Statism

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:

Screen Shot 2021-06-09 at 1.56.26 PM.png

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.


134608614_2992041357694982_2982765420722438874_n.jpg

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.

Jesus Is the Epitome Of Everything a “Bad Roman” Wants to Be

During Jesus’ lifetime, the Jews of the Intertestamental period existed under the occupation of Rome in their ancestral home of Judea. The two things they had going for them were the geographic promises of God in Gen 12:7, that they would possess the land of Canaan and the identity that came with the promise of Gen 12: 2-3 as the means of God’s blessing to the world. These promises became barriers to their recognition of Jesus as the promised blessing.

In the midst of this turmoil between their understanding of the promise, and Jesus as the fulfillment of that promise, Jesus began his public ministry. Jesus would buck repeatedly at the methods of thought, belief, and behavior he found entrenched in the minds of the religious leadership in Jerusalem and the Temple. Jesus’s presence and instruction were turning the Jewish world on its head; undermining systems that had developed through hardship and rational thinking, in favor of the freedom God wanted his children to experience in Christ.     

The Five Controversies

The Apostle Mark describes Jesus’s time in Capernaum by shining a light on five controversies Jesus evoked.

  1. Mark 2:1-12

    Jesus forgives a paralyzed man’s sins and then, to prove He had the authority and power to forgive sin, he heals the paralyzed man and tells him to get up, grab his bed, and go home. The Scribes who witnessed Jesus' actions thought to themselves, “only God can forgive sins, ” and they were right, but they were unaware and ignorant of who Jesus was. The Scribes, who knew the Scriptures front to back, had become so concerned with conformity and tradition, instead of compassion and love, that they missed the Messiah sitting right in front of them.                      

  2. Mark 2: 13-17

    Jesus upsets the religious leadership again by associating with sinners. The Scribes and the Pharisees question Jesus’ bona fides because no righteous man would associate with sinners for he himself would become soiled. In the established religious leadership minds, Jesus is demonstrating that he is not someone who can be followed. In response to these accusations, Jesus explains he has to be with them (the sinners) if He is going to restore them to fellowship with God. To avoid sinners is actually counter to God’s Law to love one’s neighbor as oneself and lead them to righteousness. The Pharisees and Scribes misunderstood the Law, which allowed them to use it as a weapon against people instead of a means to elevate and restore them to fellowship with God.

  3. Mark 2: 18-22

    This time they recruit the disciples of John to join the Pharisees to show how the righteous and faithful of God fast twice weekly while Jesus and his disciples do not fast at all. The point they aimed to make was that Jesus does not follow orthodox faith practices and therefore He should not be followed at all. In the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus is a bad Jew who will lead others down a path to destruction. 

    Yet Jesus uses three examples to show them something new and better has arrived if they would just step back and see the reality before them in Mark 2: 19-22. Utilizing three examples Jesus explains that this new system cannot be joined with the old tradition because they are not compatible. The old must be replaced and release its control. Likewise, the new cannot be contained in the same vessels as the old because the new way would burst the old. In other words, people must be born again to fully understand the Law and the Kingdom of God. 

  4. Mark 2 23-28

    To truly drive the point home, Mark describes how Jesus upset the Pharisees by not following their hypocritical understanding of the Sabbath in Mark 2 23-28. The Pharisees attempted to show Jesus as an unworthy leader because his followers were violating their rules on the Sabbath, but Jesus responds by showing the Sabbath is for man, not the other way around. Basic human needs must still be met on the Sabbath. However, the Pharisees were using the Sabbath as a hammer against their fellow man when God gave it as a blessing.

  5. Mark 3: 1-6

    The fifth controversy, in Mark 3: 1-6, is similar to the fourth.  Jesus is inside a synagogue, surrounded by the enemy. Jesus asks the Pharisees if it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil, to save a life or to kill?  The Pharisees did not respond, so Jesus healed a man right in front of them. Jesus did good on the Sabbath and they were not too friendly or happy about it.  The Pharisees proceeded to leave the synagogue,  seek out the Herodians, and plot ways to destroy Jesus. So, in response to the good  Jesus did on the Sabbath they were angry, but they had no problem doing evil on the Sabbath as they sought out people to kill him. In so doing the Pharisees showed the hypocrisy of their Sabbath observance for what it was.

Being “bad” to do good

By being a “bad Jew” Jesus was able, through his action and language, to reveal how limited the Pharisees’ and Scribes’ understanding of the Word of God was. Instead of bringing people closer to God they were driving people away and making it nearly impossible for people to build a relationship with God. This was the same age-old problem of the Abrahamic nation that resulted in their banishment to begin with.

In modern times, Christians are often being good citizens of a nation-state at the expense of being good Christians. Christians have created idols out of the State and all of its bodies, often placing the military, the flag, a political party, or the authority of Government above and before their Christian beliefs. In the United States, Christians have elevated these idols to the status of gods and place hedges around their faith in their Creator if it conflicts with any of their idols. This hypocrisy of faith often becomes a barrier to others believing in Jesus but also keeps Christians from actively living out what God has called us to be in this world.

It is time to be good Christians. If we will be faithful to the Kingdom of God, it will seldom equate to being a faithful patriot to a temporal nation-state.


 

About the Author

img_0120.jpg

Ian Minielly is a full-time vocational pastor. He considers himself an “oddball” in ministry for his peaceful understanding of the Kingdom of God and how limited of a role Christians should have with the State.

Regarding how he came to this stance, he says, “God spared me and showed great mercy in opening my eyes to love, and against war and the State. To see the great work God did in me, previously I spent more than seven years as an intelligence analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, focused on Counter-Proliferation of WMD material and systems. Prior to that, I spent more than nine years in the infantry and Special Forces (I was a Green Beret). Once I became a believer, I found the biblical expectations of God were in opposition to my profession in the military and my nationalism. God slowly peeled this understanding back and I left the army and nationalism.”

Ian has published three books, Emily's Tears, Revoked Consent, and The Genetic God, which are available on Amazon.

He also has a YouTube channel if you would like to see him in action!