Two Kingdoms
In his essay, Christian Anarchism: A Revolutionary Reading of the Bible, Christoyannopoulos notices that, “an honest and consistent application of Christianity would result in a political arrangement that would amount to anarchism…”. Thus Christian anarchism is not about forcing together two very different systems of thought—it is about pursuing the political implications of Christianity to its fullest extent.” There’s no doubt that “Christianity” is, itself, a political system: the most Primitive, Gospel-centered church admittedly does have the semblance of a hierarchical structure (but it’s purely voluntary, and it’s leaders are to be servants). So we see that politics, Christianity, and “Anarchy” aren’t exclusive. If anything, “Anarchy,” how it’s demonstrated in the ekklesia, or the “Kingdom of God,” is the purest political structure one could hope for. The problem that arises is when one kingdom attempts to usurp the other and begins to intrude where it’s unwelcome. Many of the Anabaptists (Proto-“Anarchists”) saw in the Gospels and Epistles what they termed a “Two Kingdom'' principle. They bemoaned the admixture of Church and State and, unlike their contemporaries, pursued the political implications of Christianity to its fullest extent.
The Anabaptist concept of “Two Kingdoms” immediately situates the Kingdom of God as an opponent of The State. On page 24 of his book Church and State, Charles F. Reitzel compares and contrasts the two. His notes are significant to the serious disciple and underscores the importance of the separation of these two kingdoms. He diagrams the differences in the following way:
The difference between the church and state should be clearly evident now. If the assumption of the New Testament is separation of these two kingdoms, then what possible “Civic Duty” would a Christian have towards government? Can s/he sit in courts as a judge or juror? Can s/he police the community with a license to use force against potential threats to protect capital and the private property of the rich? Can s/he swear an oath to protect the [worldly] Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic”? Can s/he vote in political elections or donate time and money toward those campaigns to enforce “godly policy”? Let’s see what Jesus would do:
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Jn 18:36)
We see Jesus’ kingdom is altogether different than Caesar’s, yet multitudes of Evangelicals war against this teaching.
Paul told followers of Christ that Satan is the “god of this world.” It’d therefore follow that the kingdoms and rulers of this world are under diabolical influence. While God certainly did “ordain” governments among men, he left men wholly in charge of them. Given that men are susceptible to Satanic influence, it’s not hard to understand just how quickly human government fell under the dictatorship of the Devil, and, as we saw, this power among men isn’t inherent in themselves. So now we need to ask the following question: If we’re to ‘submit’ to these powers as Paul said, but ultimately the governments we submit to are Satanic, then don’t we have a contradiction in Scripture? Secular Anarchists and some in the believing community might assume so. Let’s see.
Standing for the Kingdom of God: Active Resistance/ Civil Disobedience
Civil Disobedience is sometimes considered a more provocative means to a peaceful end. Some might consider this form of Pacifism more performative and needlessly confrontational…something many Anabaptists today are reluctant to embrace. However, true Christlike non-resistance is Civil Disobedience with a goal to directly challenge norms and turn the hearts of men back to God—it’s direct action.
Non-Resistance and Conscientious Objection, along with Tax Evasion, are probably the most effective, yet risky, protests men could do. It’s the classic “David and Goliath” scenario. This has been the calling of every true disciple since John the Baptist called men to repent. The fact civil disobedience is on full display throughout the Gospels, Book of Acts, and even in Epistles to churches, should come as no surprise to careful readers of the New Testament. James Redford makes an astonishing note on the life of Jesus. Redford reminds the reader,
“Thus in the most fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism from the very start between Jesus and government (to say the least). Jesus was born into the world as a criminal and would latter be killed as a criminal—a criminal as so regarded by the government, that is.”
Redford’s charge of criminality is only through the eyes of the state. He’s of course referring to the “Flight to Egypt” event given in the second chapter of Matthew’s Gospel account, where Joseph and Mary flee the wrath of the Tyrant Herod. Herod, no doubt, viewed the child as a political adversary and thus a criminal. Redford’s observation is all the more telling: indeed, Jesus’ life was fated to be one in opposition to the kingdoms of this world!
With this scene essentially opening the life and ministry of the Messiah, there’s no uncertainty in the reading of Scripture that when men abuse otherwise “legitimate, God-ordained government” subjects of the Kingdom of God are especially obliged to obey God rather than man as though they’re already free to do so: civil disobedience…essentially, Anarchy.
The Gospels relay one example after another of Anarchism—men entering into an alternative Kingdom of freedom, living as voluntary subjects of the Father in Heaven in opposition of the pseudo-religious and coercive political systems of the day. We began our probe with the conception of Jesus and how his pre-birth experience immediately put him at odds with the Roman/Herodian State. But Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, was numerically the first martyr because of his Anarchism.
In Matthew 11, we learn John is imprisoned for no other reason other than the fact he’d publicly, unabashedly rebuked Herod for his private sins. John’s fate would eventually be beheading, if for no other reason than political pressure—in fact, in Matthew 14 we get the sense that Herod was reluctant.
With every turn of the page, we see what Redford notes, that, “Jesus’s Kingdom is to be the functional opposite of any Earthbound kingdom which has ever existed. And for government, this is the ultimate crime of which Jesus was guilty, and which required His extermination” (p. 3). The functional opposite of the coercive State is a peaceful, voluntary community of willing disciples who accept the possibility of martyrdom. T.J. van Braght, in his classic anthology of martyrdom The Bloody Theater or Martyr’s Mirror of the Anabaptist or Defenseless Christians, makes the following distinction and application:
To Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we have accorded the first place among the martyrs of the new covenant; not in the order of time, for herein John was before, and preceded with his death; but on account of the worthiness of the person, because He is the head of all the holy martyrs, through whom they all must be saved.
John the Baptist was technically the first martyr in the New Testament for his Anarchy, but Jesus alone is regarded as the premier example. This is the true message of freedom we find in his words. To put it differently, if “Anarchism” is acting as though you’re already free, and the Son of God declared “If the Son of man shall set you free, you’re free indeed,” then it logically follows that there’s no greater or purer “Anarchist” than the studious, faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God and of Heaven is the epitome of this ideal and stands as a non-violent alternative in almost silent opposition to the kingdoms of this world. This also proves that no force is needed, even in self-defense, to demonstrate a better way to one’s enemy with the hopes of seeing them repent.
About the Author
Nathan Moon is a house-painter because he “has a useless English degree”. More importantly, he’s a student of Jesus, which is the theme of his blog.
He hopes to one day have a small photography/movie-production company. He lives in Wisconsin with his wife and four daughters.
You can learn more about him and see his work at his website is www.anabaptistapologist.com.