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.