Back • Return Home
Anarchy
The term "Anarchy" is often misunderstood. I would define it in the following way: It is neither lawlessness nor violent rebellion. It is when individuals are self-responsible and attempt to create community in ways that are voluntary and that naturally facilitate equality through peacemaking.
Here are several resources that I think convey something interesting about the topic. Unfortunately, many people might get caught up within the terminology/labels and never consider the concepts themselves...
Contents
• Murray Bookchin - How I Became An Anarchist (1983) [Historical]
• Libertarian Communist Platform - Anarchism and Human Nature [Scientific]
• Radical Reformation Christianity - Christian Leftism: What is Christian Anarchism? [Spiritual]
Murray Bookchin - How I Became An Anarchist (1983)
[Video Link; originally from the documentary Anarchism In America]
Transcript [With Extra Resource Links Added Throughout]
My background and how I have become an "Anarchist" is a long, long story. I had entered the Communist children's movement, an organization called "The Young Pioneers of America", in 1930 in New York City. I was only nine years of age and had gone through the entire 30's as a "Stalinist" initially, and then increasingly as someone who was more and more sympathetic to "Trotskyism". And by 1939, after having seen Hitler rise to power, the Austrian worker's revolt of 1934, an almost completely forgotten episode in labor history, the Spanish Revolution, by which I mean the so-called "Spanish Civil War", I finally became utterly disillusioned with "Stalinism" and drifted increasingly towards "Trotskyism". And by 1945, I finally also became disillusioned with "Trotskyism", and I would say now, increasingly with "Marxism" and "Leninism".
But the essential thing so far as I am concerned, as I reflect upon all of this now, is that I had gone through a period of "Marxism" which is almost unknown today to many American radicals, a period when "Marxism" was a worker's movement to a very great extent, when it was a movement in the streets in which hundreds of thousands of people at times could be brought out in massive demonstrations throughout the country under red flags, whether it be "Communist" or "Socialist". And by the end of the Second World War, and particularly by the end of the 1940s, I literally saw this movement disappear, and disappear from history, at least as far as the United States is concerned. And I have no belief whatever that it will come back again. Namely, what I am saying is that I saw the end of the classical worker's movement.
And I had to ask myself, "Why had this come about? What did this mean?" And the conclusion I came to was this: that the worker's movement never really had a revolutionary potential. That the factories...and I had worked in factories for ten years, and had worked in factories partly as a labor organizer in the old CIO before it united with the AFL, when it was still in a very "militant" stage of its development...that this worker's movement had never really had the revolutionary potentialities that Marx attributed to it, that, point in fact, the factory which is supposed to "organize" the workers in Marxist language, mobilize them and instill in them the class consciousness that is to stem out of a conflict between "wage labor" and "capital", in fact had created habits of mind in the worker that served to regiment the worker, that served in fact to assimilate the worker to the work ethic, to the industrial routine, to hierarchical forms of organization...and that, no matter how compellingly Marx had argued that such a movement could have revolutionary consequences, in fact such a movement could have nothing but a purely adaptive function, an adjunct to the "capitalist system" itself.
And I began to try to explore what were "movements", and "ideologies" if you like, that really were liberatory, that really freed people of this hierarchical sensibility and mentality, of this authoritarian outlook, of this complete assimilation by the work ethic. And I now began to turn, very consciously, towards "Anarchist" views, because "Anarchism" posed a question, not simply of a struggle between "classes" based upon economic exploitation. "Anarchism" really was posing a much broader historical question that even goes beyond our industrial civilization, not just "classes" but hierarchy, hierarchy as it exists in the family, hierarchy as it exists in the school, hierarchy as it exists in sexual relationships, hierarchy as it exists between ethnic groups, not only class divisions based upon economic exploitation. And it was concerned not only with economic exploitation, it was concerned with domination, domination which may not even have any economic meaning at all, the domination of women by men in which women are not economically exploited, the domination of ordinary people by bureaucrats in which you may even have a welfare, so-called "Socialist" type of state, domination as it exists today in China even when you are supposed to have a "classless" society, domination as it exists today in Russia where you are supposed to have a "classless" society.
So these are the things that I noted in "Anarchism", and increasingly I came to the conclusion that if we were to avoid, or if we are to avoid the mistakes that were made over 100 years of proletarian "Socialism", if we are to really achieve a liberatory movement, not simply in terms of economic questions but in terms of every aspect of life, we would have to turn to "Anarchism" because it alone posed the problem, not merely of class domination, but hierarchical domination, and it alone posed the question not simply of economic exploitation, but exploitation in every sphere of life. And it was that growing awareness, that we had to go beyond classism to hierarchy, and beyond exploitation into domination, that lead me into "Anarchism" and to a commitment to an "Anarchist" outlook.
Personal Comments
Getting a first-hand account like this shows just how much of the history of the United States (and of other places) has been either unintentionally forgotten or intentionally obscured, such as the economic aspects behind the "American Revolution", the importance of "muckraking journalism" in uncovering corruption and advocating for human rights, the history of organizations like "The League for Industrial Democracy", and of the existence of a "worker's movement" in general. [Thanks to Auzzie Jay for this last link!]
But perhaps most importantly, this video highlights a fundamental aspect of human nature that often gets completely trampled upon by "hierarchical domination"...
Libertarian Communist Platform - Anarchism and Human Nature
[Video Link]
Transcript [With Extra Resource Links Added Throughout]
Under what conditions do human beings thrive? When do human beings do well? In this video, I would like to consider the needs and capacities that human beings have and argue that we thrive and realize our potential when our needs are met. Social hierarchy typically runs counter to the needs which human beings have and creates conditions under which people become alienated from the valuable capacities that they possess.
If we want human beings to thrive and realize their potential, we ought to meet their essential needs. And since hierarchy runs counter to these needs, it ought to be dismantled whenever possible. Human nature, far from being an argument against "Anarchism", is a strong case for it as a non-hierarchical society creates conditions under which human beings can unleash their true potential.
A human nature argument for "Anarchism" can begin with something called "Self-Determination Theory". "Self-Determination Theory", intially founded by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, posits that human beings have three key psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
We need to feel that we are effective in dealing with the environment around us and that we are good at what we do. We need to feel a sense of connection with the other human beings around us and that we are cared for by others. We need to feel that we have some sense of control over our lives, that we aren't just pawns on a chessboard, and that we are acting in accordance with our integrated sense of self and the values that we have developed over time.
According to "Self-Determination Theory", or SDT, these essential needs are not learned but are inherent to human nature and exist across all societies and cultures. To the extent that these needs are met, well-being is enhanced. And to the extent that they are thwarted, we can expect people to become ill and alienated. The model of human nature that SDT supports is, in my opinion, a stable base that lends itself well to "Anarchism". SDT shows that we call for "Anarchist" forms of organization because the core needs and drives we possess as human beings require it and because social hierarchy runs counter to these needs and drives.
A 2003 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found support for the notion that we have a need for autonomy and that this need is cross-cultural. Quote:
...we found that whatever cultural practices one is considering, there appears to be a positive relation between more internalized or autonomous regulation of those practices and well-being [...] we found that whether one's behavior and attitudes are individualistic, collectivistic, horizontal, or vertical in nature, more autonomous enactment is associated with greater well-being. [...] we see the very nature of vertical social arrangements as more inherently conflictual vis-a-vis SDT's postulated basic needs for autonomy and relatedness. Vertical socities frequently require individuals to forego autonomy and to subordinate themselves to heteronomous influences. In addition, vertical societies place boundaries around those with whom intimacy and connectedness can be established. [...] this study shows that, across diverse cultures, the issue of autonomy can be similarly understood and that, across diverse practices, autonomy is associated with well-being.
Another study by Ed Deci and Richard Ryan looked at the well-being of workers in state-owned companies in Bulgaria and compared this with workers in a United States corporation. They found that:
The degree of autonomy-supportiveness of the work climate did predict overall need satisfaction in each culture, and need satisfaction in turn predicted both task engagement and well-being. Thus, by showing that satisfying these needs promotes motivation and mental health across cultures, results of the study are consistent with the view that these needs are universal.
Autonomy is also an important need, not just for adult workers, but for young people in school. A study looking at adolescent satisfaction with life and school again found a relationship between support for autonomy and well-being across different cultures, particularly Denmark and the United States:
To the extent that adolescents felt that their parents and teachers understand their perspectives and allowed them to make their own choices, adolescents positively perceived their lives and their experiences in school. In contrast, when adolescents felt controlled by their parents and teachers, and felt that these authorities treated the adolescents' own experiences and choices as relatively unimportant, they reported lower satisfaction with life and school.
A 2001 study by Chirkov and Ryan looking at student self-motivation and well-being found that:
...for both Russian and U.S. adolescents, the issue of autonomy-support versus control by parents and teachers has salience and significance. It appears that in both cultural samples, perceiving others as supporting one's autonomy facilitates well-being and self-motivation. [...] the need to experience one's behavior as self-regulated and self-endorsed may be critical to psychological health across human groups, as Self-Determination Theory has suggested.
Human beings have an innate need to have control over their lives and also to feel as if the people around them facilitate this sense of control. As "Anarchists", we believe that for example, workplaces ought to be owned and run democratically by their workers because this kind of economic arrangement, called "workers' self-management", meets the human needs of the workers for autonomy. It seems very unusual to suggest that meeting the innate human need for autonomy is somehow contrary to human nature when we have reason to believe that people having autonomy is associated with positive psychological outcomes.
Ed Deci contrasts autonomous motivation and controlled motivation as follows:
"Autonomous motivation" really means to do something with the full sense of willingness, volition, endorsement of the activity. It's having a sense of "this is what I want to be doing now", "this is what I choose to be doing now". The experience that goes along with what we call "controlled motivation", which is what I am talking about now, is that "I am feeling pressured and tense about it", "there's forces operating on me and making me be doing this", for instance.
One study looked at the relationship between autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and the outcome of interpersonal therapy for recurrent depression. It found that: "...for those with highly recurrent depression, the therapeutic alliance predicted remission" while "autonomous motivation had no effect". However, for those with less recurrent depression, the therapeutic alliance and autonomous motivation resulted in greater likelihood of achieving remission. Importantly, controlled motivation was negatively associated with achieving remission across the board!
Autonomous motivation is also a predictor of something called "flow". "Flow" describes a state in which a person becomes fully immersed and focused on an activity. They are completely engaged. They have a full and thorough appreciation for what they are doing, and this brings them intense feelings of enjoyment.
A Hungarian psychologist, Mihaly Csikszentmilhalyi, identified a number of characteristics of "flow" states, which includes, but is not limited to: having a feeling of control over the task, feeling that one's skills are meeting a challenge, and the experience itself being intrinsically rewarding.
A study looking at "flow" in the context of higher education found that Psychology students experienced more "flow" when they were autonomously motivated as opposed to having controlled motivation.
Giving people autonomy meets the essential needs of humans, and this need satisfaction enhances peoples' capacity to fully engage themselves with what's going on. Conversely, when people are deprived of their autonomy, when we go through the experience of feeling like as Ed Deci says "forces are operating on us" and making us behave in a certain way, our needs are unsatisfied and that diminishes our capacity to engage with what's going on.
For examples of this we can look at how rewards, a simple example of imposing controlled motivation on people, "do this and you'll get that", affect us. We have reason to believe that dangling goodies in front of people in order to get them to behave in a certain way is inherently destructive to human nature. Rewards increase the likelihood that we will do something, but they change the way we do it.
Alfie Kohn writes [on pg. 35 of Punished By Rewards]:
They offer one particular reason for doing it, sometimes displacing other motivations. And they change the attitude we take towards the activity.
When people are rewarded for doing something, they continue doing it for as long as the reward persists, but when the rewards run out, they lose their interest in it. For example, in 1972, a systematic review of the research looking at "token economies", which dispense rewards for acting in a certain way, found that there were numerous reports of token programs showing behavior change only while contingent token reinforcement is being delievered. Generally, removal of token reinforcement results in decrements in desirable responses and a return to baseline or near baseline levels of performance. In other words, when the goodies stopped, people lost interest.
A study looking at childrens' interest in particular games when rewards were involved found that when the rewards started, the kids promptly gravitated to the games that led to a payoff. When the rewards disappeared, their interest in those games dropped significantly, to the point that many were now less interested in them than were children who had never been rewarded in the first place.
A review of 28 programs encouraging people to wear seatbelts found that reward-based programs which gave people prizes or cash for wearing seatbelts were the least effective over the long haul, whereas programs without rewards were actually more effective, which was contrary to the predictions of the authors.
Rewards tend to produce temporary compliance, not behavior change that lasts beyond the reward. When in a situation where someone is saying "do this and you'll get that", our minds tend to assume that the reward is the only reason for doing the activity. Hence, why we lose interest as soon as the goodies stop. But when we are in these conditions, we also tend to feel as if our behavior is being controlled by external forces. By getting us to think this way, rewards actively undermine our intrinsic interest in the activity at hand and our autonomous motivation.
If an activity is creative, stimulating, and interesting, this will be undermined when rewards are introduced. Teresa Amabile has conducted multiple studies looking at rewards and creativity, and found that young creative writers wrote less creative poetry when made to focus on rewards. Children and adults making collages and inventing stories also had their creativity undermined from the use of rewards. And professional artists did less creative work when being rewarded.
A study by Sam Glucksberg found that offering people rewards for a task invovling the use of creative thinking to solve problems actually resulted in them taking longer than those not being rewarded. The effect of offering someone a reward for doing something is to diminish that person's creativity. When people are made to do things in order to get rewards, the rewards interfere with their performance.
A 1971 study with high school students found that people being promised rewards did a poorer job on a variety of tasks than people who weren't.
A 1981 study by Fabes and colleagues found that undergraduate students had a lower level of intellectual functioning when they were rewarded for their scores on the more sophisticated parts of an intelligence test.
In fact, in Drive, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Dan Pink argues that rewards ought to be used when the task itself is menial or requires very little thought or creativity.
Morton Deutsch argues that rewards work best for those who are alienated from their work, that is, for people doing tasks that seem pointless or a drudge, where there isn't any intrinsic interest to be found in the activity itself.
Alfie Kohn writes [on pg. 46 of Punished By Rewards]:
Rewards usually improve performance only at extremely simple - indeed, mindless - tasks, and even then they improve only quantitative performance.
At this point, we ought to take a moment to consider the need human beings have for competence, and note that being trained for compliance not only undermines people's autonomy, but also reduces their creative and intellectual faculties.
Another study found that the use of controlling teaching methods makes children more prone to helpless behavior and this interferes with their performance.
We can look further at how hierarchy affects people by considering the impact of competition on human relationships. Hierarchical systems by their very nature create centers of power, and these centers of power may or may not be treated as scarce resources that people have to compete with each other to obtain. Indeed, capitalist society valorizes the notion that individuals ought to compete with each other for the acquisition of wealth and resources.
Alfie Kohn writes [on pg. 134 of No Contest]:
In the workplace, one tries to remain on friendly terms with one's colleagues, but there is guardedness, a part of the self held in reserve; even when no rivalry exists at the moment, one never knows whom one will have to compete against next week.
Carole Ames found that, in her studies with children, competition can cause people to believe that they are not the source of or in control of what happens to them, and this external locus of control interferes with their performance. This is contrasted with an internal locus of control where people feel that the outcomes of what happens in their lives are determined by their own actions as opposed to external forces beyond their control.
A study by David and Roger Johnson found that cooperative learning, when compared with competitive and individualistic learning situations, "promoted more positive attitudes towards heterogeneity among peers; higher self-esteem; more positive attitudes toward the teacher, fellow cooperators, and conflict; more internal locus of control; and higher daily achievement".
The mutually exclusive goal attainment that characterizes competition, "I succeed only if you fail", compels people to work at cross-purposes. It erodes our sense of community by creating anxiety and hostility in our relations with other people.
A famous experiment called "The Robbers Cave Experiment" looked at the behavior of Boy Scouts in situations of cooperation and competition. As the experiment predicted, when the Boy Scouts were separated into groups and set against each other to compete, they developed hostile attitudes to one another.
Alfie Kohn writes [on pg. 146 of No Contest]:
The boys began taunting and insulting each other, in some cases, turning against good friends who were now on the opposing team. They burned each other's banners, planned raids, threw food, and attacked each other after the games and at night.
When the groups were cooperating towards common goals, people were a lot nicer to each other.
David and Roger Johnson carried out 37 studies looking at different learning arrangements, cooperative and competitive. And in 35 of these studies, it was found that cooperation enhances "interpersonal attraction" among students. "Interpersonal attraction" refers to a number of effects, such as more giving and receiving of encouragement to and from peers, greater sensitivity to the needs of others, less self-centeredness, greater capacity to imagine the perspective of others, fewer difficulties communicating, and greater trust.
While competition creates anxiety, aggression, and hostility, cooperative conditions promote far more empathic behavior. Remember the human need for relatedness, and consider that cooperative conditions are far more suited to meeting this need than competitive ones. As "Anarchists", we promote cooperation over competition precisely because we see cooperation as being fundamentally more in line with our human need to feel connected to others.
What Self-Determination Theory shows is that human beings have innate needs and capacities for competence, relatedness, and autonomy, and to the extent that these needs are met, human beings will thrive. And to the extent that they are thwarted, human beings will become ill and alienated.
The conditions of social hierarchy, in which people are subjected to control from above, and in which people are encouraged to compete with one another for power and resources, creates an environment in which the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy are not met, resulting in ill-being and alienation. Subordination to authority undermines autonomous motivation, reduces our intellectual and creative faculties, and ruptures our relationships with our peers.
If we suppose that the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy should be met, and if we see hierarchical organization as conflictual to these needs, then the "Anarchist" position, which is that hierarchy has a burden of proof to meet and that if it fails to meet this burden of proof it should be dismantled and replaced with horizontal organization, is entirely consistent with the view of human nature posited by Self-Determination Theory.
We are "Anarchists" because living as self-determined, curious and thoughtful agents, cultivating our skills and abilities, and sharing in the experience of this cultivation as part of a community, is fundamentally more in line with our inherent needs and capacities as human beings than being made to live as fragmented, alienated, atomized machines responding to external forces. With this in mind, to show that "Anarchism" is incompatible with human nature, the advocate for social hierarchy has a number of options. One option is to argue that hierarchy meets other more essential needs that human beings have and does so more effectively than non-hierarchy. A second option is to accept SDT, but to argue that social hierarchy is somehow not conflictual to the needs. A third option is to argue that the premises of SDT are false. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence for any of these.
Radical Reformation Christianity - Christian Leftism: What is Christian Anarchism?
[Video Link]
Transcript [With Extra Resource Links Added Throughout]
So, what is Christian Anarchism? [@00:05]
Broadly speaking, an anarchist society is:
1. a non-coercive, anti-hierarchical society
2. achieved without the traditional state apparatus
3. in which members choose voluntarily to participate
Christian Anarchism is a form of Anarchism which is based on Christian principles. Like other forms of Anarchism, it's non-hierarchical in structure, voluntary in participation, and communal in organization.
Now, Christian Anarchism is strongly egalitarian and also socially revolutionary, rejecting any ethically unjustifiable hierarchies and recognizing God as the only supreme authority.
I realize it might seem a little contradictory to have God as an authority in a supposedly Anarchist system, and of course, I'll get to that a bit later in our discussion.
Christian Anarchism in particular emphasizes voluntarism and freedom of conscience, so it rejects any form of social organization by force, and therefore, it typically upholds a strong separation between church and state among those Anarchists who are, of course, living in a state. Although, Anarchists ultimately wish to abolish the state.
This also means that Christian Anarchists reject the idea that Christian values or beliefs should be enforced on others, and again this is a point I'll discuss a bit later.
Christian Anarchism also opposes military conscription and participation in the military, and in fact, generally opposes the military as an institution, and promotes civil disobedience, passive resistance, and revolution by personal example rather than coercion. This doesn't necessarily mean that all Christian Anarchists are pacifists, although many are.
Leo Tolstoy was actually an early Christian Anarchist and his book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, published in 1894, was an influential work on the modern Christian Anarchist movement.
Just as an interesting aside, Mahatma Gandhi himself acknowledged being influenced by Tolstoy, and it's quite possible that he derives some of his principles of non-resistance and civil disobedience from Tolstoy's writings.
Does Christian Anarchism enforce Christianity? [@02:15]
Definitely not. As I mentioned previously, liberty of conscience is fundamental to Christian Anarchism, which is why this form of anarchism has historically been found within the non-hierarchical and peace traditions of Christianity, the so-called historic peace churches and the historical peace tradition in Christianity.
There is actually strong merit for this within the Christian writings themselves. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul, writing in 1 Corinthians 5 verses 12 to 13, makes it very clear that it is not the responsibility of Christians to judge and exert their influence over individuals who are not part of the Christian community.
So, he writes in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 [New English Translation]
For what have I to do with judging those outside? (That is, outside the Christian community.) Are you not to judge those inside?
In other words, Christian's responsibility is to judge themselves and each other within the voluntary Christian community.
Then, in verse 13 he says:
But God will judge those outside.
So, he's saying, "Look, don't worry about judging people who are outside the Christian community. Yes, you can oppose their views. Yes, you can express your personal disagreement with them, but on the other hand, you are not in the position of judging them in the sense of setting yourself up as somebody who is going to coercively change their behavior."
Now, historically, this is actually reflected in the behavior of the early Christian movement.
Historically, particularly prior to what's referred to as "The Constantinian Shift" when Christianity was given approval by the Roman emperor Constantine (although, it wouldn't become a state religion until Theodosius much later), Christians opposed military service, opposed political office in the state, and opposed the enforcement of Christianity on others.
So, this is not a new modern development, this is actually something which can be found within the earliest years, or at least the earliest centuries, of the Christian movement. And, of course, throughout the medieval era there were a number of other Christian groups which held this view, also during the reformation era, and later, the radical reformation which came after it.
What is the biblical support for Anarchism? [@04:28]
Biblical support for anarchism is actually quite wide ranging throughout the bible and is present at several levels.
First of all, as you might know, the earliest description in the bible of the Hebrew people depicts them as fairly nomadic, or at least, semi-sedentary people who were organized according to tribes. This was the pre-monarchic era.
And from archaeological research, particularly recorded by archaeologists such as William Dever in his two books, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (published in 2001) and Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (published in 2003), there's very clearly an emphasis on living in extended families, communal and tribal organization, and a generally egalitarian and non-hierarchical structure.
Probably one of the most well-known pre-monarchical eras in the Hebrew people's history is the era of the so-called "Judges." And this particular era is known for a phrase which appears twice in that book in Judges chapter 17 verse 6 and chapter 21 verse 6, and that phrase is:
There was no king, everyone did what they considered right.
Now, this is often interpreted by monarchists as evidence that the writer of the book of Judges thought that monarchy was the solution to social ills and that this particular phrase is indicating a preference for the monarchy. But looking a little deeper, we find it's not actually saying that.
The writer is opposing "anarchy," that is complete lawlessness and lack of social cohesion towards common goals and the common good, but not rejecting "anarchism." And that's clear from the positive description throughout the text of people continuing to live in these small communities, extended families, and within these tribal groups. And, in fact, throughout the book of Judges, every time that Israel is left to their own devices and does fall into anarchy, a leader or judge is raised up by God and their responsibility is actually to teach the people morally and give them a personal example, but not to rule over them.
People went to the judges voluntarily. The judges are represented as servant leaders, so they sacrificed their time voluntarily and they're not paid, and to the extent that people did rely on them, the text always depicts these judges as particularly human. A couple of them in particular, are depicted as flawed, fallible, and failing.
The judge Gideon, for example, is represented as timid and shy and lacking in qualities for a judge, qualities which he later learns. But after the period of his judging, we find that his family ends up worshiping idols, so his family isn't lionized and the position of judges was not hereditary. When one judge rose up, they led the people for a certain amount of time, but after their death, that was the end of it. That position didn't pass on to their descendants.
Another famous judge was Samson, whose weakness for women led him to actually consort with the Philistine oppressors, and he is redeemed in his story only in his suicidal death when he destroys a large number of the Philistines in a large building, which he pushes down, having been empowered by God after the Philistines captured and imprisoned him.
So, the judges are seen as moral guides, spiritual guides to the people, but they are seen as a temporary fix. The real solution is seen as getting people back to the moral principles that they were taught in the Law of Moses. So, the book of Judges doesn't see hierarchicalism, particularly not monarchism, as the solution to social ills.
And in fact, what we do find very frequently in the book of Judges is that, after one of the judges dies, the text tells us that the land had rest for a certain number of years. So, a judge dies and then we're told then the land had rest 40 years after his death, or the land had rest for 70 years after his death. The idea being that the judge performed their role correctly in helping to guide people back to morally appropriate behavior and that this is what is needed to maintain social stability. So, the record of judges is actually strongly anti-monarchical.
The record of the Hebrew monarchy starts in the first book of Samuel. And what happens is the people of Israel believe that they need a king. They want a king like the nations around them, and they go to God's prophet Samuel and they complain that they don't have a king, and they want a king like the nations around them.
Samuel is very concerned by this, so he goes to God and says, "Look, the people have rejected me and they want a king."
God says to Samuel, "They have not rejected you. They have rejected me." And this is very important because from the Hebrew perspective, especially the perspective of the Hebrew bible, the only legitimate king of the Hebrew people is God himself. So, human rulers are not to be trusted. Human rulers are seen as defective. Human rulers and the human monarchy is seen actually as a heresy, as a departure from worship of God.
Now then, God goes on to say, "But you should appoint a king. Give them what they are asking you for. However, before you do that, warn them what the monarchy is going to be like." And what follows is a remarkable condemnation of the monarchy.
God says to Samuel, "Tell them the nature of the monarchy that they have chosen." And God says, "Tell them that their king will take many things from them. Tell them that he will take from their crops, he will take from their flocks, he will tax them, he will take their young men to serve in his army, he will take their young women to serve as servants in his palace." So, let them know all these things that he will take, and he gives a very long list.
And then God says, "And at the end of the day, those people will cry out to me because of the king that they have chosen. And in that day, I will not hear them." So, God says that choosing a king, electing for a monarchy, is a rejection of God. It's obviously wrong and it's going to go bad, and it's never going to work, and in the end, people will regret this decision. And that's an incredibly anti-monarchical statement.
Now, a monarchy is established in Israel, and it goes exactly as you would expect. There is corruption. There are civil wars. There are numerous abuses perpetuated by the kings. And the historical record of the Israelite kings, recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles, is a record of exactly what Samuel warned the people would happen.
Now, the Israelite monarchy in fact only lasted about 500 years, which is actually surprisingly short compared to the monarchies of other ancient civilizations. And after the Babylonian exile, the monarchy was never restored because people had learned that lesson. Throughout the monarchical period, God repeatedly sent prophets, his guides to the people to try and call them back to an ethical way of behavior. And those prophets continually witnessed against the monarchy, calling for social justice and condemning the exploitation of the monarchy.
Consequently, in the Prophets and also in what is called the Wisdom Literature (for example Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes), you get a lot of phrases like Psalm 146 verse 3:
Do not trust in princes, or in human beings who cannot deliver.
So, there's a very strong emphasis on the idea that human rulers are a bad idea and they're never going to work well.
Now, when we come to the New Testament of course, we have the example of Jesus, who is the premier example of somebody who rejected the state apparatus. And this is seen first of all in the temptation that he experienced in the wilderness. The final temptation, of course, his tempter asked him to bow down before him, in return for which he would be given all the kingdoms of this world.
And the record in Matthew 4:8-10 says that Jesus rejected that offer and said, "Worship the lord your God, and serve only Him." So, when given the offer to take all the kingdoms to himself, Jesus rejected that.
And later on, of course, we find in one of his most well-known statements when he's in front of Pilate, Roman governor who's judging him and who is questioning him because he suspects he is an insurrectionist who wants to overthrow the Roman state, or at least the Roman rule in Judea, and possibly set himself up as a king. Pilate, Roman governor questions Jesus because he wants to know if Jesus sees himself as a king, and if Jesus wants to set up a kingdom in Judea.
And in John chapter 18:36, Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." So, Jesus explicitly rejected the idea that he had any part in the political system of the time, and explicitly rejected the idea that he had come to set up any form of theocratic state, and this is something that of course Christian monarchists have a big problem with.
Now, after the time of Jesus, we find still in the New Testament a record of the earliest Christian community, and we find that in the book of Acts. And very interestingly, we find some useful information about how those early Christians organize themselves and it's explicitly Anarchist.
So, let's have a look at the book of Acts chapter 2 verses 44 to 45. I'll read this to you now:
"All those who believe" (that's all the Christians) "were together and held everything in common," (so common ownership) "And they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone as anyone had need." So, they collectivised their positions, sold property and possessions, took that money, placed it in a common fund, and provided for everybody who had need. Now, that's pretty obviously not a monarchy and it's very obviously a kind of a collectivist or communalist system.
Now, that description in Acts 2:44-45 is an explicit description of a Christian collectivist community with common ownership of property and egalitarian provision for the needs of all its members.
Professor Lisa Kemmerer cites this passage in her article, Anarchy: Foundations in Faith (2009), and says:
The book of Acts portrays early Christian communities as communal, like the ideal anarchist communities described by Berkman, Proudhon, and Chomsky.
Similarly, Dr. Peter Marshall in his book, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (published in 2008), cites Acts 2, commenting:
There are solid grounds for believing that the first christian believers practiced a form of communism and usufruct. The account in Acts is explicit.
Another New Testament passage in the same book, Acts chapter 4 verse 32, repeats this description of the earliest Christian community saying:
The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common.
In his book, All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians (published in 2017), Roman Montero says:
...what Luke seems to be implying by writing "and no one claimed private ownership of any positions" in Acts 4:32 is that this was taken literally;
And he adds:
The Christians really did treat property as though it really was common and no one claimed ownership over their own property.
Then, Montero goes on to describe this as:
...a community that looks exactly like "communism" in the classical Marxist sense of the word - where all property is owned collectively - without actually having collective property.
So, we can see that standard scholarship, and I can certainly quote more academics if necessary, identifies the early Christian community as explicitly collectivist.
Now you can say, "All right, this is collectivism and a form of communism, but where's the anarchism?"
Well, the anarchism is found when the early Christian community has to appoint representatives, and I'm choosing that word very carefully because these people are representatives. They are not appointed as leaders or rulers over the community, and the way they are chosen is by complete democratic vote by the Christian community.
These people are accountable. They have to report back to the community, and later on when the community hears about some things that they are doing and there's some concern that they may have been doing wrong, they are called back to the community to give account at a council for their actions and to justify them, because they have no authority to act independently from the community. They are only the community's representatives.
Later on in the book of Acts, again when there are any major decision making processes, there is no leader who gets up and tells everybody what to do. There is no small council that makes decisions on the behalf of the entire community. Rather, there is an open debate among all members of the community who meet together. And after that debate, people vote for a decision and decide collectively on what is to be done, and that's quite clearly explicitly anarchist.
Now, it's true, later on we find people appointed to certain other kinds of roles. Most commonly known, of course, are the words "bishop" and "deacon," used in standard English translations of The New Testament. However, we have to be very careful with those words because they were actually coined only very recently, even in the English language itself. And they have not always been used to translate those terms. In fact, they weren't used in earlier English translations of the bible, and that's important because the Greek words that they are translating don't have this concept of embedded or intrinsic authority.
The word "deacon" is actually an anglicization of the underlying Greek word "diaconos," which literally means a "servant," and the role of deacon was a servant. They were people who did the grunt work. They were the people, for example, who would be cleaning rooms, would be preparing meals in the kitchen, who would be doing the finances, and carrying out the mundane operations. And they, of course, were responsible to the community, and they were elected by the community, and they were fully accountable to the community, and they could be entirely removed by the community if their conduct was considered inappropriate.
In the same way, the word commonly translated "bishop," the Greek word "presbyteros," literally just means an "elder," and it means somebody who is leading by example. And again, these people were appointed by the community by a communal vote, and they could be just as easily removed by the community. They were representatives. They had specific functions and people were expected to listen to them as people who were considered to have certain expertise. And that's very important because anarchists, of course, recognized the value expertise. And I'll get to this a bit later when I talk about Mikhail Bakunin and his writing, What is Authority?.
I'll consider that in a minute, but it's very clear to me, and of course more importantly to scholars of Christian history, and even scholars of Anarchism, that the early Christian community was explicitly anarchist. So, regardless of how anybody else might interpret certain passages of scripture, particularly passages in The New Testament, the point is that the explicit historical record we have demonstrates that the Christians themselves organize their community in a communal, collectivist, and anarchist way.
Is religion an unjust hierarchy? [@20:26]
Many Anarchists would call religion an unjust hierarchy. How would you respond? That's a very good question, and remember I am confining my remarks specifically to Christian Anarchism in this case. Hopefully, my previous comments on the early Christian community as recorded in The Book of Acts helps to explain that. But let's talk about the role of God, because obviously that's a pretty big question.
So, as I mentioned previously, in Christian Anarchism, participation is voluntary and hierarchies between people are abolished. Instead of coercive leaders, you have servant leaders. Now, servant leaders, and you can have a look at the academic literature on this, are people who are appointed mainly by example. Individuals are not obligated to follow them and they don't have any intrinsic authority. And, as I've mentioned previously, the early Christian community actually appointed their representatives, people who were the servant leaders by communal vote. And, of course, those people were directly responsible to and accountable to the community.
Now, in addition to that record in Acts, we actually have Jesus own words specifically on the topic of leadership. In Matthew 20:20-28, Jesus is confronted by a woman who is the mother of a couple of his disciples, and she wants Jesus to guarantee her sons specific positions of authority when Jesus finally establishes His kingdom on the Earth.
Now Jesus says to her, "you do not know what you are asking." And he says to them, "are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?"
In other words, he says, "Are you prepared to suffer what I am about to suffer?" because this was shortly before his crucifixion.
Now, that is very revealing in itself, because it demonstrates that for Jesus, if you want to be a leader, you have to be a servant leader. You have to be prepared to sacrifice yourself for others. Now, in case that is not clear enough, after they claim, "Oh yes, we can do that. We we can do what you are doing." He goes on to say in verse 25:
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles (the non-Jews) lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you, must be your servant. And whoever wants to be first among you, must be your slave, just as The Son of Man (that's Jesus himself) did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.
Now, that's about as explicitly a rejection of hierarchy as you could possibly get. There Jesus is saying explicitly, "If you want to be a leader, you have to be a servant leader. You have to sacrifice yourself for others. That is the way to be a leader, a leader by example, a leader by self-sacrifice, a leader by serving other people."
He explicitly says that the Gentiles (the non-Jews) have rulers, people in positions of authority who exercise authority over others, and he says it must not be this way among you. So, that's Jesus explicitly rejecting the hierarchicalism of his own era. So, now obviously, let's get to the question of God.
Given Jesus' rejection of hierarchicalism among his followers, where then does God fit into the picture? There are a couple of ways of looking at God, and one of them is as an individual with expertise, and I'm going to explain this by citing Mikhail Bakunin. In his work, What is Authority?, Bakunin could say:
...but I recognize no infallible authority, even in quite exceptional questions.
...while also, on the other hand saying:
I bow before the authority of exceptional men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason.
Now, how does Bakunin reconcile this apparent contradiction? Well, it's a matter of expertise. Bakunin says it's okay to defer to the authority of the individual who knows more than you, has more experience than you, has more skills than you on a particular subject. So, he says, I apologize for this long quote, but it's quite useful. Bakunin says:
When it is a question of boots, I refer the matter to the authority of the cobbler. When it is a question of houses, canals, or roads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For each special area of knowledge, I speak to the appropriate expert.
Now, Bakunin goes on to say that he doesn't take the expert's word simply as gospel, as it were. And he says, "I don't believe them simply because they're an expert." And he actually says, "I even consult multiple experts." He looks for consensus. He looks for broad agreement among a number of experts. But at the end of the day, he consults the experts because he acknowledges that, in this capacity, they have what he refers to as "authority to which he will bow." And this is, of course, submitting rationally to the authority of knowledge, experience, and expertise. It's not submitting on the basis of some idea of intrinsic authority.
So, for the Christian Anarchist, God is a kind of expert in this regard, and the bible portrays him socially as a father. So, Christian Anarchists recognize God as an expert in this sense, that is, as a father who leads his children on the basis that, as a father, somebody more mature than them, with more experience of the world, more knowledge, and understanding, he knows what is best for them, in contrast to their relative immaturity.
And you might say, "Well, that's still an authority." And, of course, God does speak quite authoritatively in the bible, and definitely expects to be taken seriously, and definitely expects to be obeyed. However, Christian Anarchists recognize that there are clear biblical examples of people openly challenging God's decisions and commandments on a range of grounds. And rather than crushing them, or dismissing them, or punishing them, God actually listens to them and accommodates them.
Now, this is very important because this is extremely similar to what Bakunin himself was saying. "I consult the authority, but I don't agree with him simply because he is an authority." And I'm going to give you a few examples now from the bible, which are typically cited by Christian Anarchists.
In The Old Testament in Genesis 18:20-32, the patriarch Abraham challenges God's decision to destroy a certain city on the basis of basic morality.
And he says, "Well, there's a small number of people, maybe there are 50 people in the town who are innocent. Please don't destroy the city for their sake."
And God says, "Okay I agree to your terms. If there are at least 50 people there who are innocent, I won't destroy the city."
And then Abraham takes the number down to 45. And God agrees that if they're at least 45 innocent people, he will spare the city. Abraham then argues further with God, and he takes the number down to 40, then 30, then 20, and 10. And each time, God submits to his request.
So, after God has revealed to Abraham that he intends to destroy this city, Abraham directly appeals to him on the basis of morality and says, "You can't destroy the city if there are innocent people in it. That would be wrong. Punish the guilty, but do not punish the innocent with the guilty. That should be far from you." And God acknowledges that. He doesn't tell Abraham, "You know, I'm God. I can do what I like." He acknowledges Abraham's appeal and He submits to it.
Later on in Exodus 4 verses 10 to 16, the prophet Moses is given a commandment by God to go and speak to the Hebrew people, and Moses responds to God by saying that he should not be chosen as a spokesman since he has no confidence or skill in public speaking. And, in fact, God should choose someone else.
Now, telling God that he's chosen the wrong person is, well to say the least, a little bit rude. But God accommodates Moses and says, "Very well. Instead, I will appoint your brother Aaron and he can speak on your behalf." So, even though God had chosen Moses, Moses challenged that decision, saying, "Look, I'm not the right man. I can't speak very well." And God acknowledged this, accommodated his objection, and chose someone else instead.
Later on in The Book of Numbers 27:1-7, we read about a ruling when The Law of Moses is applied. The daughters of a man called the Zelophehad challenged the inheritance laws of The Law of Moses, which were given by God and transmitted by Moses. And they pointed out that, as the law stood, because they were daughters, they would be unable to inherit their father's property.
And Moses went to God and said, "Well, what am I supposed to do here? These daughters are saying that the law is unfair. I mean this is the law you gave me, and they're saying it's unfair, and they think it should be changed." And God actually acknowledges their claim, and He tells Moses, "Yes, yes. That is unfair. Yes, you should change the law change the law so they can inherit their father's property, and that will be the law from now on."
Now, that's really quite remarkable because, in other cases when people broke The Law of Moses, they were punished for it. But in this case, the daughters of Zelophehad had approached, yes respectfully but with a moral challenge to a law that God himself had instituted, and they said, "This is not right. This doesn't look like a moral law." And God acknowledged that, and of course since God claims to be moral, He had to acknowledge that the law as it stood was unethical and He changed it. And the daughters of Zelophehad weren't punished. They weren't reprimanded. They weren't disparaged in any way. God just simply changed the law in acknowledgment of the rightness of their argument.
Later on in Ezekiel 4:12-15, the prophet Ezekiel is given a commandment by God to enact a kind of a sign or a visual parable for the people of Israel to whom he's speaking. And God wants him to cook his food on human dung. Now, Ezekiel objects to that because it will make him ritually impure, and he has never done anything like this before. And he tells God, "I'm sorry. I can't do that. I have always avoided ritual impurity during my life. That's just too much for me."
And instead of saying, "Well, Ezekiel. You know I'm trying to send a message here and I need that message to be pretty strong. So, sorry. But you need to do what I'm telling you." God says to Ezekiel, "All right. I acknowledge that. Let's change it to animal dung.", which is acceptable to Ezekiel. So, God tells his own prophet to do something and the prophet says, "I'm sorry. I just can't do that. That's going to be an affront to my personal conscience." And God acknowledges that and agrees to Ezekiel's terms.
And we find this in The New Testament as well. In Acts 10:11-16, the apostle Peter is given a vision by God. And the vision is of some unclean animals, ritually unclean animals, which under The Law of Moses, Peter is not permitted to eat. And God shows him these animals in a vision and says, "Peter stand up. Kill the animals and eat." And Peter refuses and says, "I cannot eat these unclean animals. This is in contravention to my upbringing under The Law of Moses." And God takes the animals away.
And God gives him this vision three times, and every time he tells Peter to kill and eat the animals, and every time Peter disobeys. And every time, God says, "What God has called clean, do not consider unclean." But he never forces Peter to actually contradict his conscience.
Now, later on, Peter finds that this entire vision is a kind of a parable. It's telling him that he needs to get out there and start preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, because previously, he was only preaching to the Jews. And God is telling him the Gentiles are not unclean. You need to be going and preaching to them as well. But throughout all of this, throughout all of this enacted parable, Peter is never reprimanded for blatantly putting his own personal conscience above the commandment of God.
So, Christian Anarchists see God in this way: The individual who approaches God with a genuine conscience, who's very concerned about trying to understand the morality of God, trying to understand God's actions and what is right, is permitted to stand up to God and object, and say, "I just don't understand this. It doesn't seem right." And, if done in the right spirit, then God will accept that, and will acknowledge their claim, and even submit to them in specific cases.
Now, that's clear that God is not some kind of intrinsic authority who cannot under any circumstances be disobeyed and must at all times be followed blindly. We just simply don't find that. This is more like the expert of Bakunin's work, What is Authority?, the expert who is acknowledged and who is generally followed, but is not considered to be the last word on the subject.
How is Christian Anarchism to be achieved? [@33:52]
Because Christian Anarchism is non-hierarchical and non-coercive, it basically requires conversion. Now, it doesn't necessarily require conversion to Christianity, but it does certainly require a conversion or changing of people's minds to the principles of Christianity. Ideally, Christian Anarchists do this not simply by teaching people about anarchism, but more importantly, by demonstrating in their lives the principles taught to us by Jesus Christ. So, by building the Christian community as a community within the community, and taking in those who wish to join us, whether they are Christians or not, we should be as Jesus described it in The Book of Matthew chapter 5 verses 14 to 16: a light on a hill, like a lighthouse giving light to others showing them the right way by example.
What are the economic ideas of Christian Anarchism? [@34:46]
As I've already cited from The Book of Acts, Christian Anarchism is typically collectivist and communal or communalist, definitely very strongly mutualist. However, it has to be said that Christian Anarchism is focused far more on social organization than political and economic organization. So, specific economic views and values may differ between Christian Anarchists.
On the other hand, it is definitely the case that Christian Anarchism tends to be very weakly pro-market. Though, if there is a market, it's strongly regulated, definitely not free. And weekly pro property, as I've demonstrated from the citations from The Book of Acts.
Of course, that pattern of Anarchism in The New Testament Book of Acts, indicates a strong emphasis on communalism, and shared property, and mutualism. So, Christian Anarchism I would say is very similar to Anarcho-Mutualism, emphasizing strongly the mutual responsibility of society's members to each other, and in particular, communal action. So, you could say that in many ways it can be seen as Anarcho-Mutualism organized according to a Christian ethos.
Consequently, although communal organizations, shared labor, economic cooperation, and collectivism are encouraged, including various forms of worker-owned organizations such as co-ops, typically there's no specific stance on private property. So, different Christian Anarchists will have different views on that. On the other hand, Christian Anarchists are strongly against exploitative labor and economic practices, which are condemned very firmly in The Old Testament, and in particular, in The New Testament.
Is Christian Anarchism usually focused around one denomination? [@36:26]
No, it isn't. But as I mentioned previously, it is typically found among the non-hierarchical Christian traditions, and in particular, among the peace church traditions or the historical peace churches.
I would say, if you want to look for Christian Anarchism in Christian denominations today, you should look at those denominations which emerged from The Radical Reformation. Look at the Amish, for example, the Mennonites, and some of those other denominations which adopted what is referred to as a "primitivist" approach to Christianity, trying to cut back past the creeds and all the hierarchicalism of the later centuries, cut back to that original ideal that we see in The Book of Acts that I mentioned.
What is the Christian argument against the state? [@37:15]
Fundamentally, the argument is that the state is the antithesis of The Kingdom of God. From the Christian point of view, at least as I understand it, or if you want to be fair, from the Christian Anarchist point of view, the state and The Kingdom of God cannot coexist.
Now, I already cited that Old Testament chapter, 1 Samuel chapter 8, which said that acknowledgement of a king is rejection of God. And even though, yes that's in The Old Testament, as I've demonstrated, that same idea is taken up again in The New Testament. Jesus said emphatically, his kingdom is not of this world. Paul says that the Christians are to judge themselves within their own community, and it is not our responsibility to judge those who are outside.
So, from the Christian Anarchist point of view, the basic idea is the state and The Kingdom of God cannot coexist. And the Christian is considered to be a citizen of The Kingdom of God, not a citizen of the state. And, in fact, the apostle Paul in his own writings said that we should live as if we were strangers and pilgrims in the state, because we don't belong here. This is not our kingdom. We belong to The Kingdom of God. So, very strongly from the Christian Anarchist point of view, the state is not God's Kingdom. We are citizens of God's Kingdom and the state is an illegitimate entity.
What is your response to Romans 13? [@38:44]
That's the number one go-to passage for people who oppose Christian Anarchism.
At this point, I'd like to recommend a book on Christian Anarchism by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos called, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on The Gospel, published in 2013. It started as his Ph.D. thesis, which you can download freely from his website and was later published as a fully fledged monograph. I'm citing him, not only because I consider his work to be an excellent resource on Christian Anarchism, but also because it has a particularly good chapter specifically on Romans 13. And now, I'm going to explain my personal views on this passage.
First of all, it has to be acknowledged that Romans 13 is the number one passage to go to when opposing Christian Anarchism because it's pretty much the only passage there is. This means it's starkly in contradiction to the general trend of The New Testament, and indeed, the bible itself. And if you remember, actually we're only talking about six verses in Romans 13, Romans 13:1-6. It is "sui generis", it is of itself. There are no other passages like this in The New Testament, or even in The Old Testament.
Now, I'm going to read Romans 13:1-6...
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God's appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God's servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants devoted to governing.
Now, on the face of it, that sounds like it's saying two things:
1. the state authorities have been instituted by God
and
2. therefore, you should obey everything they say
When you look closer, however, it's saying something quite different. It says that the state is the servant of God and it says it's the servant of God in only two respects:
Firstly, for judgment on wrongdoers. So, the state performs the role of the servant of God when it helps to maintain a modicum of public morality by judging and punishing wrongdoers, people who do evil. Secondly, it is the servant of God when it collects taxes for public works. And we know that Jesus himself said that his followers should pay taxes on the basis that what is Caesar's, state currency, should be given back to Caesar (Matthew 22:19-21). Yet, Christ also added that what is God's should be given to God.
Now, something else that a lot of people miss when they read this passage in Romans 13:1-6, is the reference to conscience, and that's found in verse 5. Paul says, "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities, but also because of your conscience."
Here, Paul is very clearly saying that you should be in submission to the state, not just because of its authority, but also because of your conscience. That means he is only talking about being in subjection to the state when it is in harmony with the Christian conscience.
Now, this is the reason why he says that the state is the servant of God. The state is only to be obeyed in these two respects:
Firstly, laws trying to maintain a modicum of public morality insofar as those laws are in harmony with the Christian conscience. Secondly, the collection of taxes for public works. So, the only two aspects in which the Christian owes obedience to the state are those which are helping to maintain public order.
Now, you might say, "Well that sounds like a bit of a strained interpretation to me. I don't think it's actually saying that." And that's fine. So, what we can do is look to see how the early Christians understood their relationship to the state.
In The Book of Acts, we find that the apostles Peter, John, and of course, Paul himself, repeatedly view civil and state authorities as subordinate to God, God's servants, as Paul says in Romans 13. And therefore, Christians disobey them when the laws of these state authorities contradict the law of God, or of course, contradict the Christian conscience.
So, in Acts 4:19, Peter and John, two of the early Christian apostles, speak to the religious authorities and tell them, "Look, you judge yourselves. Do you think we should obey God or you?" And obviously, it's a rhetorical question. They are saying, "We should obey God rather than your laws." So, they deliberately disobeyed the Jewish religious authorities who were in control in their region, and did not submit to them because those authorities were telling them to do things which contradict the law of God and their Christian conscience. The authority was not acting as the servant of God, and therefore could be disobeyed.
Likewise, again in the very next chapter, Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than people." And they give this as their reasoning for rejecting the rule and the laws of the religious authorities.
In case it's still not clear, the apostle Paul himself did the same. He repeatedly disobeyed both secular and religious laws, both state and official, which outlawed his preaching of Christianity. And, in fact, when you read through the book of Acts, it's full of Paul being dragged repeatedly in front of local Roman magistrates, and sometimes state governors, punished with beatings, or put into prison because he is breaking the state law. Not just local law, not just Jewish religious law, but actual state law, actual Roman law. And Paul is repeatedly dragged in front of Roman magistrates, Roman governors, Roman provincial rulers, precisely because he was breaking the law.
Now, this demonstrates that my understanding of Romans 13 is exactly what Paul was really writing because Paul's own behavior actually matches my interpretation of what he's saying. Now, because Paul saw the state as the servant of God, he felt entirely at liberty to appeal to his own civil rights in order to prevent injustice being inflicted on him through state violence.
In Acts 22:25-28, Paul has been arrested by a local centurion, an officer in the Roman army. And that centurion is about to have Paul beaten, and Paul stops him and says, "Is it lawful to beat a Roman citizen without a trial?" And the centurion says, "Are you a Roman citizen?" And Paul says, "Yes! I was born a Roman citizen!" And the centurion is very concerned because he knows that this is actually illegal. So, Paul gets himself out of that situation by exercising his lawfully given rights, because he is using the state law to prevent an injustice, to prevent unethical conduct. In this case, he is using the state as the servant of God to prevent wrong doing.
Likewise, in Acts 25:10-11, when Paul is brought in front of the Roman governer Festus for judgment, Paul says:
I have committed no offence against the Jewish law, or against the temple, or against Caesar.
And then, he demands his right as a Roman citizen to be sent to Rome to be judged personally by Caesar. He cites this again in Acts 28:19. When the Jews objected, he says, "I was forced to appeal to Caesar."
So, when Paul does acknowledge the power of the state, when he does appeal to the laws of the state, he appeals to the state insofar as it is the servant of God. And he appeals to its laws in order to uphold basic morality and to prevent injustice, and to stop the state itself from enacting state violence against his own person.
Clearly, therefore, Paul not only considered it entirely legitimate to break the state's law, but also considered the state to be the servant of God. And therefore, it was lawful to use the state's authority in so far as it would prevent injustice.
Sources
- Allman, Mark. Who Would Jesus Kill?: War, Peace, and the Christian Tradition. Saint Mary's Press, 2008.
- Bakunin, Mikhail. What Is Authority? The Anarchist Library (Mirror), 1870.
- Brock, Peter. Pacifism in Europe to 1914. Princeton University Press, 2015.
- Bruhn, John G., Harold Gary Levine, and Paula L. Levine. Managing Boundaries in the Health Professions. C.C. Thomas, 1993.
- Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.
- Fiensy, David A. "What Would You Do for a Living?" Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches. Edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Paul-André Turcotte, and Jean Duhaime. Rowman Altamira, 2002.
- Jones, Simon. A Social History of the Early Church. Lion Hudson Ltd, 2018.
- Kaplan, Temma. Democracy: A World History. Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Marshall, Peter. Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. PM Press, 2009.
- Meggitt, Justin. Paul, Poverty and Survival. A&C Black, 1998.
- Miller, Geoffrey Parsons. "Politics and Kingship in the Historical Books." The Oxford Handbook of the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Brent A. Strawn. Oxford University Press, 2020.
- Miscall, Peter D. "Moses and David: Myth and Monarchy." The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines. Bloomsbury Publishing, 1993.
- Richardson, K. C. Early Christian Care for the Poor: An Alternative Subsistence Strategy under Roman Imperial Rule. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.
- Steenwyk, Mark Van, and Ched Myers. That Holy Anarchist: Reflections on Christianity & Anarchism. Mark Van Steenwyk, 2012.
Personal Comments
[In Progress...]