Authority and the ekklesia
If you search in the New Oxford American Dictionary for the term “Anarchism,” you’ll find the origin of the term is the Greek word anarkhos meaning “without a chief.” Jesus’ model of authority, or leadership in general, is Anarchical, meaning he never gave any one man complete power over another like the tyrannical systems of this world do. Jesus’ model for leadership in churches is often termed “servant leadership” and was intended to be horizontal rather than vertical.
I’ve heard some AnarchoChristians oppose the idea of a “horizontal” relationship, admittedly only assuming they’re understanding that this means men are ruling over others. But what I mean by “horizontal relationship” is simply that we’re men among men, and we have relationships with other people; these relationships, especially in ekklesia, should be voluntary and loving. Once we begin to dominate others and “lord over the flock,” we assume a vertical relationship over fellow men and seek to usurp God’s position. I’ll take the time to make this distinction and hopefully add clarity because these definitions of these relationships need to be clear in order to understand the rest of this section.
Throughout Jesus’ ministry, we see he divests himself of power over others whenever he can. In one word, he’s unobtrusive. One passage gives a clear profile of his ministry:
But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
According to prophecy, the Messiah would be a servant, meaning he’d be beneath someone in authority (the Father). This servant, the Messiah, would “not strive” nor “cry.” Nobody would hear his voice “in the streets.” But didn’t Jesus teach and heal publicly? When the prophecy says he wouldn’t strive, cry, or that his voice wouldn’t be heard in the street, it means he wouldn’t go around in a pompous, political way and campaign for himself. Neither would he bruise a reed or quench “smoking flax.” This is taken by some to mean that he wouldn’t militaristically topple the oppressive governments of that time but that he’d wait to “send forth judgment unto victory” at his Second Coming. This meek man intended to lead by example: do good, heal the sick, help the poor and hungry, preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, and speak to the many other social injustices around him.
Aside from what Jesus related about prophecies concerning himself, we see him directly teaching his disciples who, what, and how with regards to his Father’s kingdom. Take for instance this scene in Matthew:
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
In Jesus’ model, the “great” and “chief” one among the brethren is an unselfish, self-sacrificing “minister” or “servant.” He says this model is markedly different than the “princes of the Gentiles” who “exercise dominion over them.” Van Steenwyk puts it quite eloquently in his observation of “servant-leadership” in the New Testament:
[And] it is assumed that there are some who are wiser about discerning the Spirit–who have deeper practices in the way of Jesus. These folks are often considered elders and they can mentor folks just starting out in the way of Jesus. This is what discipleship is all about. Is it hierarchical? Perhaps, but if it is, it is a dynamic hierarchy rather than a static one. The goal of discipleship should never be to have permanent leaders. Rather, it should be to recognize wisdom where it is found, and to learn from that wisdom. Most anarchists do that.
Van Steenwyk’s understanding of New Testament church authority as a dynamic mentorship as opposed to a rigid, “static” one is refreshing, to say the least. It sheds much needed light on forgotten guidelines given by the Apostles themselves. Take for example 1 Peter 5:1-5 where Peter says the leaders are to willingly serve, and not for profit. The elders aren’t to domineer the flock, but lead by example. He even says, “all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” We see, then, Anarchism—really, true New Testament kingdom living—offers a more equitable way to distribute authority and order, not abolish it. This is Jesus’ and the Apostle’s vision for the ekklesia. This is the process of Anarchy. This is pure “horizontal” relationship. But there’s one more place in the Gospels that stands out and is worth including in our analysis.
In Luke 12:13-15 we have a short but interesting dialogue:
“And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
It’s easy to read too far into this exchange and conclude that Jesus was completely against owning any property—we saw why this is a hurtful conclusion in our previous chapter. Here, Jesus is making a remarkable point: he isn’t a ruler over other men.
This man’s covetousness prompted Jesus to give a parable about a rich man who increases his wealth, builds a larger barn to store it in, and takes such comfort in his storehouse of riches, saying, “take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry.” In other words, the rich man grew proud and forgetful that nothing on earth lasts forever. Jesus’ conclusion was, “So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” The larger lesson to be learned from this dialogue and parable is that our focus shouldn’t be to amass great wealth, especially by dominating our neighbors. Rather, our treasures should be stored in Heaven.
If we “Christo-Anarchists” are going to advance our unique message to our Fundamentalist and secular-Anarchist friends, we’re going to have to be honest with the reality of hierarchy in the New Testament and general trend toward patriarchy. We need to be ready to rebuke the Fundamentalists who place a premium on rigid male-centric leadership, acceptance of class distinction as a “necessary evil,” and the driveling calls to be ever-more patriotic; we also need to be ready to rebuke the secular-Anarchist whose end-goal is a seemingly complete annulling of distinctions altogether and rejection of any power. We owe it to our neighbors to strike that balance.
I suggest that, for the Christo-Anarchist, the solution is a return to that authority structure outlined in the Gospels and Epistles. We need to teach and show that in the community, otherwise known as “assembly” or ekklesia, there exists the potential for a group of people to function without hurtful distinctions and hierarchies.
Property Destruction/ Iconoclasm
Anarchism strikes at the root of human evil because it seeks to expose the human tendency to place equal, sometimes greater, value on goods—sentiments that tend toward use of force in order to protect. The dialogue in Luke 12 is a great insight to this. When it comes to striking at these roots, we must lament human casualties that result from otherwise legitimate demonstrations of frustration—often expressions of hatred toward the “system” rather than the people. If we understand Anarchism through a purely New Testament lens, we see it’s possible, and even godly, to disregard the “value” of property and still preserve human life. Yes, this is to suggest Jesus isn’t always against destroying “private property.”
Perhaps no other striking example can be given to prove Jesus and his disciples were “destructive” Anarchists than to look at what took place at the Temple. First, we’ll look at Matthew’s account, then John’s:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
In this Temple scene, Jesus is a zealous Iconoclast, an Anarchist, whose disdain is directed towards the abuse of private property being used for profit at the expense of human/ spiritual dignity. Remember: the property isn’t “the Jews’,” nor is it the religious leaders’—the property belongs to Jesus’ Father! The “changers of money” had turned something sacred into something common (worldly/ ungodly). They usurped what belonged to God and perverted it. This was a bondage to people who came to worship. Jesus’ actions with the scourge were violent, yes, but they were targeted at property not people. Jesus did, however, give stern rebuke to those present. In either sense—physical or verbal—there’s a destructive message being communicated to an apostate religious institution. This is Anarchism on full display.
To be sure, “Iconoclasm” can be defined as “the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices; the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the doctrine of iconoclasts.” A skepticism of the legitimacy of these beliefs, values, insinuation, and even objects, can be expressed in verbal condemnation or physical destruction. To reiterate, “Anarchism” was defined earlier as “the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.” These two are hand-in-glove because they’re both defined by the destruction or abolition of something that’s been deemed “illegitimate” or “heretical.” In the case of Iconoclasm, the target is singularly religious, whereas Anarchism can target both religious and secular institutions. Jesus gave us a holy example.
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.