jesus’ instruction to be “perfect” as God is “perfect” should be understood. He explains:
we are asked to “resemble God” just at this one point: not in His omnipotence or His eternity or His impeccability, but simply in the undiscriminating or unconditional character of His love. This is not a fruit of long growth and maturation; it is not inconceivable or impossible. We can do it tomorrow if we believe. We can stop loving only the lovable, lending only to the reliable, giving only to the grateful, as soon as we grasp and are grasped by the unconditionality of the benevolence of God. “There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds.”
pearson unconditional law
Hence according to Yoder, “the perfection to which Jesus calls his hearers […] is not flawlessness or impeccability, but precisely the refusal to discriminate between friend and enemy, the in and the out, the good and the evil.” It is easy to love our friends. What Jesus taught and lived, however, was to love and forgive both the good and the evil, just as God does.
57
Wink explains:
Love of enemies is the recognition that the enemy, too, is a child of God. The enemy too believes he or she is in the right, and fears us because we represent a threat against his or her values, lifestyle, and affluence. When we demonize our enemies, calling them names and identifying them with absolute evil, we deny that they have that of God within them which still makes transformation possible.
eisenstein i know you law et al
The challenge, he therefore suggests, is to “find God in my enemy.” That is the only way to *convert someone else to one’s cause, because “no one can show others the error that is within them, as Thomas Merton wisely remarked, unless the others are convinced that their critic first sees and loves the good that is within them.” Love of enemies opens the possibility of reconciliation.
*oi.. not love
58
Tolstoy explains: “If it be the teaching of Jesus that one should always fulfil the will of God, how can a man swear to fulfil the will of a fellow-man? The will of God may not accord with the will of a man.” It is impossible to know in advance what will be required by the Christian demands to love and forgive, hence one should not bind oneself with an oath that may compel to act against the will of God.
Tolstoy also links to this commandment the two passages on the payment of taxes which are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. In the temple tax episode, Jesus is asked whether everyone is bound to pay the taxes, to which in the Gospel according to Tolstoy, Jesus replies: “If we are sons of God we are bound to no one but God, and are free from obligations. But if they demand the tax from you, then pay: not that you are under obligation to do so but because you must not resist evil.” Followers of Jesus must have no forsworn obligation to do what other men demand. Their sole allegiance is to God through Jesus.
oi.. need means sans any form of m\a\p
59
One such “evil purpose” is the establishment of state power. “Oath taking,” R. V. Sampson explains for Tolstoy, “is fundamental to military and therefore political power. The oath of allegiance creates the legal basis for the maintenance of the disciplined unity of large numbers of men, on which all State power ultimately rests.”..t Jesus’ saying, he therefore concludes, “indirectly [strikes] at the roots of Caesar’s military power.” To refuse to swear oaths is to deny the state the basis of its power.
By swearing an oath of allegiance to the state, one becomes a tool of the state; and as the state’s tool, one will be forced to betray Christ.
It should be noted that the connivance of the clergy in swearing such deadly oaths of allegiance to the state was not missed by Tolstoy. Indeed, he laments that “In very truth the chief obstacle to understanding the law against the swearing of oaths, has been that so-called Christian teachers have boldly forced men to take oaths on the Gospel itself; in other words, have forced them to do by the Gospel what is contrary to the Gospel.” For Tolstoy, “the snare arises from the name of God being used to sanction deceit.” Terry Hopton explains that Tolstoy condemns the church’s involvement here because “such oaths appear to bind the individual to commit violence in God’s name, in absolute disobedience to His will.” Swearing on the Bible is clearly inconsistent, therefore either candidly ill-advised or wilfully hypocritical. Chapter 3 returns to Tolstoy’s distrust of the church.
61
1.6.1 — Be not angry
Two of Jesus’ five new commandments at the end of the fifth chapter of Matthew have been left out so far. The first of these is where Jesus instructs his followers not to be angry:
- Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement:
- But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
- Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
- Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
- Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
- Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
lewis anger law et al
Christian anarchists (and pacifists) offer different reflections on this passage.
Yoder points out that the three punishments in verse twenty-two are “of mounting severity,” and that “[the] most serious hatred is seen not in the act but in the inner attitude towards the brother.” Jesus is shifting the sin from the actual act of killing to the judgemental attitude that precedes it. Ernest Crosby agrees: “the great evil is not killing but the anger against a brother.” The implication for the state would be that it breaches Christian demands even before the act of killing (in war or capital punishment), when it passes judgement on the intended victim and thus starts rationalising its eventual murder.
Ellul argues that these verses confirm his view that “all kinds of violence are the same” — physical, economic or psychological..t According to Ellul, Jesus “declared that there is no difference between murder ing a fellow man and being angry with him or insulting him.” The state, for Ellul, is violent not just by military coercion, but also by economic injustice and by brainwashing and other forms of propaganda.
structural violence.. spiritual violence.. any form of m\a\p
65
1.6.5 — Worry not about security
Another passage of the Sermon which Christian anarchists often just cite without much elaboration is where Jesus points to the birds and the lilies and says that, like these, his disciples should not worry about what they will eat or wear, but should seek first the kingdom of God and that “these things shall be added unto [them].”..Day interprets it to mean that people should not worry about security all the time — the very worry which leads them to further empower the state in the hope that it will guarantee this sought-after security..t
security ness and a better way: gershenfeld something else law
69
For now, the point to note is that overall, the Christian anarchist reading of these verses stresses that Jesus criticises not so much the Old Law as rigid and legalistic interpretations of it by the elites, and that he “fulfils” the Old Law in the sense that he radically reinterprets it based on its original intentions. Whereas the strict interpretation of the law tends to authorise coercive legislation to ensure that all abide by its every jot and tittle, Jesus’ reinterpretation of it recovers its original intention and subverts any reliance on such official strictures — but this is explored in more detail in the Conclusion.
69
1.8 — A manifesto for Christian anarchism
The Sermon is thus a political document, a manifesto for a Christian anarchist society. It touches on all the main points of the Christian (anarchist) political vision and how to reach it. Day thus writes that the Sermon “answered all the questions as to how to love God and one’s brother.” It amounts to a complete “philosophical, moral, and social doctrine,” says Tolstoy. For him, Jesus gives mankind “practical rules for life” which would lift it from the vicious cycle of violence it is caught in, and move it towards “the kingdom of peace on earth.”
72
Chapter 2 — The Anarchism Implied in Jesus’ Other Teachings and Example
73
Christian anarchists do offer a few scattered comments on the Old Testament. By far the most elaborate commentaries focus on the first book of Samuel.
The Law dictated by God to Moses was seen as “good and trustworthy,” remarks Stephen Carson, and since it left out prisons, taxes, and — crucially — executive and legislative bodies, this Mosaic political system was basically a form of anarchy. Tennant for his part concedes that the Mosaic structure can be seen as “a form of government, but,” he insists, “it was not an independent institution which claims a monopoly on violence,” and it was “highly decentralized.”
75
Thus Israel’s monarchy, for Craig, was established as a result of “a desire to be like the demonic States around Israel, a rejection of the Lord’s priestly calling to be a holy nation, and a rejection of God’s Law as given to the Patriarchs.” The more general conclusion from this passage, according to Craig, is that “The movement towards centralization of power under political mediators is a rejection of God.” Hence for Chelčický and indeed all Christian anarchists, “The state has its origin in man’s pride and rebellion against God.”
Andrews reckons that Israel had been a society based on trust in God’s guidance, “But when it came to the crunch, they abandoned the ‘politics of trust’ in God and embraced the ‘politics of security’ in a king, an army, and a military-industrial complex.” Ellul agrees that “political power rests on distrust […] of God.” The Israelites’ demand for a king exposes their loss of trust in God. God’s reply to Samuel indeed indicates that the Israelites’ request is a form of idolatry, of serving other gods (more on this below).
God then asks Samuel to warn them of the consequences: the king will take their sons as soldiers, their daughters as cooks, their servants as slaves, their land and sheep as treasures, and they will regret their decision to have a king — but it will be too late. For Christian anarchists, God is clearly warning the Israelites of the likely abuses of power which would result from their decision to opt for human government. Ellul even reads God’s warning to imply that “political power is always dictatorial, excessive, and unjust.” Carson does not make exactly the same generalisation, but still notes that “the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from Mosaic anarchy to what by today’s standards would be ‘limited government’ will have terrible consequences.”
76
For Eller, even though God does not approve of human government, he accepts or tolerates it. This confirms what is said in the Introduction about God not being an absolute Master. For Andrews, God is thus “committed to democracy — as opposed to autocracy.”
Despite Samuel’s warning, however, the Israelites insist they want a king, and Saul becomes king. ..for Christian anarchists, God’s warning about the consequences of this decision is exemplified by the kings who follow, including David and Solomon: to quote Myers, “The Davidic tradition of kingship […] resulted only in the realization of Samuel’s worst fears: militarism, economic control, and slavery.”
Heppenstall furthermore notes that “as the story goes, it is not the fault of [the king] that kingship [is] a disaster,” but “the fault of the people, in their gross lack of faith in God in the first place.” The establishment of political power and all its resulting abuses is a result of the people’s forsaking of God and desire to conform to and imitate what is done among pagan nations. The story of 1 Samuel 8 therefore shows that monarchy “was founded in Israel […] in direct opposition to the will of God,” and out of idolatry. For Christian anarchists, the obvious conclusion is that “rejection of the state […] is a necessary part of declaring allegiance to God,” a theme that is returned to throughout this book.
77
For example, Craig simply asserts that there were no states in the Garden of Eden. Likewise, he notes that Nimrod, who “left the Godly Family to form a ‘State,’” has a name that means “let us rebel” — which confirms the Christian anarchist take on Samuel.
garden-enough ness
Other Christian anarchists have even less to say on the Old Testament before Samuel and the kings. One example of a cursory remark is Chelčický’s observation that civil authority “began with Cain’s lust for power when he built the first city,” an episode which Ellul elaborates in some detail. Jason Barr offers a few interesting reflections on Genesis and Ecclesiastes. On the Exodus, a theme so important to liberation theology, Christian anarchists note only very briefly that, in the story, God sets his people free by throwing off the king and calling them towards a new and much more anarchist type of community — they do not echo liberation theologians in elaborating the metaphor as a paradigm of humanity’s current condition.
The only Old Testament theme which several Christian anarchists consider in a little more depth and from an anarchist perspective ties into the preceding interpretation of Samuel, and concerns the prophets: they argue that “the prophetic tradition was born from the oppression resulting from monarchical rule.” In Ellul’s words, “for every king there was a prophet [who] was most often a severe critic of royal acts.” For Christian anarchists, the many famous prophets of the Old Testament — as well as some of the psalms — were voicing God’s rebuke to the kings for their abuses of political power and for their failure to care for Israel’s needy, thus reminding the people not to trust these human leaders. The prophets each express God’s disapproval of a society which has rejected him.
David Mumford also notes that through “the last of the major prophets,” Ezekiel, God’s response to the behaviour of Israel’s ruling class was “not to try to replace one ruling class with another but to announce that a time will come when His divine kingship will be resumed.” For Christians, of course, this divine kingship is resumed through Jesus Christ — a point which is further discussed later in this Chapter, as well as in the Conclusion.
80
There is no room for allegiance to the state and its claim to legitimacy, demand for obedience, rights to violence and desire for loyalty from its citizens..t
needs to be sans any form of m\a\p
Moreover, what the story also implies is that Jesus was tempted (by Satan) to transform society from above. Damico comments that he “could have chosen the way of domination to lead the people out of their oppressive situation but instead he chose the way of service.” Jesus, she says, “recognizes the evil of an option to command and rule.” Thus Jesus is implicitly distancing himself from the Zealots and their method, a contemporary group of Jewish rebels who wanted to overthrow Roman rule in Palestine by taking power. Jesus rejects this temptation, and is thereby indicating that “Political power is incompatible with God’s earthly promise and it must be rejected.”
This absolutely fundamental question of how to change society is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. The point to note here is that Christian anarchists read the third temptation of Jesus as a renunciation by Jesus of what Crosby calls “all the ordinary means of improvement.” For Elliott, all three temptations are “the account of a person analysing methodologies for mission and action;” and in the third, Jesus rejects the “strategy” and “role” of “world leader.” Jesus thus refuses “the authoritarian role of king,” says a contributor to A Pinch of Salt. Kingship and human government, Ballou writes, are animated by “the old serpent of violence” which “he who would rule must first worship;” but instead of this, Jesus “[chooses] the pain and shame of the cross, in preference to the fame and glory of universal empire on such a condition.” Moreover, later in the Gospel, “when he perceived the determination of the people to proclaim him a king, he promptly placed himself beyond their reach.” Jesus consistently refuses the role of king or political leader as it is commonly understood.
ie: a nother way
81
Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” (Matt. 16:23)
rather.. as whales in sea world
Having slammed the door shut on Peter’s (that is, our) way of thinking, Jesus immediately throws open a window on a new world, a non-violent order of things in which the logic of earthly triumph does not hold: “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny him or herself, take up their cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake shall find it.” (Matt. 16:24–25)
For Christian anarchists, therefore, Jesus’ third temptation in the wilderness is another example of his rejection of the state, which derives its power and authority from Satan.
82
2.5 — Forgive seventy-seven times
Having discussed the messianic expectations around Jesus’ ministry, his temptations in the wilderness and some of the miracles he performs, the time has come to explore some of the famous sayings uttered by Jesus in the course of his ministry. The next three sections consider, in turn, Jesus’ pronouncements on forgiveness, non-judgement, and service.
need nonjudgmental expo labeling for global detox leap
83
Jesus repeatedly preaches forgiveness. When his disciples ask him whether forgiving “seven” times is enough, he pointedly answers that it is not, that they should forgive “seventy-seven” times — as if to say they should never give up forgiving. Why strive so much to forgive again and again? Because for Christian anarchists, only thus can humanity break out of the cycle of violence which was examined in Chapter 1.
Moreover, Andrews writes, “What Jesus says is so important about forgiveness is not that we preach is, but that we practice it.” But that is not what we do, bemoans Hennacy, since “We make retroactive laws and hang our defeated enemies,” since we use the state to avenge and punish. Yet to forgive seventy-seven times, says Hennacy, “means no Caesar at all with his courts, prisons, and war.” Forgiveness means not punishing wrongdoers, but striving to love them, bless them, and, to quote Ballou again, “referring [one’s] cause always unto Him who hath said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’” Hence *the forgiveness preached by Jesus undermines the state’s instruments of coercion. Ballou thus considers the Gospel’s repeated passages on forgiveness to be further proof of his radical and strict interpretation of turning the other cheek.
*that non judge\ment ness undermines any form of m\a\p
Moreover, he remarks that “Jesus is not speaking of mere envious grudges” when he asks us to forgive, but he “presupposes a real injury done, which, according to the common law, […] might rightfully be punished.” What are to be forgiven are not trivial faults or torts, but very real and painful injuries. Paul Gonya, one of the Christian preachers whose speeches in the days that followed the horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 are reported by Laurie Johnston, seems to confirm this view. He says: “Let’s face it: Either these spiritual truths we claim to believe work all the time, or they don’t work at all. When Jesus said, ‘Forgive your enemies,’ these are the kind of people he was talking about, not just some guy who cut you off in traffic.” Later on, he writes that it “isn’t about who we blame; it’s about how we heal” — even if the blame is justifiable. Jesus is calling for his followers to forgive precisely those whose offence would justify legitimate retaliation.
fkhan filling the gaps law.. jihad (doc).. white right (doc).. et al
Jesus also explains that his disciples should forgive if they want to be forgiven themselves. For Ballou, he “reminds us that we have all sinned against our Father, and are justly punishable at his hands,” and that if we are hoping for God’s grace and mercy, we should exercise it ourselves. “Yet,” he notes, “millions of professing Christians authorize, aid, and abet war, capital punishment, and the whole catalogue of penal injuries. Still they daily pray God to forgive their trespasses as they forgive!” In the Lord’s Prayer, Christians ask to be forgiven as they themselves forgive, yet foolishly they continue to perpetrate punishments and retaliation through the state. If they really sought God’s forgiveness, they would strive to forgive even the worst offences, and they would disentangle themselves from the state’s instruments of retaliation. Pushed to its ultimate logical implications, Jesus’ counsel to forgive further confirms that what follows from Christianity is anarchism.
84
2.6 — Not judging one another
Further evidence of Jesus’ implied critique of the state comes from his pronouncements on not judging one another, especially the famous passage where he refuses to condemn the adulteress. That story evolves thus: scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery, claim that according to the Law of Moses she should be stoned, and ask for Jesus’ opinion. Initially, Jesus stoops down and writes on the ground, but when he is again asked for an answer, he says “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” and he stoops down and writes on the ground again. Embarrassed by their own sin, the people all walk away, and Jesus addresses the woman and says that as no-one has condemned her, neither does he.
In Hennacy’s definition, Christian anarchism is based precisely upon that answer of Jesus to the Pharisees — as well as upon the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, the two are connected: “Jesus gave us the method of overcoming evil when he said to the woman caught in sin, ‘He without sin among you first cast a stone at her.’” Yet, he notes, “if you vote for anyone who makes a law […], or if you vote for the governor or president who appoints the hangman or the jailer — then these men are your servants; they are your arm to throw the stone and you deny Christ.” Christians who are not sinless condemn and stone one another through the long arm of the state. They do the opposite of what Jesus teaches in this passage.
pearson unconditional law et al
Andrews, however, is rather unique among Christian anarchists in holding this position. As Chapter 1 explains, most Christian anarchists believe Jesus to have instructed Christians not to judge at all..t Either way, although they reach this same conclusion from a different exegetical route, both Andrews and these other Christian anarchists interpret Jesus’ instructions to mean that the state’s courts of justice are unchristian institutions — be it simply because they judge, or, for Andrews, because they judge on others’ behalf.
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
any form of m\a\p.. cancerous distraction
all.. to cristian
86
Jesus, however, “does not advocate revolt” against such tyrannical power, but instead tells his disciples: “do not be so concerned about fighting kings. Let them be. *Set up a marginal society which will not be interested in such things, in which there will be no power, authority, or hierarchy.” Jesus is telling his disciples not to emulate social hierarchies..t At the end of the passage, Jesus further clarifies the nature of his own leadership: he has come not to be served, but to serve. And elsewhere in the Gospel, he confirms that the same is expected from his disciples: “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Jesus is therefore consistently appealing for an anarchist community of **mutual service instead of one of lordship and authority.. t
*hari rat park law.. aka: a nother way.. sans any form of m\a\p
**to me.. this has too much people telling other people what to do ness to be legit ‘for us’ ness.. i’m thinking it’s more the dance.. be you for us ness.. brown belonging law et al.. need you to be you and sharing that.. rather than trying to figure out what others need help\ing ness with
87
Finally, Yoder remarks that Jesus does not reprimand James and John “for expecting him to establish some new social order,” but, again, he “reprimands them for having misunderstood the character of that new social order which he does intend to set up.” Jesus does intend to challenge political and religious authorities and to propose an alternative form of community, but this is to be achieved through leadership by suffering servanthood, not through the lordship and authority practiced by Gentiles. Jesus rejects leadership by coercion and favours leadership by example. It is precisely this alternative form of leadership which makes Jesus’ teaching an anarchist alternative to the established order of things.
Myers argues along similar lines, but more closely highlights the economic interests behind the temple’s sacrificial system. He says that for the author of the Gospel of Mark, “the temple state and its political economy represented *the heart of what was wrong with the dominant system.” Moreover, Myers contends that “commercial activity was an entirely normal aspect of any cult in antiquity;” that the temple “was fundamentally an economic institution;” and that it is “the ruling-class interests in control of the commercial enterprises in the temple market” that Jesus is therefore attacking. Hence, by citing the “den of thieves” passage from scripture, Jesus is criticising “the sacrificial system as robbery.” According to Myers, this episode is the key to understanding Jesus’ whole apocalyptic struggle against the political, economic and religious order. For him, it epitomises Jesus’ stance against his contemporary authorities, and it illustrates how the “practice of forgiveness becomes the replacement of the redemptive/symbolic system of debt represented in the temple.” Jesus’ teaching of forgiveness subverts the temple state’s economic power
*need.. bachelard oikos law
92
Jesus’ rebuke to Peter, however, demonstrates that for Jesus, the sword should be used neither in offence nor defence, for both would equally feed into the circle of violence..t which Jesus’ teaching seeks to overcome.
cancerous distraction.. re ness et al.. if any form of m\a\p
94
Moreover, as Myers recalls, “The ‘cross’ had only one connotation in the Roman empire: upon it dissidents were executed.” Myers complains about the “longstanding conspiracy” which insists on “spiritualizing the cross.” As Myers clarifies, when Jesus was crucified, the cross was “not a religious icon, but the ultimate deterrent to those who would challenge the sovereignty of Rome […], an intolerably cruel form of capital punishment.” Furthermore, that Jesus is crucified between two bandits confirms that “Jesus is perceived by the authorities in terms equal to that of social bandits.” Religious and political authorities consider Jesus as an important threat, and that is why they move to silence him. Jesus’ anarchist subversion is too compelling for the state to put up with.
98
So, while to some, Jesus’ crucifixion is the meting out of a deserved punishment to a dangerous subversive, and to others, it represents the “end of the road” for the naïve hopes of a utopian community, to Christian anarchists (and to most Christians), however paradoxical and counterintuitive, “the crucified [Jesus] is the fulfilment, rather than negation, of the vocation of messianic kingship.” On the cross, Jesus’ alternative kingdom is not conclusively crushed but triumphantly exemplified and vindicated. His very crucifixion is his victory over the powers and his inauguration of the kingdom of God.
Indeed, this is what Yoder understands the story of the two disheartened followers of Jesus walking back from his crucifixion to be about: “Jesus’ rebuke to the unseeing pair on the road to Emmaus was not that they had been looking for a kingdom, and should not have been,” but that “they were failing to see that the suffering of the Messiah is the inauguration of the kingdom.” For Christian anarchists, then, the “way of the cross” is both “the *via negativa of resistance to political oppression” and “the **positive experimentation of a genuinely new way of social organization” — and these themes are further explored in Chapters 4 and 5
if *that.. not **that
99
However, just when Jesus seems to approach the climax of this messianic ministry, the ideal moment to stir up the masses, overthrow the corrupt Roman and Jewish authorities and install himself as the new king — when he rides into Jerusalem on a donkey and engages in direct action in the temple — he is arrested, tried and executed. To those who were expecting a messianic revolution, all apocalyptic hopes seem crushed, nailed with their leader to the cross.
Yet for most Christian anarchists, Jesus is the saviour precisely because he accepted the cross — that is the revolution. He is the messiah because he consistently responds to injustice with unwavering love, forgiveness and non-resistance. He does not seek to lead yet another revolutionary government, but instead points to the true kingdom beyond the state. Therefore the crucifixion is indeed the glorious climax of Jesus’ messianic ministry. As further discussed in the Conclusion, it reveals the true character of the messiah and the true nature of his kingdom. Jesus’ messianic teaching is indeed exalted, not crushed, on the cross.
100
Andrews explains that there cannot be love and forgiveness without sacrifice, *indeed that forgiveness can even be measured by the degree of sacrifice involved. Furthermore, he quotes the words of Gale Webbe, who says that “the only way to conquer evil is to let it be smothered within a willing, living, human being. When it is absorbed there, like a spear into one’s heart, it loses its power and goes no further.” On the cross, Jesus “absorbed our evil,” argues Andrews, and “The cycle of violence stopped there and then.” Jesus could have saved himself, but he chose not to, because “He was more concerned about saving the people ridiculing him, than he was about saving himself.” Jesus, says Wink, “preferred to suffer injustice and violence rather than be their cause.” Jesus’ crucifixion is therefore his most powerful illustration of the Sermon on the Mount.
*if any form of m\a\p.. then not love..
**current turkish film.. if run away won’t break cycle..
Thus the cross, meant by the authorities to be an exemplary punishment of political subversives, actually “signifies the love of Jesus,” writes a contributor to A Pinch of Salt. Through it, “Jesus conquered the violence and hatred of this world, not by using that very violence, but by a greater power — the power of love.” Jesus’ martyrdom on the cross is “a supreme exhibition of love,” and as such, for Andrews, it “lights a beacon for compassion.” In Wogaman’s words, the cross is therefore both “a maximal expression of human evil — the killing of one who embodied the goodness of God — and […] a maximal expression of that goodness itself.” It is a contrast between love and violence, between goodness and evil, an “appeal to humanity” for it to reject “the use of political methods that are violent and coercive,” by embracing love and forgiveness instead, and to the very end.
101
2.11.5 — Taking up the cross
However, even though Jesus unmasks, disarms and triumphs over the powers, “the battle continues until the triumph will have been made effective on all fronts and visible to all.” The powers may be defeated and condemned on the cross, but they live on, “seemingly victorious.” For the principalities and powers to be finally and fully defeated, Christians have to follow Jesus in disarming, making a public spectacle of and thereby triumphing over their contemporary manifestations.
isn’t that resistance?.. ooof.. contrary to last few paras esp
Every person therefore faces a difficult choice between Jesus and the powers. Jesus warns of the difficulty of following him when he repeatedly says: “Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This “turn of phrase,” according to Myers, “could have no other meaning except as an invitation to share the consequences” of *daring to challenge political authorities. Yoder insists that it is one of the popular misuses of scripture to interpret “bearing one’s cross” as facing the private suffering of “illness and accidents, loneliness and defeat,” because Jesus’ cross “was the political, legally-to-be-expected result of a moral clash with the powers.” Hence Jesus’ call for his followers to **take up their cross is a call for them to follow his example of love, non-resistance and political subversion to the ultimate sacrifice.
**if subverting.. then resisting.. re ness as cancerous distraction
As discussed later in Chapters 4 and 5 discuss, for Christian anarchists, this is the vocation of the church, of the community of Christians. Inevitably, Berkhof notes, contending against the powers will lead to “oppression and persecution. But in this very act of desperation […] their unmasking is repeated and confirmed. They can no longer exist without being forced to uncover their true nature and thereby to abandon their role as gods and saviors.” It is a mission of the church to expose the true nature of the principalities and powers, and to thus unmask and triumph over the violence, the self-aggrandisement and the deception of the powers. Yet his can only be done by fighting “nakedly and weakly,” by “surrendering” oneself “even unto death.”
yeah.. i think that’s messed up.. that’s total re ness.. oi
In this way, explains Myers, “the suffering of the just is somehow in itself efficacious in bringing down the old order and creating the new.” Myers asserts that “*The threat to punish by death is the bottom line of the power of the state; fear of this keeps the dominant order intact. By resisting this fear.. t and pursuing kingdom practice even at the cost of death, the disciple contributes to the shattering of the powers’ reign of death in history.” In other words, by “redefining the cross as the way to liberation rather than symbol of defeat and shame,” the authority of the powers is subverted, because “the power of death, by which the powers rule, is broken.”..t Accepting and surrendering to death out of love and forgiveness disarms the state, and does so without “increasing the sum of evil in the world.” Jesus sets the example with his crucifixion, and he expects his followers to be willing to follow him all the way to the cross.
*thurman interconnectedness law: when you understand interconnectedness it makes you more afraid of hating than of dying – Robert Thurman
102
In short, the cross is the symbol of Christian anarchism’s stance against the state. It represents a willing acceptance of the costliest consequence of contending against the state. It epitomises both the violent injustice of the state and the love, the forgiveness and the non-resistance with which Jesus is responding to it. The cross condemns the violence of the state but also embodies the method to overcome it.
to me.. if condemning.. method is same song..
2.12 — Jesus’ resurrection
The traditional Christian view is that the single most important factor in explaining the spread of Christianity, and indeed in instilling hope among Jesus’ dejected disciples after his crucifixion, is his resurrection from the dead. That, however, is not the typical Christian anarchist view. At the same time, Christian anarchists have very little to say on the resurrection. As Chapter 3 makes clear, they view the traditional emphasis placed upon it with deep suspicion, but aside from these suspicions, one struggles to find any mention of the resurrection in Christian anarchist writings.
Tolstoy is the only writer who discusses New Testament passages on the resurrection from a Christian anarchist perspective, and he does so only to disprove the traditional understanding of them. He comments that “Strange as it may seem” — especially in light of the importance ascribed to the event by Christian theologians — Jesus himself “never once said a single word in affirmation of personal resurrection or of the immortality of the individual beyond the grave.” Indeed, Tolstoy writes that Jesus denied that belief every time he met it, “and replaced it by his own teaching of Eternal Life in God.” This teaching, as Tolstoy understands it, is about “the restoration of life by the transference of man’s personal life to that of God” — which feeds into Tolstoy’s interesting if idiosyncratic, rationalistic and deistic understanding of Christianity.
?
but makes no diff.. intellectness as cancerous distraction
The details of Tolstoy’s peculiar approach to Christianity cannot be discussed here, but what should be noted is that he questions the traditional interpretation of the resurrection. Tolstoy reviews “the only two passages which are quoted by theologians as witnessing to that teaching” to demonstrate both their mistake and his correctness. He also exposes what he sees as the interpretative errors concerning the fourteen passages where Jesus is alleged to prophesise his own resurrection. Tolstoy’s alternative translation of these various passages can be deduced from his own version of the Gospel — which of course ends with Jesus’ last breath on the cross, not with any resurrection. For Tolstoy, then, it is a naïve mistake to believe in future personal life; what Jesus teaches instead is that life as a whole is eternal; and in fact belief in personal resurrection distracts from the more important ethical teaching articulated by Jesus. Tolstoy clearly does not believe in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
103
Myers is a little bit more guarded in his treatment of the subject. In part, that is because his book is an exegesis of Mark’s Gospel only, the ending of which is disputed. The consensus today is that the original text ends with three women fleeing the empty tomb, and thus with no narrative of the risen Christ. According to Myers, this confirms that the advent of the Son of man has already happened on the cross, and Mark’s abrupt ending is therefore a final call for Jesus’ disciples to follow him to the cross.
Nonetheless, Myers does not reject the resurrection altogether: he says he agrees “with those who contend that nothing else can explain the genesis of the Christian movement.” *For him, however, “We do not entirely understand what ‘resurrection’ means,” and therefore “we should be ‘holding fast’ to what we do know: that Jesus still goes before us, summoning us to the way of the cross.” Mark, he says, “means to leave us to wrestle” with the “‘dilemma’ of the ending,” and it is a betrayal of the gospel to rewrite it as the added endings of Mark have attempted to do. For Myers, it is essential not to separate Jesus into “earthly Jesus and risen Christ,” because there is “only one Jesus, and he is still on the road calling us to discipleship.”
*oi.. graeber can’t know law et al.. again.. intellectness as cancerous distraction
Myers, then, is happy to accept the mystery of the resurrection as long as Jesus’ revolutionary teaching is not brushed aside. The only other Christian anarchist to explicitly acknowledge his belief in the resurrection of the dead in his Christian anarchist writings is Chelčický — though he still only mentions it in passing. Other Christian anarchists seem to avoid the mysterious subject altogether. Then again, indirect comments and reflections at times seem to imply belief in the resurrection, but little is offered in exegesis or discussion of the event. The devout Dorothy Day, for instance, appears to believe in it. Ellul’s theology also appears to be informed by it, as does Eller’s interpretation of history. Yet on the whole, Christian anarchists — certainly in their dedicated Christian anarchist writings — offer very few direct commentaries on the resurrection, preferring instead to focus on the many passages of the New Testament which justify their political interpretation of Christianity. Even those who do discuss it, either with respect (Chelčický, Myers) or with suspicion (Tolstoy), ascribe it almost no significance compared to that of the narratives of Jesus’ teaching and examples which precede it.
oi.. cancerous distraction.. need unjustifiable strategy ness
109
Chapter 3 — The State’s Wickedness and the Church’s Infidelity
110
The more abrupt and symbolic change, however, came with Constantine, Roman emperor from 306 to 327 AD, who called a halt to persecutions of Christians, issued the Edict of Milan which mandated toleration of Christianity, and paved the way for Christianity to become the established state religion later that century. For Christian anarchists, if Constantine had to do this, it was because Christianity had become too “powerful” a “popular mass movement,” because the “Christian truth” was therefore politically “dangerous,” and because adopting and distorting Christianity could help him unite the fragmented Roman Empire.
Andrews contends that Constantine tempted the clergy by exempting it from certain taxes and army duties, and by promising to silence the more defiant voices within the church using the powers of the state to enforce “unanimous acceptance of the Nicene creed.” According to the myth of the “Donation of Constantine” which Chelčický vehemently criticises, Constantine allegedly donated land to Pope Sylvester I and bequeathed Rome to the Holy Roman Church. That is, Constantine tempted the church with political power and economic comfort. The higher clergy was seduced: to borrow Alexis-Baker’s words, the church said “‘Yes’ to the very temptation that Jesus denies.” Tempted by Constantine, the church opted for the very political power which Jesus rejects in the wilderness temptations.
111
Andrews claims that under Constantine, “Christ, who had turned the Roman empire upside down, was turned into a lap-dog for the Roman emperor.” As Tolstoy puts it, “they arranged a Christianity for him.” Constantine’s empire, Eller explains, could now “become ‘Christian’ without having to make any changes at all; Christianity had done all the changing.” For Tolstoy, this betrayal of Jesus which thereby saw the church become a “tangible fraud” was then sealed by the Council of Nicaea — convened by Constantine.
Thereafter Christianity, which Andrews says had begun “as a voluntary, non-violent movement,” quickly “became a fierce reactionary force” which “ferociously suppressed political dissent.” Moreover, O’Reilly writes, “The church as an intentional community disappeared as it became a civil obligation to be a christian.” .. In the meantime, “To become a ‘Christian’ soon became the only religiously honourable thing to do.”
115
Kinna delineates the difference between the three “abstract concepts” associated with the state as follows: “By government, anarchists tend to think of a particular system of rule, based on violence. In authority they consider the social relationships sustained by this system, and in power they consider the means by which government secures its authority.” She then reviews anarchist rejections of each of these “concepts” of the state.
Since they categorically reject the use of violence, Christian anarchists are particularly denunciatory of the state as “government:” like other anarchists, they see government as “rule by the use of physical force” through a mix of both deception and tangible coercion; and like other anarchists, they also detect government violence in state-endorsed economic inequalities and in interstate relations. Christian anarchists also denounce the state as “authority,” though only really in the sense of it being morally corrupting by encouraging a type of hypnotic hypocrisy through the reproduction of social roles that obscure the violence of the system. And just like other anarchists, Christian anarchists reject state “power” as discernible in its legal institutions, in the army and in the patriotism that legitimises it
117
3.2.2 — State violence
Tolstoy hints that this is inevitable: any state activity, some see as good, others as less so, and therefore since some will always disagree, some degree of violence or compulsion will always be required to carry out any state activity.
same for consensus ness.. public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
Moreover, for Tolstoy, “the essence of legislation is organised violence.” He disagrees with the view that “legislation is the expression of the will of the people.” For him, legislation merely expresses the will of those in power, obedience to which can only be achieved by the threat of violent punishment. As a result, Tolstoy’s “exact and irrefutable definition of legislation, intelligible to all, is that: Laws are rules, made by people who govern by means of organised violence for non-compliance with which the non-complier is subjected to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered.”.. t Tolstoy is therefore adamant that legislation amounts to slavery. Moreover, by definition, no legislative fix can truly eradicate this slavery — only the abolition of human laws can.
Furthermore, scientific progress only makes things worse. In Tolstoy’s words, “every victory over Nature will inevitably serve only to increase” the governing minority’s “power” over and “oppression” of the majority. Tolstoy twice quotes Herzen’s remark that governments have become “Genghis-Khans with telegraphs” — a technological invention that has now of course been far surpassed. Pentecost gives the example of the electric chair as an invention that allows the state to avoid the uncomfortable spectacle of “sickening contortions” and unpleasant mishaps that accompany the more traditional hangings of criminals. Scientific and technical progress has thus served the governing minority by extending the range of options available to violently oppress the masses..t
as sci/tech for any form of m\a\p
The same progress has also helped transform the state into a more complex machine, as a result of which the violence this machine perpetrates becomes less obvious, more obscure ..technical progress has allowed the state to be more violent in increasingly elaborate ways, and at the same time to conceal this violence under these same layers of elaboration and complexity.. t Technical progress has thus enabled the construction of a “terrible machine of power,” says Tolstoy — and yet people “are afraid of anarchists’ bombs, and are not afraid of this terrible organization which is always threatening them with the greatest calamities.” As Hennacy also remarks, even though some anarchists are “bomb-throwers and killers,” “the biggest bomb-thrower [is] the government.” Thanks in no small part to technical progress, state violence is more threatening and more cunning than that carried out by subversives. Those who see otherwise, for Christian anarchists, are deceiving themselves.
118
3.2.3 — State deception
Christian anarchists believe that people are deceived about the violence committed by the state in several ways. One such deception comes with the illusion that democratic government somehow limits, or provides safeguards against, the state’s abuses of power..t
as any form of democratic admin is any form of m\a\p
Christian anarchists refuse to share such a comforting view of democracy. For a start, they note that in the process of seeking elect ion, politicians display a behaviour that is far removed from the sort of temperance, restraint and integrity that could moderate any temptation to abuse the power they seek to be entrusted with. In other words, in their thirst for power, democratic candidates frequently resort to underhand tactics and rarely demonstrate the concern for morality or humanity that would justify the assurance that democratic states are less violent than others. Indeed, for Christian anarchists, *the dishonest competition that characterises electoral campaigns is only likely to promote not the best but the worst candidates to office.. t Hence for Tolstoy, democracy provides no tighter guarantee than its alternatives against abuses of power by those in government.
*makes no diff.. if still any form of m\a\p.. need gershenfeld something else law
Likewise, Pentecost remarks that people are quick to criticise abuses of power by foreign dictators, but “they do not see how the same principle applies when it is, as with us, a question of supporting execut ive officers, judicial functionaries, and military people, who are pushed forward by a few cunning politicians and elected by a very decided minority of the people.” Moreover, according to Tolstoy, the idea that democratic states are somehow constitutionally more just is absurd. He writes:
endnote 740 (71 in kindle): He adds: “If among the sixty million people in the United States there are twelve million voters, six million and one can elect a President, who has been selected as one of two candidates by, perhaps, a hundred politicians; selected because with him the best bargain for a division of the tax money with them could be made.” Hugh O. Pentecost, The Sins of the Government, available from www.deadanarchists.org (accessed 22 November 2007), para. 2.
again.. makes no diff as long as still in sea world.. as long as any form of m\a\p
When among one hundred men, one rules over ninety-nine, it is unjust, it is a despotism; when ten rule over ninety, it is equally unjust, it is an oligarchy; but when fifty-one rule over forty-nine (and this is only theoretical, for in reality it is always ten or eleven of these fifty-one), it is entirely just, it is freedom!.. t
makes no diff if 1 over 1.. public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
Could there be anything funnier, in its manifest absurdity, than such reasoning? And yet it is this very reasoning that serves as the basis for all reformers of the political structure..t
need something legit diff.. ie: curiosity over decision making via tech as nonjudgmental expo labeling
119
Because they view the electoral process with deep suspicion, Christian anarchists doubt that democratic elections actually reflect the free will of the majority; but more importantly, they argue that abuses of power are no less abusive when conducted by a few more people.
even if it did.. majority ness is still spiritual violence
Yet *many believe that democratic government is less oppressive than its alternatives, and are prepared to die to be governed in this way. For Christian anarchists, **this very deception whereby democratic states claim their use of force to be more legitimate actually makes the violence much worse. The claim to moral legitimacy makes it more excusable to commit acts that are in reality no less violent or abusive..t Moreover and paradoxically, as Tolstoy points out, this deception turns democratic electorates into willing participants in their own slavery: “a member of a constitutional State is always a slave because, imagining that he has participated or can participate in his Government, he recognizes the legality of all violence perpetrated upon him.” ***Democracy, therefore, is a deceptive form of government: the state is no less violent, but the legitimacy it claims makes the violence appear more acceptable — even to those against whom the violence is directed..t
*perhaps until now.. now have means for legit global detox leap
**yeah.. that
***any form of m\a\p as structural violence.. as spiritual violence
Another state deception denounced by Christian anarchists concerns the hypnotic sense of duty thanks to which each individual cog in the state’s violent machinery plays its part and yet evades its responsibility (a deception that is of course further concealed by the impression that “the existing conditions of society” are “the best and most sacred of which human life is possible”)..t As the following quotation demonstrates, Tolstoy believes that the violence of the system is cunningly obscured by the complexity of the machinery that perpetrates it:
graeber make it diff law.. graeber rethink law et al
At the bottom of the social ladder soldiers with rifles, revolvers, and swords, torture and murder men and by those means compel them to become soldiers. And these soldiers are fully convinced that the responsibility for their deed is taken from them by the officers who order those actions. At the top of the ladder the Tsars, presidents, and ministers, decree these tortures and murders and conscriptions. And they are fully convinced that since they are either placed in authority by God, or the society they rule over demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held responsible.
Between these extremes are the intermediate folk who superintend the acts of violence and the murders and the conscriptions of the soldiers. And these, too, are fully convinced that they are relieved of all responsibility, partly because of orders received by them from their superiors, and partly because such orders are expected from them by those on the lower steps of the ladder.
At each rung on the ladder, people think they are merely fulfilling their “duty,” they are just doing the job they were appointed to do. Some are bound by oaths of allegiance; others are just honouring their professional function; but they are certainly not answerable for the cruel deeds committed by the state as a whole..t
As a result, the moral responsibility that human beings are built to feel is diluted in the system. Tolstoy explains:
to me.. thinking that there is some moral responsibility ness.. is also a dilution of.. the dance
120
Not a single judge will consent to strangle with a rope the man whom he has condemned to death in his court. No one of higher rank will consent to snatch a peasant from his weeping family and shut him up in prison. […]
These things are due to that complicated machinery of Society and the State, which makes it its first business to destroy the feeling of responsibility for such deeds, so that no man shall feel them to be as unnatural as they are. Some make laws, others apply them. Others again train men and educate them in the habit of discipline, in the habit, that is to say, of senseless and irresponsible obedience. Again others, and these are the best trained of all, practise every kind of violence, even to the slaying of men, without the slightest knowledge of the why and wherefore. We need only clear our mind for an instant from the network of human institutions in which we are thus entangled, to feel how adverse it is to our true nature..t
hari rat park law.. need art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as global re\set.. to fittingness (undisturbed ecosystem)
This subdivision of tasks explains why people collectively commit such barbarous acts..t They deceptively lose sight of the fact that their own contribution is at least partly morally responsible, along with the contribution of all the other individual cogs in the complex machinery, for the violence they inflict upon others (and indeed themselves).
rather.. khan filling the gaps law et al
Thus all the units of the state system are hypnotised into feeling they have special duties. They forget that they are just humans beings, equal to other human beings, and instead “represent themselves to others as being […] some special conventional beings: noblemen, merchants, governors, judges, officers, Tsars, ministers, or soldiers,..t not subject to ordinary human duties but to aristocratic, commercial, governatorial, judicial, military, royal, or ministerial, obligations.”.. They are intoxicated by their social function and overlook their most basic **moral responsibilities as human beings..t
*mumford non-specialized law.. marsh label law et al
**again.. still intoxicating if still responsibility/duty ing.. if any form of m\a\p
Even the ruling classes hypnotise themselves to some extent. Consciously or unconsciously, however, they are responsible for the design and perpetuation of the system: Tolstoy believes that the subdivision of tasks that alleviates any feeling of responsibility for a public execution “is carefully arranged and planned by learned and enlightened people of the upper class.”..t To some extent, state authorities are hypnotised just like everybody else; but as the people lucky enough to get an education, as the people formally in charge of the state machinery, they also ensure that the various tasks of any act of state violence remain cleverly subdivided so as to alleviate anybody’s potential feeling of responsibility. Besides, many in the upper classes have every incentive to tolerate this since they “can occupy advantageous positions only under such an organization.” The better off have every incentive to perpetuate the collective hypnosis as well as to keep themselves hypnotised..t
again.. graeber rethink law.. sinclair perpetuation law.. et al
Ultimately, however, the state relies on brute force if and when deception fails. This, in turn, highlights the importance of military conscription, a subject on which Tolstoy has written extensively. For Tolstoy, “The basis of state power is physical violence,” and “the possibility of inflicting physical violence on people is afforded chiefly by an organization of armed men trained to act in unison.” Therefore “Power always lies in the hands of those who control the army.” This army can then be used as a last resort to protect the ruling classes from the masses, the oppressors from the oppressed — indeed for Tolstoy, that is its main purpose. Yet the army is mostly composed of the working classes, who thus paradoxically become accomplices in the state violence committed against them. For them to do that therefore requires “special and intensive methods of stupefaction and brutalisation.”..t Tolstoy thus lists the “methods of instruction” as: “deception, stupefaction, blows and vodka,” an overwhelming mix of delusions, coercion and intoxication
and again.. rather.. khan filling the gaps law
121
One of the most important deceptions in this regard — the final one to be considered here — is patriotism, which to Tolstoy is nothing but an artificial (and, as explained in Chapter 1, unchristian) preference for one’s people *“at the expense of a higher unity.” Tolstoy argues that patriotism is a “psychotic epidemic” which hypnotises whole nations and prepares them to commit the most terrible barbarities against fellow human beings. It is a crucial deception in the further stupefaction of soldiers because it deludes them into thinking that the violence they commit has a higher purpose, that what they are doing is not upholding a deeply unjust system but defending the values and the territory of the “fatherland.”
*and yet again.. beyond patriotism.. rather.. khan filling the gaps law and brown belonging law et al
Tolstoy accuses the ruling classes of deliberately enflaming international rivalries and arms races in order to justify the existence of their armies, so that these same armies can be called upon to defend and expand their privileges. He also denounces the hypocrisy of international peace conferences, because he insists that only through the eradication of armies — a move never seriously considered at such conferences — can real peace be achieved. Moreover, international military alliances convened in the name of peace are for him nothing but alliances for war. Governments may strive to delude people into believing that their intentions are pure, but in reality they continue to cultivate and regularly call upon patriotic feelings in order to consolidate their grip over the army.
In sum, for Christian anarchists, the state relies on a set of powerful deceptions in order to nurture the alleged consent of the same people it commits violence against. Tolstoy speaks of people being hypnotised by these deceptions, a hypnosis which he repeatedly calls for humanity to shake off so that it can outgrow the violent state and realise the true society of peace and love envisioned by Jesus. In his political essays, his aim is to help this process by applying his literary talent to expose the state’s violence and deception. The following extract is a good example of such prose, and nicely summarises almost every theme discussed so far in this Chapter:
Take a man of our time — be he who he may — […] living quietly when suddenly people come to him and say: “First you must promise and swear to us that you will slavishly obey us in everything we prescribe to you, and obey and unquestioningly accept as absolute truth everything we devise, decide on, and call law. Secondly you must hand over to us part of the fruits of your labour (we shall use the money to keep you in slavery and to prevent you forcibly resisting our arrangements). Thirdly you must elect others, or be yourself elected, to take a pretended part in the government, knowing all the while that the administration will proceed quite independently of the foolish speeches you and others like you may utter, and that things will proceed according to our will — the will of those in whose hands is the army. Fourthly you must at the appointed time come to the law-courts and take part in the senseless cruelties we perpetrate on erring people whom we have perverted — in the shape of imprisonments, banishments, solitary confinements, and executions. And fifthly and finally, besides all this, although you may be on the friendliest terms with men of other nations, you must be ready, as soon as we order it, to consider as your enemies those whom we shall point out to you, and co-operate, personally or by hiring others, in the destruction, plunder, and murder of their men, women, children and aged alike — perhaps also of your own fellow countrymen or even your parents, should we require that.”
By explaining the situation in this manner, Tolstoy was hoping to arouse the masses out of their hypnotic submission to this violent, deceptive and exploitative machine..t It is now time to turn to the only aspect of this exploitation which has not been discussed so far.
need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature as global detox/re\set.. so we can org around legit needs
122
3.2.4 — Economic exploitation
Domestically too, the state is an instrument of legalised robbery. It transfers the wealth of the poor to the rich so that the latter can further consolidate the enslavement of the former. The state claims to protect its citizens from the worst of human nature — from robbers, criminals and the like — and demands taxes to provide this service, yet it thereby behaves precisely like the evil it claims to guard against. For Tolstoy (following Schmitt), the similarity with the mafia is striking: “Governments, justifying their existence on the ground that they ensure a certain kind of safety to their subjects, are like the Calabrian robber-thief who collected a regular tax from all who wished to travel in safety along the highways.” The state will keep you safe — that is, it will not attack you — provided that you pay your dues and do not interfere with its business.
123
Similarly, writes Tolstoy, it is said about the right of property that it “is established in order to make the worker sure that no one will take from him the produce of his labour,” yet in practice, “the very thing happens which that right is intended to prevent: namely, all articles which have been, and continually are being, produced by working people, are possessed by, and as they are produced are continually taken by, those who have not produced them.” Laws allegedly designed to protect the vulnerable in effect become the means by which they are further exploited. Thus, as Pentecost remarks, instead of being institutions for the meting out of justice, prisons and gallows “are instruments for the intimidation of the poor if they dare to get back some of the wealth that is daily juggled out of their hands.”..t
For Pentecost, the most important source of social injustice is the private ownership of land..t He strongly denounces wealthy landowners for keeping large swathes of land out of use, and for extorting rent from those who produce wealth on their land even though they have put no effort into its production. For him, “a taker of ground rent is exactly like a person who compels a starving man to deliver up his bag of gold for a crust of bread.” Like other Christian anarchists, he is therefore outraged that instead of preventing such widespread injustice, the state arraigns the worker and supports the landowner.
Without being able to cultivate land freely, Christian anarchists contend, the landless masses become economically enslaved by the wage system..t In The Slavery of Our Times, Tolstoy marvels at how “for a bare subsistence, people, considering themselves free men, [think] it necessary to give themselves up to work such as, in the days of serfdom, not one slave-owner, however cruel, would have sent his slaves to.” For Tolstoy, there are three causes to this apparently freely accepted enslavement: these workers have no land to cultivate and live from; they are regularly forced by the state to pay taxes; and they are tempted and ensnared by the more luxurious habits of city life. Taken together, these factors convince the worker to submit to wage slavery. Thus, Tolstoy concludes, “one way or another, the labourer is always in slavery to those who control the taxes, the land, and the articles necessary to satisfy his requirements.”..t
Tolstoy therefore argues that even though slavery was officially abolished long ago, the post-industrial economic system unmistakably amounts to a form of slavery..t Even if “it is difficult to draw as sharp a dividing line as that which separated the former slaves from their masters,” because some can be both or move from one category to another, “this blending of the two classes at their point of contact does not upset the fact that the people of our time are divided into slaves and slave-owners.” He explains:
If the slave-owner of our time has not slave John, whom he can send to the cess-pool to clear out his excrements, he has five shillings of which hundreds of Johns are in such need that the slave-owner of our times may choose anyone out of hundreds of Johns and be a benefactor to him by giving him the preference, and allowing him, rather than another, to climb down into the cess-pool.
124
Today’s complex globalised economy may have blurred the boundaries between slave and slave-owner even further, and may have succeeded in hiding all these Johns oceans away from those who keep them in slavery, but the system remains essentially the same, and the work that many workers are forced to resort to is no less degrading. As Hopton remarks, such economic exploitation is “more subtle and more pervasive than direct physical violence” — but it is exploitation nonetheless, indeed exploitation on a greater scale than was allowed by the more visible slavery of the past..t
Tolstoy moreover refuses to accept that this system is natural or unchangeable. Most of us, he admits, “shrug our shoulders” and say that despite the injustice, “we can do nothing to alter it.”..t Most of us try our best not to see the connection between their suffering and our luxurious lives. For Tolstoy, “This wonderful blindness which befalls people of our circle can only be explained by the fact that when people behave badly they always invent a philosophy of life which represents their bad actions to be not bad actions at all, but merely results of unalterable laws beyond their control.”..t Among the excuses which have been invented and which are happily accepted as true since formulated by some respectable expert or other, Tolstoy lists the “Christian” doctrine that this social arrangement is the will of God; the Hegelian idea that the current order is a necessary manifestation of the spirit; and the more recent and more “scientific” view that human society is a perfect organism subject to iron laws which regulate the natural division of labour. With each such excuse, Tolstoy comments, “We say, It is not we who have done all this; it has been done of itself; as children say when they break any thing, that it broke itself. […] But that is not true.”
125
Christian anarchists are therefore suspicious of most conventional theories about the economy. These theories tend to be articulated by the more comfortable social classes, predictably exalt the status quo as sacrosanct if admittedly slightly unfair, and lead to proposed amendments that are not nearly radical enough since they hinge on the preservation of the foundations of this status quo. In the meantime, the economic enslavement of the masses continues undeterred.
While on the subject of economics, it is worth noting in passing that Tolstoy is also suspicious of money more generally, and economic theories about it. He sees money not as a neutral medium of exchange, but as yet another instrument of slavery, because its functions as wage or as tax are not separable from the violence and coercion which enchain modern slaves to their chore. Along the same lines, Maurin similarly condemns usury (the lending of money at interest) not only as against the teaching of the Prophets, but also as “trying to live on the sweat of somebody else’s brow.” (Note that Christian anarcho-capitalist James Redford, however, believes usury to be perfectly compatible with Jesus’ teaching.) For these Christian anarchists, money is yet another tool with which the masses are exploited.
perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence w/ubi as temp placebo.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring..ie: sabbatical ish transition
Besides, as several Christian anarchists remember, Jesus himself warns that “No one can serve two masters […]. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [or money].” Yet despite Jesus’ warning, “all our education is to try to find out how we can serve [these] two masters,” and people continue to be tempted “to serve Mammon with all their heart.” For Christian anarchists like Tolstoy, however, we must all decide which of the two masters we will serve and which we will give up. Indeed, consciously or unconsciously, that decision has usually already been made: if money has been chosen, God has been renounced. Instead of worshipping God, many “Christians” worship money — that is, they fall prey to idolatry.
*maté parenting law.. et al
3.2.5 — The state as idolatry
Christian anarchists accuse other “Christians” of idolatry not only in their worship of money, but also in their worship of the state. Simply put, they contend that the state is a human creation which dethrones God and His laws. As illustrated in 1 Samuel 8, this creation testifies to humanity’s lack of faith and trust in God.
Indeed, Pentecost notes that to rely on legislatures, judges or policemen implies “that we have a God who made a lot of laws which are so defective that the universe would go to smash if it were not for these honourables and big-wigs and blue-coat-and-brass-buttons, with all their authority and clubs.” To rely on human laws and law-enforcement suggests both a lack of faith in God’s laws and providence and an arrogant confidence in humanity’s capacity for self-management. The state is therefore “an expression of man’s original sin, the desire to be as gods,” says one Christian anarchist. It expresses the desire to rule (to make rules), which according to one Christian thinker “is the mother of all heresies.” Hence the state embodies the sinful human desire to sit in God’s throne.
126
Furthermore, as Goddard explains, for Ellul, “the state has become a new locus of the sacred in our society.” Instead of God, “It is the state that is held responsible for all that occurs and to which people now look for security, protection, and the solution of all their problems. The state in turn thrives upon this religious devotion, encourages it, and demands its citizens’ full compliance with all its decisions.” People have faith in the state, obey it, and impute to it “the attributes and powers of God.” Hence “the cult of the State” is today’s “golden calf.” The state thus does indeed belong to “the realm of the demonic,” as Jesus’ third wilderness temptation suggests: it demands worship, and it seeks total power to make and enforce laws. It will not admit any competition from other gods.
need.. gershenfeld something else law et al
Yet in Acts, Peter says clearly that “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Ballou portrays this choice as between “human government,” which is “the will of man — whether of one, a few, many, or all in a state or nation — exercising absolute authority over man, by means of cunning and physical force,” and “divine government,” which is “the infallible will of God prescribing the duty of moral agents, and claiming their primary allegiance.” The two types of government cannot be combined: Tolstoy insists that God’s laws “supplant all other laws,” and he then reiterates that we “cannot serve two masters,” and that the oath of allegiance to human government “is the direct negation of Christianity.” For Christian anarchists, a true Christian would recognise God as the sole King, Lawgiver and Judge, as sovereign over human society, and would thus reject government by other human beings as idolatry.
(Incidentally, Chelčický remarks that “he who obeys God needs no other authority,” because as Paul says, “Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” As already discussed in Chapter 1, the Sermon on the Mount fulfils the demands of the Mosaic Law; similarly, some Christian anarchists claim that obeying God in itself makes the Christian somehow fulfil the intentions of most human laws. This, however, needs further elaboration, because sometimes there can be conflict between God’s laws and human laws — hence this question is revisited in Chapter 4, where the Christian anarchist response to the state is discussed, and again in the Conclusion, where love’s fulfilment of justice is explored further.)
all irrelevant s .. so cancerous distractions
The point for Christian anarchists is that true Christians would not elevate the state to the status of god. Ultimately, one can place one’s trust and have faith either in God’s law of love, or in the coercive and human state, not both. Hence Christian anarchists speak out against the state, “such a center of power and violence,” being “given a Christian name and justification.” For them, there is a fundamental contradiction between the state and the gospel: one is by nature violent and coercive, the other teaches love and forgiveness, and therefore the term “Christian state” is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron just like the term “hot ice.” Tolstoy therefore calls “blasphemy” the “sanctification of political power by Christianity,” because “it is the negation of Christianity.”
127
Tolstoy writes at length about this paradox of trying to combine Christianity and the state. For him, this paradox is visible in the life of the aristocracy, in domestic legislation, in international affairs, but especially in military conscription. He ridicules the irony of teaching the Sermon on the Mount at Sunday school only to then send the same pupils to the army — thus trying to make them both Christians and gladiators.
129
Tolstoy thus felt that the clause “destroyed the whole meaning of the verse.” Why forbid anger in situations that in reality never arise? He then consulted different versions of the Bible, and realised that the destructive clause was “an interpolation of the fifth century, not to be found in the most authentic copies of the gospel” — as is now recognised in more recent versions of the Bible. For centuries, however, orthodox interpretations downplayed or even revised Jesus’ original meaning based on a clause which appears to have been disingenuously inserted into the original text.
and how often did/does this happen.. interpretation ness et al
just to note: tolstoy’s what i believe ref’d often
130
According to Tolstoy, however, “It is useless to refute such assertions, for the men who make them refute themselves, or rather renounce Christ and invent a Christ and a Christianity of their own.”
to all the cancerous distractions
136
Christian anarchists believe that one of the church’s cardinal sins has been to appoint itself as the sole authority for the interpretation of the Bible. Tolstoy is upset that “the very people Christ denounced came to consider themselves the sole preachers and expositors of His doctrines.” Jesus had warned his followers that “the self-styled Orthodox […] were, and are, the enemies of all that is good,” and therefore that such “self-appointed teachers” are “to be feared.” He also told his followers “to call no man master or father.” Moreover, says Tolstoy, “nowhere [in the Gospels] is anything said of the foundation of what churchmen call the Church.” The word “church” is only mentioned twice in the Gospels, once meaning “an assembly of men to settle a dispute,” the other “in connexion with the obscure utterance about the rock, Peter, and the gates of hell.” Nowhere does Jesus announce the coming of what became the church.
from google: The word “church” does not appear in the Old Testament but it appears about 120 times in the gospels and the New Testament. The original word translated “church” from original manuscripts is “ekklesia.” This word is the Greek word kaleo (to call), with the prefix ek (out)
Yet from these two mentions by Jesus, the church has derived its authority and its “monopoly of Christian preaching.” Besides, according to Tolstoy, “A slight addition to the Gospels was invented, telling how Christ, when about to go up into the sky, handed over to certain men the exclusive right — not merely to teach others divine truth […] — but also to decide which people should be saved or the reverse, and, above all, to confer this power on others.” Thus the “great priest” of the church, Chelčický writes, “has arrogated to himself divine power, no, the power of the Savior himself, the power to forgive sins, which is God’s prerogative” — a prerogative which, he notes, also happens to be very “lucrative.” On the basis of this authority, the church tells believers what is right and wrong, defines “heresies” and persecutes its proponents. To Christian anarchists, the parallel with the scribes and Pharisees condemned by Jesus is striking.
137
Hence for Tolstoy, “the whole fraud” in Christianity “is built up on the fantastic conception of a ‘Church.’” In “The Restoration of Hell,” Tolstoy describes the creation of the church in a conversation Beelzebub has with his subordinate devils. Beelzebub had “understood that all was lost” when Jesus had just died, since his teaching had been “so clear, so easy to follow, and so evidently saved men from evil.” A devil then explains that although things were rosy among followers of Jesus for a while, they gradually began disagreeing on things like circumcision. At that point, explains the devil, “I invented ‘The Church.’ And when once they believed in ‘The Church’ I was at peace. I understood that we were saved, and that Hell was restored.” Beelzebub then asks the devil to explain what this welcome “Church” is, and the devil spells out Tolstoy’s definition:
Well, when people tell lies and feel that they won’t be believed, they always call God to witness, and say: “By God, what I say is true!” That, in substance, is “the Church,” but with this peculiarity, that those who recognize themselves as being “the Church” become convinced that they cannot err, and so whatever nonsense they may utter they can never recant it. The Church is constituted in this way: Men assure themselves and others that their teacher, God, to ensure that the law he revealed to men should not be misinterpreted, has given power to certain men, who, with those to whom they transfer this power, can alone correctly interpret his teaching. So these men, who call themselves “the Church,” regard themselves as holding the truth not because what they preach is true but because they consider themselves the only true successors of the disciples of the disciples of the disciples, and finally of the disciples of the teacher — God — himself.
For Tolstoy, this arrogant self-righteousness about possessing the truth is what has allowed hell to be restored, and this fraud must be exposed. Tolstoy even wrote an open appeal directly to the clergy, calling it to “forego for a while your assurance that you […] are the true disciples of the God Christ” — predictably, to no avail.
Other Christian anarchists are also suspicious of the self-righteousness of the church and its members. Andrews repeats the words of a friend of his, who says that “Religious people love to play a game called ‘church.’ We all dress up, and go through our paces in the service together, and whoever looks the most religious wins.” Hennacy likewise accuses each church of “[praying] more and [doing] less than the other.” The church, for them, is hypnotised by its self-importance, and thus forgets about Jesus’ subversive teaching.
138
3.4.2 — Obscure rituals and beliefs
Indeed, Christian anarchists criticise the church for concealing Jesus’ political teaching by prioritising obscure and hypnotic external rituals. Tolstoy maintains that Jesus himself denounces such “external forms of religion” and “ceremonial performances” as “harmful” and “injurious” delusion. Tolstoy goes even further: for him, the sacraments amount to “coarse, degrading sorcery,” and belief in the Eucharist, to “blasphemy.” Christian anarchists like Tolstoy (hence with the exception of at least the Catholic Workers) therefore see church liturgy as an instrument of deception.
Tolstoy accuses the church of inventing not just obscure rituals but also obscure dogmas and beliefs, again to further distract its flock from Jesus’ radical teaching. One example Tolstoy highlights is the church’s claim that the Bible is infallible and sacred, and its consequent regard for the Old and New Testaments as “equally divinely inspired.” According to Tolstoy, this belief forces the church to seek to justify every bizarre assertion in the Bible, again to the neglect of Jesus’ revolutionary teaching. It also “makes the importance of the New Testament consist not in its moral teaching, not in the Sermon on the Mount, but in the conformity of the Gospels with the stories of the Old Testament.” Tolstoy believes that this endeavour “harms” the “mind,” is morally perverting, and deludes people into thinking that just by “professing this teaching, […] they are living a really Christian life.” Even the four Gospels, for Tolstoy, are not “infallible expressions of divine truth,” but the attempt of “innumerable minds and hands” to summarise the teaching of a man who wrote nothing himself — hence they are full of “errors” and inaccuracies. Thus, to claim that the Christian scriptures are infallible is for Tolstoy just another trick to distract from the subversive implications of Jesus’ teaching.
interpretation ness as cancerous distraction
need bachelard oikos law so can hear/see/be what’s already on each heart
Related to this, of course, is the church’s affirmation that Jesus does not reject Moses’ law, the Christian anarchist position on which is discussed in Chapter 1. For Tolstoy, this claim is clearly contradictory, and results in a deliberately “cloudy interpretation” of the Sermon on the Mount.
what interp is not cloudy?
139
For him (tolstoy), this Creed is nonsensical — if it were true, then it would suffice “to communicate it with reasonable persuasion plainly and simply.” Instead, the church preaches it through violence and hypnotism, claims Tolstoy, especially directed to children and the uneducated — all this to conceal the radical nature of Jesus’ teaching.
140
Tolstoy therefore sees dogmatic theology as containing the “most incomprehensible, blasphemous and shocking propositions, not merely incompatible with reason, but quite incomprehensible and contrary to morality.” He also finds it incredible that “In this demand for belief in the impossible and unreasonable, we go so far that the very unreasonableness of what we ask to be believed is taken as a sign of its truth.” For Tolstoy, “To assert that the supernatural and irrational form the essential characteristic of religion is like observing only rotten apples, and then asserting that a flabby bitterness and a harmful effect to the stomach are the prime characteristics of the fruit called Apple.” Dogmatic theology, for Tolstoy, is not the prime characteristic of Christianity, and to see it as such is to surrender to the church’s obfuscation of Jesus’ subversive teaching. Moreover, even though, nowadays, only few people still genuinely believe in these dogmas, the tragedy remains that the church’s version of Christianity is accepted as the authoritative one. “Christianity” is understood to be this official and dogmatic Christianity preached by the church.
141
For that matter, Tolstoy believes that many theologians are fully aware of the revolutionary potential of Jesus’ teaching — but while they sometimes debate it amongst themselves, they keep it hidden from the masses. If one reminds them of Jesus’ teaching, they become angry and publicly contradict it. Tolstoy cannot avoid the conclusion that church theologians are hypocrites preaching hypocrisy. He reminds them that Jesus roundly condemns such hypocrisy, and warns that false interpretations of his teaching will not be forgiven. As to the laity, *Tolstoy calls it to use reason — the one gift which he believes God to have granted to all human beings — to deconstruct traditional interpretations, separate truth from falsehood, and uncover the truly radical potential of Jesus’ teaching and example.
*bn – on each heart ness.. for that .. need oikos (the economy our souls crave).. ‘i should say: the house shelters day-dreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.’ – gaston bachelard, the poetics of space
endnote 229 (898): Dave Andrews, The Urgent Need for a Global Ethic, available from www.daveandrews.com.au (accessed 3 December 2006), 7. See also Andrews, Christi-Anarchy, 83–84. Elsewhere, Andrews comments that “One of the problems people have with Christians is that we are not only un-Christ-like, but we also use our Christian theology to rationalize our continuing to be un-Christ-like. […] This sticks in the throats of many non-Christians who hoped Christians might be better.” Moreover, “Gandhi […] was not afraid to confront Christians with our misuse of the theology of the cross in rationalizing our continued un-Christ-likeness.” Andrews, The Crux of the Struggle
found link to 10 pg dpf [https://www.daveandrews.com.au/articles/Urgent%20Need%20for%20a%20New%20Global%20Ethic.pdf]
notes/quotes:
7: The only way that ‘Christians’ can work side by side with ‘non-Christians’ as equals is – if we become less concerned about being ‘Christian’ and a lot more concerned about being ‘Christlike’. Christ said ‘I am the Way’. But we need to remember that the one who said he was ‘the Way’ showed us the way to work with people of other traditions by telling his disciples not to be so paranoid about them, but to remember ‘if they’re not against you, they’re for you!’ (Mark 9:30). Christ deliberately held up people of other religions, like the ‘Good Samaritan’, whom his co-religionists would have despised, as examples for Christians to emulate. (Luke 10:30-37)
10: Possibilities For Problem Solving In The Real World: negotiation/dialogue
oi.. still cancerous distractions.. gibran talking law.. willard talking law.. et al .. need bachelard oikos law so we can listen deep..
indeed.. has to be all.. sans any form of us & them ness.. but would still make no diff if all .. if we’re still flapping whalespeak
hari rat park law.. for (blank)’s sake
142
Jesus founded neither church nor state — indeed he subverted both — yet church and state elites have managed to hide his teaching behind obscure beliefs and rituals, and use their professed authority to bless the violent state with apparent religious endorsement. These dogmas and ceremonies hypnotise and stupefy the masses into submission — particularly soldiers, the state’s guardians and cannon-fodder. Thus institutionalised Christianity, with its textual reinterpretations, theological doctrines and liturgical performances, is itself the heart of the deception which has kept a lid on the revolutionary potential of Jesus’ anarchist message.
143
3.5 — Awakening to true Christianity
For many Christian anarchists, therefore, Christianity has *never been properly tried yet on a significant enough scale. Catholic Workers often repeat a quote from Chesterton: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been **found difficult and left untried.” Maurin comments that it “has not been tried because people thought it was impractical. And ***men have tried everything except Christianity.” Hence he says of “Catholic scholars” that they “have failed to blow the dynamite of the Church.” For Christian anarchists, “The Christian ****truth about society has not yet been revealed,” and Jesus’ radical teaching is *****still waiting to be discovered..t
*why not yet.. nothing to date
**takes a lot of work as cancerous distraction
***except unconditional ness.. love that deep..
mufleh humanity law: we have seen advances in every aspect of our lives except our humanity– Luma Mufleh
haven’t yet let go enough to see unconditional ness
****sea world .. hari rat park law et al
*****because not really a ‘teaching’.. rather .. a listening.. because already on each heart
In the meantime, and because Jesus’ revolutionary teaching has not been articulated by the church, people have turned their attention to secular, socialist ideals. The poor rightly feel “betrayed by Christianity,” remarks Day, and they have therefore sought emancipation in alternative ideals. Tolstoy, however, is very critical of these. For him, not only are progressive secular ideals *based on a mistaken understanding of human nature,..t but they will not truly alleviate the plight of the poor. He believes that nineteenth century socialists and similar proponents of secular ethics are mostly hypocrites **giving false hopes to the oppressed (partly because their answers to the big questions of life do not go honestly and deep enough to the full truth about life,..t reason and violence in the way in which Tolstoy felt his own deliberations did) while continuing to benefit from their privileged position. Either that or they are deluded, for reasons discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Either way, their secular programme will not address ***the root of social injustice, because the state is left intact. For Tolstoy, Jesus said that “Men’s lives, with their different creeds and governments, must all be changed. All human authorities must disappear.” The only revolution that can save humanity, therefore, is the Christian anarchist revolution.
*black science of people/whales law
**costello screen\service law et al..
***if social injustice is goal.. yeah.. maybe state is root.. but won’t get at legit change.. won’t get at a legit try .. still just same song.. healing (roots of) et al.. need a means to listen deep so we can to org around legit needs
Hence Tolstoy repeatedly calls humanity to *bethink and awaken itself out of its hypnotic state,..t its orthodox trap, and fully embrace Jesus’ teaching.[919] He is quite hopeful in that he believes in a natural evolution of humanity from darkness into light, and he believes that the desired awakening can happen at any moment.. What is needed is for **enough people to see through and shake off orthodox deceptions,..t to see the truth of Jesus’ revolutionary teaching. ***Just as it took a long time for “Christians” to awaken to the injustice of the slave trade, but they eventually did, one day, they will awaken to the violence and injustice of the state. When enough people will have freed themselves from the deceptions of the state and church, a final push by public opinion will usher the age of true Christianity, of Christian anarchy. ****People will recognise that the state is violent, cunning and exploitative, that the church’s dogmas are deceptive, and its interpretation of Jesus’ teaching dishonest. At that point, the loving society envisioned by Jesus might finally come about.
*need global detox leap
**so.. via bachelard oikos law et al..
***? ooof.. have not yet let go of slave ness.. and detox leap won’t/can’t take a long time.. otherwise just whac-a-mole-ing ness.. humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
****cancerous distraction.. wasting time.. we just need to try/be something diff..
In the meantime, however, Christian anarchists have to live in a world in which the state is strong. Hence they need to decide how to respond to this state, as well as on how to embody Jesus’ teaching and example in this context..t The first is the theme of Chapter 4, the second, of Chapter 5.
until now.. now have means for global leap.. so re ness as cancerous distraction
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental expo labeling).. to facil a legit global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. and we’re missing it
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of m\a\p
endnote 250 (919): The expressions of “bethinking” and “awakening,” here paraphrased, are Tolstoy’s. Tolstoy, “An Appeal to the Clergy,” 307–308; Tolstoy, “The Kingdom of God Is within You,” 202, 358–368, 398–407, 420–421; Tolstoy, “The Law of Love and the Law of Violence,”
145
Part II — The Christian Anarchist Response
re ness .. oi
146
Chapter 4 — Responding to the State
Having outlined the many Christian anarchist criticisms of the state, it is now time to explore the proposed response to the state’s contemporary prominence. That response is made of two fairly distinguishable conce
oi
147
As a result, as Eller puts it, a thinker’s “handling of Romans 13 (along with Mark 12) is the litmus test” of his Christian anarchism
150
At the same time, Eller emphasises that to “be subject to” does not mean to worship, to “recognise the legitimacy of” or to “own allegiance to.” For him, “It is a sheerly neutral and anarchical counsel of ‘not-doing’ — not doing resistance, anger, assault, power play, or anything contrary to the ‘loving the enemy’ which is, of course, Paul’s main theme.” Hence Paul is not counselling “blind obedience.” As explained below, if what the authorities demand conflicts with God’s demands, then Christians ought to disobey — but also then submit to any punishment. Ultimately, a Christian’s allegiance is only to God, not to the state.
153
The message behind this, therefore, is to make it plain “that Christians were not a sect out to overthrow Caesar and force their religion on everyone else.” Paul’s concern is for Christians not to engage in any violent insurrection — despite their persecution. He is telling the Christians in Rome to “stay away from any notion of […] insubordination,” and instead to adopt a loving, “nonresistant attitude towards a tyrannical government,” an attitude which would therefore “set an example of humility and peaceful living for others.” In other words, Romans 13 “seeks to apply love in a context where Christians detested the authorities.” It does not legitimise the state, but it also makes a point of not legitimising any insurrection against it. It is reminding Christians that Jesus refused to engage in that type of revolutionary politics, that the Christian revolution is to happen by setting an example of love, forgiveness and sacrifice instead.
Thus the Christian is to remain indifferent, so to speak, to particular forms of political authority (this important topic is discussed in more detail in the Conclusion). However evil or tyrannical any one of them may be — and there is no denying that they can be very brutal — a follower of Jesus should overcome evil by good: by loving enemies, by turning the other cheek, and by submitting to persecution and possible crucifixion. It is not for the Christian to avenge human injustices, however horrible any one of them may be. In Romans 12:19 (as already noted in Chapter 1), Paul recalls that God said “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” That is, vengeance is denied to the Christian because it belongs to God (and the Christian does not know how God will “avenge” injustices). Eller also interprets Paul as telling Christians not to “set their minds on high things” — that is, for Eller, not to get concerned and distracted by specific political ideologies or utopias. Instead, the only priority is to abide by Jesus’ commandments.
unoffendable ness.. olivier wrong about you law et al.. cancerous distractions
154
..give to the state what it asks, unless doing so conflicts with what God demands. What is required, then, is “passive subordination” but not “pious obedience to the state.” The state should be treated with love and due respect, but “Obedience to secular power has definite limits. In matters contrary to the law of God, the Christian is obliged to refuse obedience” and “must willingly suffer whatever penalties the state imposes.” As explained further below, this means that Christians must disobey “Directives such as those to wield the sword, to swear an oath, or to enter a public court to settle a dispute.” What is less straightforward is the question concerning the payment of taxes — which is addressed in detail below.
The important point is that, as Ballou writes, “The Christian has nothing to care for but be a Christian indeed.” The state is a pagan distraction, to be treated with love and respect, but only because doing so is in line with Jesus’ teaching of love and forgiveness — and it is that teaching only which the Christian is really abiding by even when submitting to the state. It certainly has nothing to do with any duty to protect certain freedoms or maintain some order in a chaotic war of all against all.
155
The other New Testament passage cited by a Christian anarchist in parallel to Romans 13 is Revelation 13 .. both advise patience and submission rather than violent revolution.
161
Hence rather than seeing it as civil disobedience, for them, one should see it as obedience to God.
163
In addition, in that voting amounts to an endorsement of the state and its electoral procedures, it is also rejected by Christian anarchists. According to Hennacy, “by voting for legislative, judicial, and executive officials, we make these men our arms by which we cast a stone and deny the Sermon on the Mount.” Ballou agrees: voting makes us morally responsible for the unchristian actions perpetrated by whoever wins that election. Indeed, Hennacy explains that “win or lose, you will have consented, by having voted, to accept the winning candidate’s judgement as superior to your own.” Taking part in elections thus implies an implicit approval of the election process and of the legitimacy of its outcome — whatever the eventual outcome of that election. For several Christian anarchists, all this leads to a denial of the teaching of Jesus, and therefore Christians cannot take part in state elections.
voting ness and cast first stone ness
164
4.4.3 — Conscription and war
On war, the Christian anarchist position has already been discussed. War being so violent and unchristian, Christian anarchists cannot see how a Christian can become a soldier and participate in its horrors. Moreover, as already noted, soldiers are used by the state not only in war but in the repression of their own population. Hence military service, for Christian anarchists, is deeply unchristian. Where it is just an option, it should simply be ignored; but where it is compulsory, it should be opposed.
61 ness
4.4.4 — Other state services
Since they dislike the state so much, predictably, Christian anarchists also refuse to make use of any of its organs. Thus, not only can Christians not work for the police, but for them, they should not make complaints to it or otherwise rely on its services. Similarly, for Christian anarchists, neither can Christians take part in court proceedings, nor can they rely on courts for the adjudication of any disputes. Chelčický furthermore regrets that “a priest who goes […] himself to court, elevates their shame into honour.” Christians cannot seek punishment of others through the judicial system, nor should they adorn secular courts with their presence. Ellul also advocates conscientious objection to things like compulsory vaccination or compulsory schooling — the latter being just a propaganda tool through the national education policy.
need a nother way.. for (blank)’s sake
165
4.5.1 — No compromise with violence
Christian anarchists therefore make a point of stressing their differences — as well as their similarities — with other revolutionary currents, usually by reiterating their absolute rejection of any compromise with violence or coercion.
aka: any form of m\a\p
Many Christian anarchists thus distinguish their position from (classic) socialist and communist thought. They usually explain that while they genuinely sympathise with the goal of a communist, stateless and classless society, what they strongly disagree with are the coercive means which socialists are willing to adopt to reach that end. For Christian anarchists (as explained in Chapter 1), the end never justifies the means, because “the means become the end” or at the very least “corrupt” or obscure it. Hence a stateless end cannot be reached by using the state as a means to that end. Indeed, just like Bakunin, Tolstoy foresaw the risk of a communist revolution resulting in just another dictatorship. He and other Christian anarchists have therefore repeatedly called for socialists and communists to reflect on the impossibility of reaching their righteous destination by taking the reins of the state or through any other revolution method which compromises with violence
167
At the same time, Christian anarchists like Ellul and Tolstoy claim to “fully understand the insurrection of the oppressed who see no way out.” Their outrage is understandable given the hardship which they feel is imposed upon them. Tolstoy says he “cannot blame the revolutionaries” for using “the same immoral means” as their oppressors — at least the revolutionaries, he says, have “mitigating circumstances on their side.” These are: “that their crimes are committed under conditions of greater personal danger” than agents of the state are ever “exposed to;” that they are usually “quite young people to whom it is naturally to go astray;” and that they are anyway only reproducing the methods which they have been taught by the state. Similarly, Ellul calls for Christians to sympathise with the oppressed, even when they adopt violence, though Christians should nevertheless also always question such adoption of violence.
Revolutionary violence has an inherent tendency to backfire: it erodes any public support for the revolutionaries’ cause, and it becomes “a convenient pretext” for the state to “intensify” its repression. As noted in Chapter 1, the outcome is not revolutionary change but more violence and repression. Violent revolutionary means only lead to endless violence and counter-violence. Almost every attempt at violent revolution, according to Christian anarchists, has degenerated into bloodbaths and recriminations, and where revolutions did succeed in overthrowing a repressive government, they, too, have led to more repression. Yet, Yoder writes, “If the new people” have “the same techniques, the same willingness to coerce and the same attitude towards authority as the bad guys — then it is not worth changing palace guards.”..t Surely, Tolstoy asks, human beings must be able to devise “better means of improving the conditions of humanity than by killing people whose destruction can be of no more use than the decapitation of that mythical monster on whose neck a new head appeared as soon as one was cut off?”
any form of m\a\p as cancerous distraction
168
4.5.2 — Revolution by example
Lenin is alleged by one Christian anarchist to have said: “I made a mistake. Without doubt the oppressed multitude had to be liberated. But our method only provoked further oppression — and atrocious massacres. It is too late now to alter the past — but what was needed to save Russia were ten Francis of Assisi’s.” Whether Lenin really did say this, what it suggests is that the true revolution can only come with a new philosophy, a new way of life, and that this alternative can only come about by example, not by force. In a sense, therefore, the revolutions of the past were simply “not revolutionary enough.” For Christian anarchists, the true revolution must come by different means — by Christian witness and example.
nothing diff enough to date
That Christian anarchist witness and example is discussed in more details in the next Chapter. The point to note here is that this alternative revolutionary method implies that any aspirations of top-down political engineering must be renounced. However appealing it may be, for Christian anarchists, the hope “to make people good by law” is deluded. Eller explains that such “arky faith” is attractive because, “Perfectly confident that our commitments are to the ‘good,’ we cannot see why it should be anything other than good that our power for good be ‘magnified’ through the collective solidarities of good arkys,” and because “Still completely confident about the justice of our own cause, we dream about the possibility that, judiciously applied to the right spot, the power of even a small pebble from our weak sling will bring down the Goliath of Evil.” In practice, however, it does not work, because “arky faith” compromises with violence and coercion, leading to more self-righteous violence and misunderstandings and so on. Christian anarchists therefore believe that those who seek to govern or change society from above are deceiving themselves (an issue which is discussed further in the Conclusion).
Instead, for Christian anarchists, *“Real change must come from the bottom up or, better yet, from the inside out.”..t Chelčický argues that to make people better, the only option is to teach them by example — they might then, of their own will, choose to follow that example. “A righteous society,” Young writes, “can only be realized by changing the heart and mind of each individual.” Hence, to borrow a famous phrase attributed to Gandhi, “We must be the change we want to see in the world.” For Christian anarchists, “There can be no more powerful strategy than that of people who dare to be different.” This strategy is discussed in more detail in the next Chapter. The important point to note here is that choosing the road of bottom-up “discipleship” also implies foregoing the (deluded) dream of top-down efficacy. **Success is therefore measured not by the..t “immediate delivery of political outcomes” but “in terms more of the consistent faithfulness” of the witness. The focus is not on the effect of Christian discipleship, but on Christian discipleship itself. That way, as Day writes, “The ‘means to the end’ begins with each one of us.” That is why “the only revolution” that is “worthwhile,” for Hennacy, is ***“the one-man revolution within the heart.”..t
*and so .. need bachelard oikos law via tech as nonjudgmental expo labeling/non hierarchical listening
**same song if still measuring/successing anything.. if still any form of m\a\p
***bn – on each heart ness.. kingdom is within you ness.. so no train et al.. a quiet revolution
169
Hence for Tolstoy, the real basis of any change is public opinion, and ultimately, public opinion is moved by truth. Tolstoy writes that
Men bound to one another by deceit, form, as it were, a compact mass. In the compactness of this mass is the evil in the world. *The aim of the whole intellectual activity of mankind should be to break through and destroy this aggregate of deceit..t Revolutions are attempts to break up this mass by violence. Men imagine that if they once disperse it it will cease to exist, and they strike it furiously in order to break it up, — but they only weld the atoms more closely together, for each atom must be filled with an inward power of its own before the mass can be finally disintegrated. The strength of this bond of union among men rests on a lie, on deceit. The strength which can deliver each particle of this mass it truth. Truth is communicated to men only by the deeds of truth. Only the deeds of truth, lighting the conceptions of every individual man, can destroy this evil attraction and detach men one after another from the mass bound together by it.
*aims and intellectness as cancerous distractions.. oi
Therefore, like other Christian anarchists, Tolstoy places his hopes of revolution on the inspirational, indeed contagious, quality of the Christian example. The true revolution, for him, will not come about through any compromise with political engineering, violence or coercion, but only by a gradual change of public conduct and consciousness spearheaded by courageous Christian anarchist witnesses.
perhaps until now.. now have means to stop that whac-a-mole-ing ness cycle that comes from gradual/part\ial ness..
170
Of course, this relies on Christians leading the way. Hence Christian anarchists call for Christians to fully embrace Jesus’ subversive teaching. *Their response to the state is not to resist it (at least not violently) but to unmask it, to forgivingly subject themselves to it, to render to it the few things that belong to it — but also to clearly follow God alone and ignore or disobey the state if it demands things which should be rendered to God, if obeying it would entail a disobedience of God. For Christian anarchists, the only truly revolutionary response to the state is not to overthrow it and compose a different government, but to adopt a different — Christian — way of being, to patiently forgive and thereby unmask the state, but at the same time, to live out the stateless alternative “here and now.”
*cancerous distractions.. need to stick with just modeling something diff.. beyond stateless alt..
Hence what matters for Christian anarchists even more than how Christians respond to the state is how they embody Jesus’ teaching in community, because that community is what can set the example for those not convinced by Christianity yet. Therefore, their response to the state is one of indifferent and dismissive submission to most of its demands — provided that these are not incompatible with the will of God. More important than that, however, is their collective witness in striving to embody the true church — and that, in turn, is the topic of the next Chapter.
cancerous distractions.. need to stick with just modeling something diff.. beyond re ness alt..
171
Chapter 5 — Collective Witness as the True Church
The previous Chapter outlines the main themes of the direct Christian anarchist response to the state. This Chapter explores the indirect — yet perhaps even more important — response to it: the Christian anarchist embodiment of the church as a subversive alternative to the state. In a sense, whereas the previous Chapter discusses the negative response to the state’s demands, this one discusses the positive response of presenting the “true” church as an alternative society.[1082]
too much re ness
endnote 1 (1082): Hereafter, “true” church is referred to without quotation marks — it should be obvious that what is meant is what Christian anarchists believe the church should be, as opposed to what it has become (as described in Chapter 3).
The main theme is therefore the elaboration of the Christian anarchist vision for society. This vision is ultimately for the whole of humanity, but it is also a vision to be embraced fully by Christians in the present. Since the means for society’s transformation cannot be separated from the end, according to Christian anarchists, the transformed society — the true church — must be adopted by Christians as both the means and the end of this transformation.[1083] The next Chapter lists some examples of individuals and communities trying to embrace this Christian anarchist vision. This Chapter explores what Christian anarchist thinkers have written about it.
oi
endnote 2 (1083): There is an undeniably coercive feel to this Christian anarchist language about how Christians “must” behave in community to embody the “true” church. This language, however, stems from Christian anarchists’ insistence about following Jesus’ teaching with genuineness and authenticity. Indeed, to a large extent, it only mirrors the uncompromising language adopted by Jesus himself on the issue. In any case, *even if this language can indeed be described as coercive, it remains radically different to the state coercion..t which Christian anarchists denounce. Hence although some will no doubt see this as rather ironic, from a Christian anarchist perspective, there is **nothing either contradictory or unchristian in criticising state coercion and yet using slightly “coercive” language in this critique.
*not diff if any form of people telling other people what to do.. just same song.. not trusting unconditional ness of unconditionality (of what’s already on each heart)
**oi
In describing the ideal Christian anarchist community as “church,” it should not be forgotten that what is meant is a very different “church” to the institutional “church” described in Chapter 3, where the deep distrust which most Christian anarchists feel towards this official “church” is illustrated. Yet despite the risk of confusing the institutional “church” of Chapter 3 with the subversive “church” of this Chapter, it is precisely in the implicit contrast between the two “churches” that the use of the same word for both finds its rationale: it confirms the width of the chasm that separates what Christian anarchists understand the “church” to have been supposed to be with what has regrettably become of it.
The Chapter has three main sections. The first of these describes the contours of what Christian anarchists sometimes call the “new society within the shell of the old:” the role of repentance as a gateway to the church, the various elements and implications of the church’s economy of care and sacrifice, and the way in which the church’s organisation is therefore politically subversive. The second section then ponders the difficulties involved in such a mission: how evil is to be dealt with in the community and the heroic sacrifices required in doing so. The third and final section then elaborates on the trust that the true church must place in God: how the church is to become a beacon of such faith in a fallen world, and its confidence that it will grow as mysteriously but also as inevitably as the mustard seed described by Jesus.
unsettling (red flag) words: gateway, subversive, difficulties, dealt with
172
5.1 — “A new society within the shell of the old”
This section demonstrates that for Christian anarchists, converting to Jesus’ teaching is subversive because it *creates new relationships which render the state superfluous: **by caring and sacrificing themselves for their neighbours,..t converts to the true church deprive the state from its main raison d’être. Joining the church is therefore a subversive, political act.
*perhaps yes.. **perhaps no.. need brown belonging law or the dance won’t dance.. ie: who’s together in a space via itch-in-the-soul as data/connection
graeber violence in care law et al
5.1.1 — Repenting and joining the church
To become a member of the true church, as John the Baptist makes clear, we must begin by becoming conscious and repent of “our own sins” — such as our “idolatry” (of money, of the state, and so on), our “apathy towards the poor,” and our support for the violent state. For Tolstoy, we must “admit, without self-deception, that the life that we live is wrong.” We must “bethink ourselves” and realise that we have not been serving God but idols. We must reconsider our “position and activity” and “not be afraid of the truth.” Personal repentance is therefore the first step to the Christian anarchist revolution.
to me.. regret/remorse.. cancerous distraction.. meaning.. we’ve done that drama ongoingly.. ie: hari present in society law; khan filling the gaps law et al
Repentance is a private affair, but then as argued in the previous Chapter, reforming oneself is the only way to eventually reform society. Collective repentance and reform can only come about by the individual repentance and reform of enough members of the community. To Tolstoy’s regret, “everybody thinks of changing humanity, and nobody thinks of changing himself.” Yet for Christian anarchists, “it is an illusion to think we can change anyone except ourselves.” Andrews insists that “Change doesn’t begin with others, but with ourselves.” In Ballou’s words, the “millennium […] must be within men, before it can ever be around them.” Indeed, Tolstoy argues that “the essence of Christianity lies” precisely “in substituting an inward aim (to attain which no one else’s consent is necessary) in place of external aims (to attain which everyone’s consent is necessary).” The essence of Christianity and of its subversion of the state is personal repentance. The only way of reforming society is to first reform ourselves. That is why, as noted in the previous Chapter, the Christian anarchist revolution is a revolution by example.
oi.. just need to get out of sea world.. back to garden-enough ness
174
Besides, this sharing should be patient and forgiving — it should not be determined by what the receiver does with the gift. To put it in the more colloquial words of a contributor to a conference on Christian anarchism, “I give money to the homeless, whatever crap excuse they give me.” Jesus asks his followers to give to anyone who asks, without stipulating any conditions of use — presumably forgiving the receiver for any potential misuse.
oh my
175
Christian anarchists are willing to suffer poverty as a result. Catholic Workers in particular regularly stress the virtues of voluntary poverty. Hennacy argues that it “keeps the radical from becoming bourgeois and selling out.” It also demonstrates the “sincerity” of the Christian’s intentions. Day adds that it “brings us close to those who Christ loved,” and it “means that by taking less ourselves, others can have more.” Hence, paradoxically perhaps, voluntary poverty is a way to eradicate poverty. As Maurin says, “nobody would be poor if everybody tried to be the poorest.” At the same time, Catholic Workers do not wish poverty to befall others: they bemoan the poverty that so many suffer from today, yet they also recommend it as a way to be liberated from the political economy that causes it in the first place. Hence Day’s claim: “I condemn poverty and I advocate it.” Christian anarchists do not wish poverty to be inflicted upon others, but they nevertheless call for it to be embraced willingly as a way to overcome it.
oh my.. there’s a nother .. unsanctimonious way..
Indeed, physical work also features quite prominently among the Christian anarchist prescriptions for the true church. It is crucial for them that we all “earn our bread by the sweat of our brows, in labor.” Moreover, such physical labour is not “all pain and drudgery.” As Sampson explains, Tolstoy, who frequently eulogises peasant life, believes that labouring the land keeps the worker “in better spirits, healthier, fitter,” and “kindlier.” Maurin and Day seem to agree. Furthermore, according to Day, Maurin “was vehemently *opposed to the wage system” and preferred to speak of the “gift” of labour, for which one would receive, in return, the “‘gift’ of enough food and clothing.” Hence Maurin writes that in Catholic Worker communities, “There is plenty of work to do, but no wages,” as “people do not need to work for wages” but “can offer their services as a gift.” This makes the wage system redundant, replacing it with a much more personal and loving exchange of gift.
oh my oh my oh my
176
The economy of the true church would therefore be one of personal care and sacrifice for one another. Rather than rely on the state to provide this care through its welfare policies, Christian anarchists would rather see people develop a real sense of care and “personal responsibility” for their neighbours. For Maurin, “what comes from the taxpayer’s pocketbook does not come from his heart.” Hence Maurin contrasts the “impersonality of state relief” with the “fraternal care” exemplified in personal acts of charity. Besides, personal care helps prevent many of the problems which the welfare state seeks to cure. “Out of these small individual acts” of personal care and sacrifice, Watson therefore notes, “a great revolution takes place that […] makes the cold and remote state system redundant.”
aka: people telling other people what to do.. oi
Christian anarchists also address the question of how society would *“get on with public affairs,” such as “highways, and bridges, and school houses, and education, and alms-houses, and hospitals.” According to Hennacy, “Anything that the government does, except make war, all of us could do if we got the idea of doing it, and we could **do it better.” None of these public works require the government to be completed. In the true church, these would all be done ***“voluntarily.” Ballou argues that “all will be eager to contribute their full share of expense and effort to the object,” that “instead of the strife, as now, who shall bear the lightest burden, the only strife will be — who shall do most for the promotion of every good work.” Hence in the true church, according to Pentecost, “All things that were for the common good would be done in common by as many as ****choose to cooperate for that purpose.”
*rather than getting on with them.. if legit free.. they would become irrelevant s.. oi
**need something diff.. not better version of same song
***aka: voluntary compliance
****need to try curiosity over decision making
For Christian anarchists, therefore, this revolutionary Christian economy can only be built “by ordinary people *doing ordinary things for one another.” Tolstoy writes that “Great, true deeds are always simple and modest.” For Andrews, “as little people, we can only do little things,” but “Great things can happen […] as a result of the cumulative effect of lots of little people doing lots of the little things we can do.” One Christian anarchist notes that this only requires the same “energy, […] organization and teamwork” which humanity today commits to war. The accumulation of the individual actions of committed followers of Jesus would subvert the state by rendering it obsolete, and **replace it by a more personalised economy where even the most abandoned would be lovingly cared for.
*need brown belonging law so we don’t fall into graeber violence in care law et al..
**same song.. not really more loving.. if still having to care for abandoned people
5.1.3 — Subversive organisation
Building such a Christian community therefore consists in building “a new society within the shell of the old,” as Catholic Workers are fond of repeating (thereby borrowing this expression from the Industrial Workers of the World). Like many secular anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists in particular), Christian anarchists will not “wait for a revolutionary situation before developing *alternative economic systems,” because it is precisely in the adoption of these new ways of life that the revolution is enacted. Hence both Christian and secular anarchists alike also quote Gustav Landauer’s explanation that “The state is not something which can be destroyed by a revolution, but is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.” In other words, the true church “destroys” the state by creating new relationships. Just by being what Jesus calls it to be, the community of Jesus’ followers subverts the state and presents its revolutionary alternative to it.
*alt we need – bachelard oikos law.. so we can hear what is already on each heart.. and trust that
oi to some of the wording.. ie: contracting, behave, et al
178
The only Christian anarchists who put forward slightly more detailed suggestions for the organisation of their alternative community are the Catholic Workers, who have tested these suggestions in their own communities (the next Chapter chronicles such examples in more detail). The specifics do vary from one Catholic Worker community to another, but most tend to work towards Maurin’s “three-point program” of “round-table discussions, houses of hospitality, and farming communes:” the round-table discussions are to encourage thoughtful reflection and dialogue over the issues that affect members of the community; the houses of hospitality are generally urban houses where society’s outcasts are cared for, where shelter, food and company are provided to those in need; and the farming communes, also sometimes referred to as “agronomic universities,” are houses in the country where volunteers work the land and live in community. Indeed, all these houses and farms are run by volunteers striving to embrace all the elements of the economy of care and sacrifice outlined in the previous subsection. This three-point programme is the closest to a prescribed plan for the decentralised organisation of the new society in the Christian anarchist literature: elsewhere in that literature, the details of each community’s social arrangements are, by and large, implicitly left for each community to agree upon.
oi oi oi .. same song.. got to change up who’s together in a space.. not diff ways to org predetermined grouping ness..
According to Christian anarchists, simply living in such a decentralised community is a political statement in itself. That is, the very existence of the true church is, in itself, a political statement. Indeed, Christian anarchists explain that “when Jesus first used” the Greek word which is translated as “church” (ekklesia), it “was not a religious” but “a political term.” The word, they add, actually means “assembly.” Bartley maintains that using this word “invoked the idea of people called aside for a purpose — namely, to make political decisions.” For Cavanaugh, “In calling itself ekklesia, the Church was identifying itself as Israel, the assembly that bears the public presence of God in history.” That is, “the Church was not simply another polis; it was rather an anticipation of the heavenly city on earth.” Therefore, the church’s mission was always very political, calling followers away from the state’s organisation of community life and towards God’s alternative vision for humanity.
Moreover, this church was not expected to withdraw completely from society in the sense of forming a monastic community completely outside it. For Christian anarchists, it was called to live out its alternative within society, to embody a subversive “political counter-culture to society and its institutions” and to make this counter-culture visible to the rest of society. The church was to detach itself from the state and yet to present its alternative from within it.
179
For Christian anarchists, therefore, the true church is called to be a subversive political community, “a statement of opposition to the state.” Goddard describes it a “revolutionary presence living out God’s word within the fallen world.” According to Yoder, such a church “constitutes an unavoidable challenge to the powers that be and the beginning of a new set of social alternatives.” Its “very existence,” for Berkhof, “is itself a proclamation” that “the Powers” have been defeated (as discussed in Chapter 2). For Christian anarchists, the church’s existence is a proclamation of God’s alternative to the state: just by being itself, this true church both criticises the state and presents an alternative to it. That is why it is such a deeply subversive organisation.
5.2 — A difficult mission
At the same time, the church’s subversive mission is not an easy one, especially in the personal sacrifices it requires in dealing with evil in the community. This section touches on these difficulties.
oh my.. red flags.. takes a lot of work et al..
5.2.1 — Dealing with evil in the community
Many detractors have described the Christian anarchist vision for the church as both too difficult and dangerously unrealistic, particularly regarding the way in which it fails to adequately deal with evil people. Christian anarchists, Tolstoy in particular, rebut these criticisms, and in so doing explain how they expect the true church to deal with evil in the community.
One argument levelled at Christian anarchists is that the way of life of the true church would make it easy for the evil to enslave and oppress the good. Tolstoy remarks, however, that this scenario “is precisely what has long ago happened, and is still happening, in all States” — the evil use the state to oppress the good. The claim that evil people must be restrained by government authority takes “for granted” that “good” people “are now in power,” yet for Tolstoy, those who “seek,” obtain and “retain” power tend to be moved not by “goodness” but by “pride, cunning and cruelty.” With or without the state, Tolstoy moreover argues, some people will oppress others — but at least by abolishing the state, its powerful machinery will not be available to these oppressors anymore.
Therefore it is precisely because some people are evil and because they tend to dominate the good that the state should be abolished. Ballou thus reiterates that Christians contribute more “towards keeping the world in order” by following their radical principles than by restraining evil through the state.
huge red flag that this is same song.. ie: if diff would be sans any form of us & them ness
180
A Christian church would be far less prone to riots and social disorder than an unfair society conserved by the state.
not if any form of m\a\p.. (at least not ‘less’ enough for the dance to dance) that’s why still talking about existence of maniac/evil.. et al.. oi
181
For a start, Tolstoy remarks that it is generally but mistakenly assumed that the only possible reply to save the child is to kill the assailant. Yet he notes that it is never certain that an evil act would have indeed been committed — but that our own violence would itself be evil and a likely cause of further evil.
Moreover, Tolstoy writes, “None of us has ever yet met the imaginary criminal with the imaginary child, but all the horrors which fill the annals of history and of our own times came, and come, from this one thing, namely, that people will believe they really foresee speculative future results of action. People are convinced that violence will lead to the desired solution and thus fill the annals of history with their violent actions, which that one imaginary child continues to legitimise. Furthermore, Tolstoy comments,
I have never, except in discussions, encountered that fantastic brigand who before my eyes desired to kill or violate a child, but […] I perpetually did and do see not one but millions of brigands using violence towards children and women and men and old people and all the labourers, in the name of a recognized right to do violence to their fellows.
People, Tolstoy laments, worry about an imaginary — or at least very rare — defenceless child, but not about the real suffering of so many of their neighbours as a result of the acceptance of violence as an appropriate method to respond to real or hypothetical aggression.
Tolstoy does not brush aside the very real torture, rape and murder which can be committed by human beings, especially in warfare. As Chapter 3 makes clear, Tolstoy is aware of these horrors, but where he and other Christian anarchists differ from the majority of political thinkers, and indeed where the source of their originality lies, is in their Christian conviction that to eradicate such horrors, human beings need to stop fighting and start loving and forgiving one another, even at the cost of very real sacrifices and suffering in the short run. That is what Christian anarchists understand Jesus’ teaching to be about.
For them, the suffering resulting from non-resistance might at least lead humanity towards a brighter future. Of course, it is very difficult, especially when talking about one’s own child. But as Chapter 1 argues, the use of violence in defence will only aggrieve yet another family — and the cycle of violence thus continues. Therefore, even to protect loved ones from armed maniacs, some Christian anarchists like Tolstoy do not believe violence to be ultimately justified or indeed helpful.
Perhaps the most eloquent and powerful response to this objection, however, comes from Ballou:
“Well,” says the objector, “I should like to know how you would manage matters if the ruffian should actually break into your house with settled intent to rob and murder. Would you shrink back like a coward and see your wife and children slaughtered before your eyes?” I cannot tell how I might act in such a dreadful emergency — how weak and frail I should prove. But I can tell how I ought to act — how I should wish to act. If I am a firm, consistent non-resistant, I should prove myself no coward; for it requires the noblest courage and the highest fortitude to be a true non-resistant. If I am what I ought to be, I should be calm and unruffled by the alarm at my door. I should meet my wretched fellow-man with a spirit, an air, a salutation, and a deportment so Christ-like, so little expected, so confounding, and so morally irresistible that in all probability his weapons of violence and death would fall harmless to his side. I would say, “Friend, why do you come here? Surely not to injure those who wish you nothing but good? This house is one of peace and friendship to all mankind. If you are cold, warm yourself at our fire; if hungry, refresh yourself at our table; if you are weary, sleep in our bed; if you are destitute, poor, and needy, freely take of our goods. Come, let us be friends, that God may keep us all from evil and bless us with his protection.” What would be the effect of such treatment as this? Would it not completely overcome the feelings of the invader, so as either to make him retreat inoffensively out of the house, or at least forbear all meditated violence? Would it not be incomparably safer than to rush to the shattered door, half distracted with alarm, grasping some deadly weapon and bearing it aloft, looking fiery wrath and mad defiance at the enemy? How soon would follow the mortal encounter, and how extremely uncertain the outcome? The moment I appeared in such an attitude (just the thing expected), would not the ruffian’s coolness and well-trained muscular force be almost sure to seal the fate of my family and myself? But in acting the non-resistant part, should I not be likely, in nine cases out of ten, to escape with perfect safety?
182
Ballou’s answer is so moving in part because it recalls so eloquently that non-resistance is not separable from a broader Christian attitude of love and care: feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, caring for the afflicted — true love of neighbour and enemy — is likely to prevent anger and violence from arising in the first place. He admits that it is difficult, and that he might fail in doing what Jesus demands, but he rejects the idea that one ought to use violence to protect one’s loved ones, because, he argues, a loving and non-resistant attitude is more likely to save us than an aggressive response.
183
Here again, however, the Christian anarchist answer is negative. For a start, Sampson remarks that, just like with the question concerning the domestic attacker, the hypocritical “implication” behind this question seems to be that we are “basically good” and “would obey” Jesus’ advice if others would follow it, too — *yet no-one can be “counted on” to take the crucial first step. For Hennacy, however, a foreign attack is probably the result of some prior sin of ours. Our state must have been violent or stolen some territory or resources for another state to wage war against us — **perhaps, therefore, we are not as good as we like to think we are. Christian anarchists would certainly seek to publicise some of our own sins which would have contributed to escalating the cycle of violence in the first place.
*huge.. and why we keep whac-a-mole-ing ness
humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
**cast first stone ness
185
Either way, there is no doubt that following Jesus requires “courage,” “heroism,” and “moral bravery.” Bartley understands that “People are afraid to make themselves vulnerable.” Yet *we must “set aside our concern for security,” says Andrews. One must be courageous enough to make oneself vulnerable. That is why Ballou writes that “it requires the noblest courage and the highest fortitude to be a true non-resistant.” That is also why Allen notes in his foreword to Hennacy’s book that “Of all unfair charges we bring against them, **the most absurd is that of cowardice.” Following Jesus requires no cowardice but heroic courage.
*gershenfeld something else law et al
**olivier wrong about you law et al
186
5.3 — Trust in God
Faith in the transformative power of the Christian witness and faith in God’s mysterious providence are therefore important elements of the true church’s enthusiasm for Jesus’ teaching. The church is to be a beacon of such faith, confident that with time and patience, it will grow to become the stateless kingdom of God (see the Conclusion) foreseen by Jesus.
perhaps until now.. now have means for global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake.. otherwise.. we keep on whac-a-mole-ing ness
5.3.1 — A beacon of faith
Clearly, Jesus’ demands for the Christian church are radical and difficult. Most people have no faith in their potential application in today’s society. They consider it to be too utopian, too unrealistic. Christian anarchists, however, lament this lack of faith.
on saying this is ridiculous as lack of faith.. lack of unconditionality of love et al
Chapter 3 discusses the view, held by many church theologians, that non-resistance is impracticable — a view which, for Christian anarchists, is symptomatic of a lack of faith in Jesus. Indeed, the very existence of the state is evidence of humanity’s lack of trust in God. For Pentecost (as mentioned in Chapter 3), the state’s existence implies “that we have a God who made a lot of laws which are so defective that the universe would go to smash” without it. Moreover, in a way, just as to trust God is an act of faith, to trust the state is also an act of faith — not in love and forgiveness, but in violence and coercion. For Hennacy, therefore, “Most people believe more in the power of evil, for they do not trust in God but put their trust in government, insurance, politicians, […] war, and anything but God.”
Christian anarchists, however, would “rather put [their] trust in God than in the gun of a police officer.” Jesus repeatedly urges his disciples to trust God, and blames his disciples for having too little faith. His commandments to love enemies, forgive seventy-seven times and not resist evil rely on that faith in God, because for Ellul, the idea that evil can be overcome by love “rests on the conviction that it is God who transforms the heart of man. In other words, it betokens an attitude of utter faith in the action of the Holy Spirit.” Ballou also recalls that the Bible says that “To him that believeth, all things are possible.” Hence Newell writes that “we trust in the power of non-violent love to bring about the conversion and transformation that we seek.” Even more than courage, therefore, the true church requires faith — the former then naturally follows the latter. Faith in God gives the church confidence in its witness to the world.
to this is not ridiculous ness..
187
At the same time, this revives the argument, discussed in Chapter 4, that compliance with Jesus’ teachings is not to be expected from non-Christians. Given their lack of faith, as Ellul explains, “Christians must freely admit and accept the fact that non-Christians use violence.” Of course, such “recourse to violence,” for Ellul, “is an admission that faith […] has been lost.” Yet Christians “cannot demand […] that a non-Christian state should refrain from using violence” or follow the Sermon on the Mount. Christians must accept, however regretfully, that non-Christians have chosen to put their faith in the violent state rather than God — although of course they also know that this choice is evil and doomed, and they must *try to convert non-Christians to Jesus’ subversive alternative through their witness. Nevertheless, among those who lack faith in God, several Christian anarchists see the state as “a necessary evil” (“necessary” because Jesus’ teaching is ignored, but still “evil” and to be overcome nonetheless). According to Chelčický, “The civil law is […] necessary — as a bitter vinegar, so to speak — for those who transgress the law of love.” Chapter 4 explains that for many Christian anarchists, God mysteriously and reluctantly works through the state to hold the world that has rejected him together.
oh my.. rather.. *lack of faith in each heart if convert (aka: people telling other people what to do).. rather need bachelard oikos law
endnote 138 (1219): There is something of a tension, here, among Christian anarchists, between those like Ellul who (as Goddard explains) emphasise that Jesus’ commandments are for Christians only, and those who agree with Tolstoy that (as Sampson notes) Jesus’ teachings are meant to be universally applicable — that is, applicable to non-Christians as well. Nevertheless, this tension is largely overcome by the hope, apparently shared by all Christian anarchists, that the church has the potential to grow and encompass the whole of humanity: whether this is seen as an adoption of Christianity by non-Christians or as recognition of the universal truth of Jesus’ teaching, the effect is largely same. Goddard, Living the Word, Resisting the World, 57; Sampson, Tolstoy, 170–171.
not the same.. oi
188
Yet this fallen state of humanity must be redeemed by the church’s embodiment of Jesus’ teaching and example. As Goddard writes, “the Christian life is to be understood primarily as a form of presence in the fallen world.” Hence indifference to the state must be matched by fervour for the true church, and by a hope to subvert the state by broadening the church. Ellul warns his fellow Christians that “God has put us on this earth not for nothing.” Moreover, “Failure by Christians to be faithful to their calling to live and preach the Gospel,” for him, “has disastrous consequences,” in that it allows the world to carry on perpetrating evil unchallenged. Indeed, for Ellul, “Christians ultimately bear responsibility for our present plight.” Violence and suffering persist because Christians have failed to trust God, follow Jesus, and thereby expose the errors of the non-Christian way.
Hence for O’Reilly, as Camus says, “What the world wants of Christians is that *Christians should speak out loud and clear.” The true church must proclaim loudly and clearly its faith in God and in Jesus’ teaching, by witnessing to it both in its own community and in the way it interacts with the world outside it. The true church has a unique calling, and the salvation of humanity depends on its faithfulness to it. Hence the true church must be a beacon of faith in a dark world.
*again.. to me that’s lack of faith.. what we need is bachelard oikos law so that each of us can hear what’s already on our heart.. and trust that
5.3.2 — The mysterious growth of a mustard seed
Christian anarchists believe that the collective example set by the community life of the true church can be just as inspirational and contagious as individual examples of personal sacrifices. Andrews writes that “the beauty of love and justice embodied in our communities will encourage all men and all women of goodwill to continue to do good works as well.” According to Chelčický, “It was precisely this humble and loving behaviour which effected the conversion of the Gentiles and Jews to faith, because good examples move the unbelievers sometimes more forcibly than preaching and long speeches” on how best to organise society. For Maurin, the true church brings admiration from onlookers and “creates a desire among the admirers to climb on the bandwagon.” Indeed, that is also why Christian anarchist subversion “need not be feared” by others: as Tolstoy notes, it “cannot be made coercively binding upon” others, but requires them to adopt it of their own free will.
oi
189
Men who accept a new truth when it has reached a certain degree of dissemination always do so suddenly and in a mass. They resemble the ballast with which every ship is laden to keep it steady and enable it to sail properly. Were it not for the ballast the vessel would not be sufficiently immersed in the water and its course would be changed by the slightest modification of surrounding conditions.
The slowness of a shift in public opinion makes it possible for a new truth to be tested before it is adopted by the whole community.
190
For Tolstoy, however, humanity has now reached one of those tipping points when public opinion must be steered away from the current faith in the state by enough pioneers embodying the required alternative. He writes:
Men in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging from a branch in a cluster. The position of the bees on that branch is temporary and must inevitably be changed. They must bestir themselves and find a new dwelling. Each of the bees knows this and wishes to change its position and that of others, but no one of them is willing to move till the rest do so. […] It would seem that there was no way out of this state for the bees, just as there seems no escape for worldly men who are entangled in the toils of the [current] conception of life. […] Yet as it is enough for one bee to spread her wings, rise up and fly away, and a second, a third, a tenth, and a hundredth, will do the same and the cluster that hung inertly becomes a freely flying swarm of bees; so let but one man understand life as Christianity teaches us to understand it, and begin to live accordingly, and a second, a third, and a hundredth will do the same, till the enchanted circle of social life from which there seemed to be no escape will be destroyed.
humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync..
Tolstoy thus makes use of many different images and analogies of his own to convey his conviction that the Christian anarchist truth cannot but spread, following the example set by the true church. Hence even the most rationalist of Christian anarchists has faith in the power of the Christian anarchist example to spread and eventually encompass the whole of humankind.
rather than faith that few spread truth to all.. faith that all already have it.. just need shelter/uncovering to hear it
Therefore, whether by faith in Jesus’ description of the mysterious growth of the kingdom of God, or by faith in the inevitable recognition by humanity of Jesus’ rational teaching, most Christian anarchists believe that the true church is destined to grow through the patient sacrifices of its martyrs (but see Conclusion). Those ready to take up their cross and follow Jesus must therefore build “the new society within the shell of the old,” loving and caring for all, courageously forgiving those who commit evil, and above all keeping faith in God (or reason, for Tolstoy) while obeying his commandments. Over time, their communal witness to Jesus’ teaching will inevitably subvert the state by moving more and more non-Christians to willingly repent and become members of the true church as well.
Chapter 4 describes the direct response to the state which is prescribed by Christian anarchism, and this Chapter, the indirect response to the state by embodying the true church. Having covered the theoretical response, it is now possible, in the next Chapter, to list the examples which Christian anarchist thinkers cite of individuals and communities who have sought to follow that theory.
191
Chapter 6 — Examples of Christian Anarchist Witness
192
The early church, they note, was a community of true love and care for one another. Craig insists that this church was centred “on Hospitality,” not “on liturgy.” Moreover, as Maurin puts it, “because the poor were fed, clothed and sheltered at a personal sacrifice, the pagans used to say about the Christians ‘See how they love each another.’” As noted in Chapter 5, it was precisely this communal attitude of love and sacrifice which set Christians apart and persuaded others to convert and join the church.
hospitality ness.. constant hospitality law.. if legit free/one et al.. irrelevant s and graeber violence in care law et al
197
6.2.3 — Tolstoy’s personal example
Chronologically, the next examples of Christian anarchist witness are provided by Tolstoy and by his followers. Tolstoy himself made serious efforts to live up to what he preached: he stripped his house of luxuries, laboured the land with fellow peasants, made his own (apparently very uncomfortable) shoes, and became a vegetarian. Despite these efforts, he was accused by many of not living up to all the radical implications of his teaching, as seen for instance by the fact that he continued to live in his large country estate. Tolstoy’s answer to such critics was to tell them: “Condemn me if you choose, — I do that myself, — but condemn me, and not the path which I am following.” He added: “My heart is breaking with despair because we have all lost the road; and while I struggle with all my strength to find it and keep in it, you, instead of pitying me when I go astray, cry triumphantly, ‘See! He is in the swamp with us!’” Even if he often failed, Tolstoy says, at least he kept on trying.
201
Gandhi’s famous campaigns of non-violent resistance against the British in India need not be summarised here. What should be noted is that many Christian anarchists praise Gandhi as an example of someone who courageously applied a method that has very strong similarities with Jesus’. Of course, they accept that it is “ironic” that it had to take “a non-Christian to teach us such a valuable lesson on Christianity’s true way,” that “Christians have a Hindu to thank for ‘putting the cross back into politics.’” Yet according to Andrews, Gandhi “suggested that if Christ could only be unchained from the shackles of Christianity, he could become ‘The Way,’ not just for Christians, but for the whole world.” For Andrews, apart from Gandhi, “no-one has ever enunciated a more Christ-like set of principles for conducting a campaign of nonviolent resistance to political oppression.”
At the same time, Gandhi’s campaign was one of resistance — even if of a non-violent type. He famously said that if the choice is “between cowardice and violence,” he would “advise violence.” Moreover, Gandhi did not reject patriotism, and certainly did not follow Tolstoy’s anarchist conclusions. Clearly, therefore, Gandhi is a very imperfect illustration of Jesus’ way, and not really an example of Christian anarchism. Despite this, however, Christian anarchists have drawn inspiration from him. Catholic Workers in particular claim to combine “the spirit of Christ and the method of Gandhi.” They admire his consistency of means and ends, his courage and his willingness to suffer in campaigning against political oppression. As is noted below, Catholic Worker actions certainly bear strong similarities with Gandhi’s.
203
Aside from these acts of protests, of course, Catholic Workers have set up a number of houses of hospitality and farming communes, mainly, but not only, in the United States — where the movement was founded and has always been strongest. In her autobiography, Day reports the mushrooming of such communities. Hennacy also tells of his frequent visits to radical communities, Catholic Worker or other, across the country. Today, there are over one hundred and seventy Catholic Workers communities in the United States and Canada. In the United Kingdom, Catholic Worker houses have been set up in London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Oxford. There are also Catholic Worker houses in the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Belgium (Ghent), Germany (Hamburg, Dortmund), Sweden (Angered), Mexico (Coatepec) and New Zealand (Christchurch, Lyttleton). Each Catholic Worker community is different, but all strive to provide hospitality to the afflicted and to generally embody the life of love and care eulogised by its founders
207
Conclusion — The Prophetic Role of Christian Anarchism
208
A question arises, however, as to whether the term “Christian anarchism” is really the best term to describe this school of thought, because of an etymological quirk spotted by Eller. “An-archy,” a word derived from the Greek, is usually explained by political theorists to literally mean “without government” or “no rule.” Yet while to understand the prefix “an-” to mean “no” or “without” is correct, the meaning of the Greek “arky” is not confined to “government,” “rule” or “state.” As Eller explains, “The ‘-archy’ root [which he thereafter spells ‘arky’] is a common Greek word that means ‘priority,’ ‘primacy,’ ‘primordial,’ ‘principal,’ ‘prince,’ and the like.” Indeed, he notes that “‘pri-’ is simply the Latin equivalent of the Greek ‘arky.’” Therefore “anarchy” does mean “no government,” “no rule” or “no leader” in the sense of “no prince” or “no principality.” Yet Eller also remarks that “in Colossians 1:18 Paul actually identifies Jesus as ‘the beginning,’ ‘the prime’, ‘THE ARKY.’” Christian “anarchism,” however, does not reject Jesus as the arky — quite the contrary. Moreover, the “hier-” in “hierarchy” comes from the Greek “hieros,” which means “sacred.” Hence etymologically, “hierarchy” means something like “sacred principle,” “sacred government,” or “sacred rule” — something that, in a sense, Christian anarchists are keen promoters of.
but if so.. diff than our vision of it.. not ruling.. not coercing.. not puppeteering
All this implies that the term “Christian anarchism,” if one wants to be etymologically pedantic, is somewhat inadequate: Christian anarchists do not reject Jesus as the arky, and what they are calling for is for human beings to govern themselves by the rule of God. Eller suggests that the “goal” of Christian anarchism is indeed “‘theonomy’ — the rule, the ordering, the arky of God.” It is precisely because of their “theonomy,” because they consider Jesus as “the arky,” that Christian anarchists reject the state.
rather.. by the love of god.. if it was rule.. we wouldn’t be in this state.. we’d be pristine zombies
210
the Christian anarchist mission is to “anticipate and represent” that kingdom today. The hope cherished by several Christian anarchists is that doing so might perhaps thereby “hasten” its coming.
“Hastening” God’s kingdom
However, from the pure Christian anarchist perspective outlined in this book, there is a great danger in trying to precipitate the advent of the kingdom of God: the temptation to adopt violent means towards that end. Numerous millenarian sects and movements have fallen into this trap and thereby betrayed the essence of Jesus’ teaching. Indeed, one could argue that many utopian visions for society — be they religious or secular — have degenerated into violent and brutal movements precisely because of their (usually honest albeit deluded) hope that the adoption of some coercion might help precipitate the advent of their (usually well-intended) utopia. The problem, as Christian anarchism makes a point of emphasising, lies not in the utopian end, but in the coercive means to this end..t
perhaps until now.. now have means for non coercive/violent leap.. and we’re missing it.. for (blank)’s sake
Bartley seems to uncover the root of the problem when he suggests that the adoption of violence by Christians to “hasten” the kingdom of God depends “a great deal on how they believe God achieves his purposes, and how they interpret Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God.” To put things crudely, if you believe that God is waiting for human beings to manage a transition to his kingdom, then coercion quickly becomes appropriate. This is not so, however, if you believe that Jesus’ teaching implies a letting go of any delusion about the efficacy of political management; that God wants us to witness to Jesus’ teaching of patient and sacrificial love and forgiveness in our own lives and communities; that the kingdom of God can only be hastened by the willing conversion of fellow human beings in response to such witness; and that God calls us to keep faith in his oversight of the mysterious advent of his kingdom. The latter is obviously what this book has identified as the “purest” (or strictest) Christian anarchist position.
again.. perhaps until now.. now we have non coercive/violent/puppeteering means to end that whac-a-mole-ing ness
211
Christian anarchist thought argues that in his teaching and example, Jesus rejects the temptation of political engineering and instead resigns himself to the cross. He does not call us to manage the course of history, but to surrender fully to God’s commandments and to keep faith in God and in the growth of his kingdom. Thus, even though Christian anarchist thinkers certainly do passionately long for the advent of the stateless kingdom of God, they insist that the only way of “hastening” it consists in patiently loving and forgiving evil, thus surrendering the conventional tools for the steering of history, while at the same time keeping faith in God’s admittedly mysterious providence (this theme is discussed in more detail further below).
It is the loss of such Christian patience and faith that is at the root of the decision “to build the kingdom on earth with [human] hands,” to supplant God’s providence by human management. Tolstoy remarks that “a great part of the evil of the world is due to our wishing to see the realisation of what we are striving at, but are not yet ready for.” It is tempting to lose patience and try to prod things forward a little faster, especially in the face of very real injustice. Yet just as Jesus rejected the temptation of political engineering, his followers must do so, too. They must trust God and Jesus’ methods instead. This does not mean that Christians must sit back and passively observe God’s providence of history from afar. As mentioned above (especially in Chapter 5), Christians are called to anticipate and represent God’s kingdom, to follow the method taught and exemplified by Jesus. Indeed, they are called to try to present God’s kingdom on earth through their own example — but they are told to *remain patient and forgiving with the world’s apparent deafness to it..t They are called to keep faith that in the end, the stateless kingdom of God will indeed come.
*again again.. until now.. we have means for undeafening us all.. via a non political/engineering/non hierarchical listening ness
History’s mysterious unfolding
There is therefore a clear sense, among several Christian anarchists, of gradual progress towards God’s kingdom. Ballou and Tolstoy, in particular, frequently speak of such progress. Elliott likewise warns that “The development of the Kingdom depends […] on the members of the Kingdom gradually extending its claims over all systems and structures, transforming them in that process.” Just like for Tolstoy and Ballou, for Elliott, the kingdom of God is a “present reality” as soon as one decides “to live under the rule of God, rather than the rule of others,” and this kingdom gradually spreads by the decision by an increasing number of others to do the same thing. In short, when writing about the kingdom of God, Elliott, Ballou and Tolstoy all seem to expect a gradual progress of humanity towards it.
212
That is, rather than a story of gradual progress, Eller sees history as a gradual “deterioration and fall to the low point of Good Friday,” at which point “God intervenes” to usher his kingdom. Eller cites numerous passages in the Bible that narrate a similar “death-and-resurrection pattern.” Several of these are from the Book of Revelation, which indeed portrays the rise to political power of the Antichrist and his eventual defeat after a spectacular intervention from heaven. For Eller, this confirms that Christians must have faith not in the gradual progress of humanity towards the kingdom of God, but “in the grace of a God of resurrection capability.” Still, Eller nevertheless maintains that this does not mean that efforts at moral progress have “no significance” at all, but simply that Christians must distance themselves from any “moral triumphalism” and brace themselves for the very worst before the long-awaited advent of God’s kingdom.
Ellul takes a similar view. “The Bible,” he writes, “tells us that it is God alone […] who will institute the kingdom at the end of time.” For Ellul, “history is not a progress towards the kingdom of God,” and the kingdom will only materialise “via another rupture.” Like Eller, therefore, Ellul is keen to dissociate himself from the “illusion” that “kindness and virtue will always triumph” so that with each trial, humanity progresses by yet another step towards the promised land. Clearly, then, both Eller and Ellul disagree with the view of history trumpeted by Elliott, Ballou and Tolstoy. What all share, however, is a longing for the kingdom of God, a confidence that it will one day come about (whether progressively or through some spectacular rupture), and an understanding that Christians ought to try to present an image of this kingdom to the pagan world that surrounds them.
214
The temptation of normal political action
For most Christian anarchist thinkers, it is crucial to dissociate Christianity from any delusions of political efficacy (as noted in Chapter 4). Jesus’ way, for them, is not about political effectiveness, but about surrendering to God. The temptation to mould society through political power is the very temptation that Jesus rejects in the wilderness (see Chapter 2), because it implies worship of the devil and a lack of faith in God. Jesus’ way is political not because it prescribes the adoption by the state of this or that policy, but because it subverts the very legitimacy of political power by criticising its methods and by exemplifying a way of life that makes the state and the customary channels of political action superfluous.
irrelevant s ness
Ellul therefore insists that Christians today must not seek to find and apply a “Christian ‘solution’” to political problems. For him, it is an “illusion” to think that “our problems can actually be solved through politics.” God’s kingdom cannot be reached by “‘Christianising’ society” from the top down, by using the state to somehow incite the development of Christian values. Yet even from the bottom up, Jesus’ way of the cross is not to be seen merely as the magic solution to political problems, as the ultimate tool to manage the course of history.
One of the clearest discussions of the Christian rejection of the temptation to “manage history” can be found in Yoder’s Politics of Jesus. Yoder claims that most Christians “are obsessed with the […] direction of history” and “moved by a deep desire to make things move in the right direction.” Yet just like Christian anarchists, Yoder suggests that “Christ’s teaching on meekness” and “servanthood” raises questions about “whether it is our business at all to guide our actions by the course we wish history to take.” Instead of guiding their actions thus, Yoder argues (based on Revelation) that Christians must rely more on Jesus both *to understand the movement of history and to seek guidance for how to act within it: Jesus, he says, “is to be looked at as the mover of history and as the standard by which Christians must learn how they are to look at the moving of history.” That standard, for Yoder, is the suffering of the cross.
*to me.. that’s still too much focus on history ness
Yoder argues that Jesus faced a clear choice between the “effectiveness” of “the crown” and “obedience” through “the cross.” His choice of the cross, for Yoder, demonstrates a “commitment to such a degree of faithfulness to the character of divine love that he was willing for its sake to sacrifice ‘effectiveness.’” To choose the cross rather than the crown is a demonstration of faith in God and in the nature of love.
217
To repeat, Jesus’ followers are called to anticipate and represent the kingdom of God, but they must guard against the temptation to worship political action to precipitate it.
Thus, the main peril of politics is this temptation to steer the course of history. Yet there is also another peril — one which all anarchists are aware of. That is, the danger with any bottom-up organisation is that it can easily degenerate into a much more coercive, top-down structure of the kind that anarchists loathe. As Chapter 6 shows, many a commune has degenerated in that way, following a crisis, for instance, or the influence of some charismatic but somewhat controlling leader. There is a tendency in organic communities to seek to define and fix the community’s organisation more rigidly, usually out of a desire to safeguard its essential core. Often, however, this later leads to coercion against those whose behaviour drifts away from the agreed rules. This tendency is examined in the next section, where it is also suggested that Jesus’ teaching acts as a permanent reminder of this risk. If indeed so, then the *only way to safeguard the essence of a Christian anarchist community is again to always fall back to Jesus’ teaching, not human rules, when addressing whatever new situation the community may be faced with.
*rather .. to me.. gershenfeld something else law so that we can see/trust/be the dance.. to me jesus teaching is already on each heart.. and addressing ness is a re ness.. a cancerous distraction
219
Ricoeur then argues that “Without the corrective of the commandment to love, the golden rule would be constantly drawn in the direction of a utilitarian maxim whose formula is […]: I give so that you will give.” That is, without love, justice would be caught in a utilitarian logic of equivalence and reciprocity. Therefore, the “hyperethical” commandment to love does not criticise the logic of equivalence of the Golden Rule so much as its perverse, self-interested interpretation. Put in broader terms, love is not critical of distributive or reciprocal justice per se, but of its selfish interpretation. Without love, justice tends to be defined by cold calculations based on rigid rules on equivalence and reciprocity. When love informs justice, however, it drives justice to its limits, where it is enveloped by love’s logic of superabundance and leads to revolutionary forms of behaviour. Indeed, from this perspective, the Golden Rule is truly just only when informed by love — not when it is interpreted as cold, calculative, self-interested reciprocity.
reciprocity.. measuring things..
Hence Ricoeur reaches a conclusion similar to Tillich’s: justice, he says, is “the necessary medium of love; precisely because love is hypermoral, it enters the practical and ethical sphere only under the aegis of justice.” At the same time, love remains “hyperethical,” that is, beyond, just ahead of ethics itself. It enters ethics in the form of justice, and yet works for justice to transform itself anew. In sum, from Tillich’s and Ricoeur’s perspective, love drives towards the reunion of the separated, and justice holds the reunited together by giving form to the reunion. Love, however, carries on working for broader reunion of the still separated. Thus love constantly calls justice to adopt new forms, to push itself to its limits and transform itself anew, because ageing formulations of justice tend to become inadequate to new situations.
These theological reflections on love and justice are relevant here because they have a bearing on the nature and purpose of political institutions, a prime example of which is, of course, the state. Ontologically speaking, social and political institutions can be said to embody or articulate a community’s vision of justice. They are instituted by the coming together of society, and they set down the form which justice is expected to take in that society. Yet since justice is continuously transformed by love, any institution that is not open to continuously transforming itself anew by reinterpreting its formulation of justice tends to become increasingly unjust. When political and religious institutions try to seize, legislate and defend a fixed definition of social justice, they fail to remain open to love’s continuous reinterpretation of justice. Instead, they tend to decline into juridicalism, into producing rigid regulations enforced by violent means. They thus become ever more unjust in the dynamic present.
Indeed, and more to the point for Christian anarchism, the very process by which the state draws legislation is already caught up in the logic that leads to legal rigidity and fixity, because what is just in a concrete situation cannot be defined a priori by some positive universal law. Tillich indeed declares that “*there are no principles which could be applied mechanically and which would guarantee that justice is done.” The highest level of justice, of “transforming or creative justice,” is based on the understanding that “intrinsic justice is dynamic” and “as such,” therefore, “it cannot be defined in definite terms.” For that reason, fixed legislation that is believed to inform all concrete situations ex ante is ultimately unjust. True justice informs and reforms itself in every new situation. By contrast, by setting down rules, any positive law, though it may have been informed by justice at its root, immediately begins to lose touch with justice since justice continues to be transformed by love. Over time, therefore, positive legislation becomes an ever more distant approximation of true justice. To the extent that the state is the paradigmatic producer of positive laws which it then proceeds to police using violent means, then from this ontological perspective, it is unjust and indeed destined to eventually be supplanted by a new formulation of justice transformed and reinterpreted by love.
*so let’s try gershenfeld something else law
220
It is here that the prophetic element of Christian anarchist thought and practice becomes apparent. Reformers, philosophers and prophets have always animated politics. Every society was formed by visionaries, and within them there have always been thinkers calling for further political reform to fulfil an even higher degree of justice. These ideals constantly call humankind forward — the challenge is to actualise them. Love calls for reform, but political institutions sometimes fail to take up the challenge and freeze into juridicalism. For a society’s political institution to avoid degenerating into such juridicalism, for that society to be open to continuous reinterpretation of its formulation of justice, it *must always pay attention to its radicals and prophets, because the vision which these prophets are striving to articulate (as explained below, both in their critique and in their practice, and both individually and collectively) may well be the transformed vision of justice which love is calling society towards. To remain just, social and political institutions must pay attention to the radicals who seek to reinterpret and transform justice in terms of love and generosity.
*which would/should be all of us.. if all were legit free
The temptation to codify and fix once and for all any formulation of justice is a dangerous temptation. One of its perils is the justification it immediately presents for the adoption of violence to try to enforce compliance to this formulation. As explained in Chapter 3, from a Christian anarchist perspective, precisely such a fate befell the established church once it allied itself with the state. Secular ideologies, however, are equally prone to a similar adoption of violence to defend their fixed vision of justice. Yet this danger is also one eventually faced by all organic, alternative communities. One day, the temptation will arise to try to preserve the community’s essence by freezing it into rules, conformity to which then becomes a test of one’s commitment to the community’s formulation of social justice. Thus, the dangerous temptation of trying to freeze a formulation of justice for posterity is a danger faced by all human communities — including Christian anarchist ones. All radical communities must guard against this temptation if they are to really preserve their prophetic edge.
221
Jesus’ teaching and example are the paradigmatic illustration of love’s logic of superabundance. Even though Christian anarchists take Jesus’ commandments literally, as rules to be followed, these commandments escape the dangers of violent juridicalism because they are firmly grounded in love.
Furthermore, as has already been hinted at, this prophetic role for Christian anarchists applies not just to the wider society, but to Christian anarchists’ own communities, too. Only if Christian anarchists are grounded in Jesus’ teaching and example will their own critique and example remain prophetically inspired. If they attempt to preserve their radicality by positing new rules, then their grounding in love is lost. They must guard against the temptation to replace *God’s commandments by human ones. There can be no rigid, positive legislation. As mentioned in Chapters 4 and 5, it is by example that Christian anarchists lead the way forward, not by positing legislation requiring others to behave in a specific way. To remain Christian and prophetic, the Christian anarchist witness must only ever be informed by Jesus’ teaching and example. **Any formulation of justice must be continuously open to reinterpretation.
*to me.. as long as this just means the 2.. love god/others
**rather.. let go of trying to manage justice ness..
224
There may be some parallels between the law of the Old Testament and the law of the state (when at its best). From a Christian anarchist perspective, however righteous the former is and the latter can sometimes (but rarely) be, both are insufficient for the salvation of humankind. Nevertheless, where love is lacking, they can help preserve an imperfect order.
Hence in a (perhaps paradoxical) way, Christian anarchism does not so much destroy the state as it fulfils it.
226
endnote 84 (1409): Cavanaugh, “The City,” 186. Cavanaugh’s description of political thought (pages 186–190) is based on a very succinct synopsis of the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Rousseau. One of his main points, however, is to stress that while in the Christian story human beings were separated, in the state story, they have always been separate. This, he sees as a fundamental ontological difference between the two stories, in that one speaks of a disrupted unity, but the other of a primordial disunity. For a discussion of this argument in light of the ontological perspective on love and justice elaborated above, see Christoyannopoulos and Milne, “Love, Justice, and Social Eschatology,” 986–989.
228
Christian anarchists advocate anarchism only to Christians, they advocate Christianity, and therefore anarchism, to all.
us & them ness.. none of us are free et al
229
Christian anarchists call Christians in particular to gather the courage to exemplify even the most radical political implications of Jesus’ teaching and example, and to hopefully thereby convert others not by coercion, but by example. Several of them hope that in the process, Christians might perhaps lead a revolution more radical than any of the revolutions of the past — more radical because of the focus on means rather than ends.
oi
230
epilogue
________
_______
_______
_______
- anarch\ism(45)
- accidental anarchist
- anaculture
- anarchism and markets
- anarchism and other essays
- anarchism & cybernetics of self-org systems
- anarchism as theory of org
- anarchism of other person
- anarchism or rev movement
- anarchist communism
- anarchist library
- anarchist seeds beneath snow
- anarchists against democracy
- anarchists in rojova
- anarchy
- anarchy after leftism
- anarchy and democracy
- anarchy in action
- anarchy in manner of speaking
- anarchy of everyday life
- anarchy works
- annotated bib of anarchism
- art of not being governed
- at the café
- billionaire and anarchists
- breaking the chains
- christian anarchism
- constructive anarchism
- david on anarchism ness
- don’t fear invoke anarchy
- enlightened anarchy
- fragments of an anarchist anthropology
- freedom and anarchy
- goal and strategy for anarchy
- graeber anarchism law
- inventing anarchy
- is anarchism impossible
- kevin on anarchism w/o adj
- krishnamurti for anarchy
- mobilisations of philippine anarchisms
- nika on anarchism
- on anarchism
- post scarcity anarchism
- spiritualizing anarchism
- that holy anarchist
- two cheers for anarchism
_______
________
_________
_________
be you. 