Not of This World Part 6: Upside Down (Series Conclusion)

Upside Down

Throughout the Book of Acts (a chronicle of the early ministries) we see civil unrest in the wake of early evangelism and how the disciples demonstrate what they learned from Jesus’ example. Here’s one instance of many demonstrating the power of the message:

“And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, ‘These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.’ And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.”

Acts 17:1

Word spread quickly how “threatening” the Apostle’s message of Jesus was. They were those who “turned the world upside down.” The church in that area—ekklesia—had gained a reputation for challenging societal norms of the day. Ideas like “servant leadership” and having “all things common” stood in direct contrast to the affluent, Imperialist culture of their day. The message of Jesus’ resurrection was especially controversial but also intriguing to the philosophers and ever-antagonistic Jewish leaders. The legitimacy of Caesar in general, the pagan religion, and Pharisee’s order was being called to question all at once. One fantastic instance is recorded just two chapters later:

“And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, ‘Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.’ And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’.” 

Acts 19:23

What’s remarkable about this scene is everything at stake for the Ephesians. Not only is the legitimacy of their religion called into question but also their economy. Demetrius, a craftsman, earned a living making silver shrines and idols. The rhetoric of the early evangelists had “set at nought” the profitably of the craft itself and also maligned the reputation and legitimacy of the deity and temple of worship. Such a challenge was met with an angry mob. As we’ll see, this legacy continued from the time of the earliest churches through the Dark Ages. 

Anabaptist Iconoclasm/ Host Desecration

As peaceful as they were, Anabaptists certainly didn’t shy away from issuing stern rebukes to heads of state and church, nor were they restrained when it came to destroying what they deemed idols and superstitions in the land. Like John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles before them, they understood their “civic duty” very well: obey God rather than men.

Examples of this are given throughout Gary K. Waite’s book Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe. Waite’s book examines the witch hunts and Anabaptist persecutions of the time in different regions of Europe and seeks to understand the religious and political reasons for such. Waite is careful to remind the reader that while the Anabaptists themselves were skeptical of the “superstitions” of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, they were being identified as the agents of a Satanic conspiracy and were blamed for other-worldly phenomena sometimes attributed to witches and sorcerers. In his book, we learn Anabaptist skepticism was aimed directly at two primary Catholic (and sometimes Protestant) dogmas: the Eucharist and infant baptism.

Student’s of Church history, namely Anabaptism, know these pious folk were notorious for refusing to have their infants baptized (which was considered infanticide by the state-churches), and they also were known to disrupt Mass and stomp on supposedly consecrated “Hosts.” All of these protests are Anarchist tactics aimed at cutting directly to the heart of the established institutions—for the Anabaptists of the Dark Ages, it was the most effective way to disrupt the status quo, both state and church. It was very performative.

Waite tells of one Jacob Gasser. This brave Anarchist “ran up to the altar, grabbed the plate of wafers out of the priest’s hands, threw it onto the floor, and trampled upon the bread. He then tossed the chalice with the consecrated wine against the church door.” Of course, we know Gasser wasn’t alone in his sentiments or actions, as Waite relates: “This disturbing act…had followed close on the heels of the iconoclastic actions of Tirol’s rebellious peasants. It was also performed in consideration of magical beliefs and a long history of eucharistic miracle legends.” Gasser’s, and others’, willingness—obligation rather—to cause such upheaval in one of the most important and powerful societal institutions of that day only testifies to the fact that Anabaptism is fundamentally Anarchism. Anabaptists were actively striking at an insidious root: the institutional Church’s reliance on the State to substantiate tenuous, superstitious dogmas. It can’t be denied that they learned these tactics, and gained boldness, from Jesus’ and the Apostles’ examples.

Series Conclusion

A logical and plain reading of the Gospels and basic understanding of non-conformist movements throughout Church history leads an honest student to the conclusion that Gospel and Christ-centered discipleship is Anarchism in its purest form. While I believe this shouldn’t be a topic of debate among Christians, I understand the traditions of the State-Church systems have prevented serious consideration of this topic even to this day. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the Kingdom of God and Heaven is a powerful alternative to the Devil’s kingdoms of darkness where Mammon and The State are gods. 

---

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.

Not of This World Part 5: Authority & Property Destruction

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.

Not of This World Part 4: Volunteerism & Private Property

Volunteerism/Community of Goods

There’s a secret to successfully starting down the path toward God’s ideal. Peeter Hoover investigates the “secret” to the Anabaptist way at length in his book The Secret of the Strength: What Would the Anabaptists Tell This Generation? He suggests it was a true love for the teachings and model Jesus gave and “yieldedness” to the Spirit of God. He writes concerning community of goods and “voluntary organization.” Hoover says that, 

The words of Paul in Philippians 3:10 stated distinctly the goal of the Anabaptists: “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” The Greek word koinonia, translated “fellowship” in this verse, was always translated into the German word Gemeinschaft. To the Anabaptists, this beautiful word meant both spiritual communion and community of goods. It was the word used in Acts 2:44 and 4:32 for “all things common” (alle Dinge gemein ...es war ihnen alles gemein). It was the word they found in 1 John 1:7: “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have Gemeinschaft one with another and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” It was the word they used instead of “church.” 

Hoover’s conclusion is that the idea of sharing out of love was very common amongst the Anabaptists, who saw it as the truest test of genuine conversion. Especially amazing in their preference for the word “gemeinschaft”—a very specific and descriptive word—to that of “church,” which  has become shallow. This divorce of understanding in our modern churches of what fellowship is, might be a root cause for our neglect of answering the question, “What would Jesus do?”

Hoover himself seems to expect a community of goods demonstrated in a radical way, agreeing with Jakob Hutter, which is a conclusion far different from other Mennonites and Amish who don’t take gemeinschaft so radically. To demonstrate a slightly less radical understanding, we’ll quote extensively from the page titled “Community of Goods” available on the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online (gameo.org): 

The history of this idea through the ages cannot be told here. Its practice occurred mainly on the fringe of the general church development…Anabaptists who followed the idea of discipleship and of restitution of the primitive church also developed some ideas regarding the economic side of life. Their principle of nonconformity lent itself very naturally to a nonmaterialistic, puritanical concept of life in which man is but a steward of his worldly possessions which he must be ready to share at any time with others. The emphasis upon discipleship likewise brought forth the idea of caring for others and of sharing wherever a brother is in need (liebeskommunismus). Only with the Hutterites did it also lead to a complete and nearly monastic establishment of community of goods, unique indeed within the entire history of the Christian churches on that point.

Certainly there were differences among the various Anabaptist groups throughout Europe in their understanding of “community”; yet, the ubiquitous sense of gemeinschaft flows entirely from the fount of charity and volunteerism, not coercion. No matter the expression, “community of goods” was practiced on a volunteer basis—after all, brother Paul wrote “God loveth a cheerful giver.” The Anabaptists were derided and maligned for this by their enemies who clearly worked from the top down and amassed great riches and property through their conquests. 

It’s curious as to why Christoyannopolous didn’t detail more about the medieval groups in his section “Examples, Past and Present” (groups like the Hutterites, or the more recent Bruderhof). Steenwyk does a good job presenting some of the groups in some detail, giving the reader more to research for themselves. But the examples of Anabaptist groups are certainly welcome in this conversation, and more effort should be made to include their history. Again, we quote from the gameo: 

Very different from the interpretation of Christian community of things temporal as expressed in the first section of this article is the position of the Hutterite brotherhoods who have been practicing full community of goods most successfully for more than 400 years (established in 1528)…

The Hutterites have a 400 year example for many who may be curious about what alternatives there might be in a world full of tyranny and inequality. Perhaps to the dismay of Evangelical Conservative voters, or Liberal Democrat activists, or even secular Anarchists, there’s another way—a truly Christ-like alternative—if you have eyes to see and ears to hear it.

Community of Goods/ Private Property

There’s still the issue of taking things to extremes. One extreme would be the “Forsake All” principle, which is the idea that when called to follow Jesus, one must abandon everything, which could mean total poverty. The other extreme, of course, is over-indulgence. It seems most Anabaptist groups of the Middle Ages understood there could be a balance, and they were taught this by Jesus. Here is what the New Testament has to say, as a whole, on private property:

• Jesus called His disciples, who followed him from their boats into Capernaum. They went with Jesus to the synagogue, but then they went to the house of Simon Peter where He healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15). POINT: Peter retained his property and family ties, even when he answered the Messiah’s call to follow him.

• Jesus called Levi, the tax collector, and then went to Levi’s house for a meal (Luke 5:27-29). POINT: Levi retained his property.

• Jesus often visited Mary, Martha and Lazarus in their house (Luke 10:37-38; John 11:20). POINT: Mary, Martha, and Lazarus remained in contact with each other and retained property.

• The early Jerusalem believers were “...continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.” POINT: They kept their homes, their family relationships, and their jobs (Acts 2:46). They were, however, zealous about meeting together for fellowship. Their new friendships replaced their old, worldly ones.

• Paul wrote to the Corinthians the following: “The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house” (1 Corinthians 16:19). See also, Acts 8:3; 16:40; 21:8; Romans 16:6-5; Colossians 4:15, 1 Timothy 5:14; 2 Timothy 1:16, Philemon 1:2; 1 Corinthians 11:34. POINT: Aquila and Prisca were deemed faithful disciples while also owning property. The emphasis wasn’t on a special “church building.” It was placed on the people...a church or assembly of believers who just-so-happened to meet in a house. The house was “common” amongst them.

• Paul is our example: “For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought, but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). POINT: Paul had a job—he was occupied in work besides Gospel preaching and ministry. Paul taught that men in churches should work to sustain their families. Paul did not see the ministry as a career to retire from. He seems to value self-reliance as much as community. 

• Paul’s blueprint for “mutual aide”: “Let him who steals steal no longer, but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28). POINT: Men need to labor with their own hands with the goal of being able to help others. 

In essence, the truth is that we’re to live a balanced life. Whatever we think we possess is a gift from God to be used for service in furthering his Kingdom. Our homes and business spaces should be readily available for evangelists who’re passing through, or a family who finds themselves down-and-out. Our food should be prepared in such a way that company or the needy can be nourished. Literally everything we have should be viewed in this way: a means of loving God and loving our neighbor. This requires no State approval. You simply do it out of love for your God and neighbor.

The newly called disciples Levi, Peter, Mary/ Martha/ Lazarus, and the couple Aquila and Prisca, were great examples of hospitable, giving, unselfish Kingdom-focused believers who knew that what they were blessed with in this life is intended to be used as a way to bless others and serve the Lord. 

Private property it seems, in a Christo-Anarchist sense is merely a tool. Anabaptists would say, therefore, that the “community of goods” is a principle and position of humility we assume in our hearts that prepares us for action in almost any-given circumstance. How connected are we to the material possessions we’ve been given? Are we willing to depart from everything if we had to, or would we turn back like Lot’s wife, longing after the materials we left behind? These are questions the Anabaptists saw unanswered by their Protestant contemporaries.

---

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.

Not of This World Part 3: The Kingdom of God & Tribalism

Overview of the Kingdom of God

Jesus’ ideal—the Anarchist’s ideal—is subversion through submission and patience, remembering of course that Anarchy is a process and not a goal itself. It’s frustrating because many assume this means complete isolation. It’s true that many in the Anabaptist tradition have slipped into the shadows and quieted down—“The quiet in the land.” But their own history testifies against them! Anabaptist history is filled with tales of heroic men, women, and children who openly protested the mainstream institutions. Thus, the Christo-Anarchist must be able to live “in” societies opposed to their “utopian ideal” while remaining distinct from them. You might’ve heard Christians say “in the world, not of the world.” While they can articulate it, this is the reality of a Kingdom that many Christians aren’t prepared to accept.

In the days of the Roman empire, John the Baptist and Jesus came preaching that sinners should repent for the Kingdom of Heaven and of God was “at hand.” The phrase “at hand” means something is within easy reach; near; close by. Put another way, Jesus himself said, “the time is fulfilled.” Thus, the days of the Roman empire were present and the promised Kingdom of God was within easy reach—manifested, present. Truly, this was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, which was that “…the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom…” Therefore, a disciple of Jesus doesn’t use the popular political routes of the day to enforce morality or “Judeo-Christian values” on the larger populace (i.e., they don’t legislate morality). They’re content with going about their lives in the Kingdom, living as shining lights and examples in the middle of a darkened world system, even “protesting” at times. Yet never joining in the circus. 

But not everyone is prepared to give such an example, and this is because they haven’t received the Messiah portrayed in the Gospels. Christoyannopolous cites Vernard Eller, who makes this astonishing conclusion regarding the real Christ and the false: “So we tend to treat Christ as our idol, someone we’d like to be like, but know we never will be like; rather than our model, someone we’d like to be like, and do our best to be sure we are like.” For Eller and Christoyannoplous, Jesus’ example can be followed. This is also the Anabaptists’ conclusion in the Reformation era. The Protestants, Anabaptists charged, lived just as ungodly as the Catholics, who saw Jesus as someone to be worshiped (as an idol)—someone who set an impossible standard…someone who gave commands he never expected us poor sinners to follow. This idea paints Christ as a cruel master who expects far too much of his followers. The truth, however, is that the secret to Anarchism, as it’s demonstrated by a true disciple of Christ, would be submission to the Father’s will and leading of the Holy Spirit. This means that true voluntary service and obedience in this Kingdom is possible, and it manifests to those outside of it.

Tribalism

Of course, we must consider the Old Testament when discussing Scripture, especially if we’re going to make the claim that true New Testament Biblicists are Anarchistic. After all, the Old and New Testaments form one composite religious text. The Old Testament is “troublesome” for secular anarchists because it seems to support hegemony, especially patriarchy. After all, Joshua leads militaristic campaigns and conquers nearly all of Canaan with permission from Yahweh. Moses is God’s prophet who must deliver commandments detailing a male-centric priesthood. Saul is Israel’s first king—one who descends into paranoia and relentlessly tries to kill David, his successor. We could go on, but this is sufficient evidence to at least imply that the Bible is by no means an Anarchist’s handbook. But Mark Van Steenwyk disagrees and offers compelling reasons to the contrary.

If I understand him correctly, Steenwyk would argue we need to understand that Scripture gives us an ideal blueprint for humanity and at the same time reveals the consequences from straying from the only legitimate authority that exists. In other words: God is the only legitimate ruler over mankind; when we wander from that authority, we descend into wickedness, and human governance is merely a symptom of the sin problem! The Old Testament therefore doesn’t condone the kingship of men, it reveals the problems with it. We get this sense from two passages in Steenwyk’s book. For instance, he reminds the reader that the Hebrews once existed as confederate tribes before they were a monarchy. 

While it is true that the patriarchs had many possessions, it is a stretch to infer from their wealth modern notions of property rights. Pre-agricultural nomadic peoples were tribal. While the patriarchs were hardly egalitarian, their understanding of ownership was much more communal than modern Western notions. The wealth of the tribe or clan or family was for the benefit of all.

While Steenwyk seems personally uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible is patriarchal, the reality is that, in general, the idea of wealth and property was “communal,” or for the benefit of the “tribe or clan or family.” This isn’t complete Anarchism, obviously. It doesn’t have to be. The point is that the Old Testament seems to highlight a more humane, God-prescribed structure as an alternative to a monarchy or centralized government: family.

When we skip forward in the Hebrew history, we’re confronted with the perversions associated with governments of men. Steenwyk makes an astute observation of the conflict between prophets of God and kings of men:

As we read through the prophets, when God speaks, it is usually through a prophet who challenges the king’s power and who stands outside of the machines of the monarchy. So much could be said here. The emphases of the kings are very different than those of the prophets. It is astonishing how much the prophets link idolatry and exploitation of the poor. The kings often centralize wealth and power. The prophets challenge that trend. The prophets, it would seem, still hold God’s Jubilee vision in their imaginations.

The prophets were quick to rebuke wayward kings for deviating from God’s pattern, which outlined a communal/ tribal form of governance that took poverty, widowhood, war, injustice, justice, etc. into much more humane and thoughtful consideration than the selfish, imperialistic kings had. Undoubtedly, Jesus, being a Jew, knew of his nation’s history; the Apostles, too, understood this as well. So it comes as no surprise then that we see a careful distinction between the “Old” Israel (one ruled by corrupt kings) and a “New” Israel (one ruled by a prince of peace) in the New Testament writings. The early church, and the Anabaptist descendants especially, was an expression of this “New” Israel of God and practiced this in their daily lives.

---

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.

Not of This World Part 2: Two Kingdoms & Active Resistance

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.