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.

Christians Without Borders

I grew up in churches. My father was in the military, a servant of the United States Empire, which required my family to move pretty frequently. Wherever we ended up, my Mom made sure to find a local church for us to attend on Sundays. 

Most of the time, these churches were Baptist or Southern Baptist—all of the time, these churches subtly mixed worship of the American Empire into their services. The church where I accepted Jesus as my savior had a roof painted like a giant American flag. Cringey, right? 

During my childhood and young adult years, I was taught in church that the Empire was good. The Empire's actions were valid and righteous. We must protect the Empire and confront and defeat her enemies.I believed these ideas to be true. I also believed the Empire's borders were under attack, with evil people constantly wanting to infiltrate and compromise the Empire's sovereignty. Secure borders keep us safe...or so I was told. 

As time progressed, I realized that many of the 'truths' I was taught when I was young were, in fact, propaganda. Chief among these are the myths surrounding borders. For at least 30 years, the Empire has had an issue at its southern border. The south edge of the United States is a gateway to Mexico which connects the Empire to Central and South America. Centuries of meddling in these regions' cultures and economies have led to considerable disparities in prosperity between the Empire and the Central and South American countries. 

The meddling specifically by the United States Empire has allowed drug cartels to overrun many of the nations in Central and South America. These cartels are the de-facto government and rule their territories with iron fists. The more actions the US Empire has taken to curtail the cartels(via the failed war on drugs), the more solidified the cartels' power has become. Millions of people have fled the violence and poverty caused by U.S. meddling and the cartels’ rule. 

Where do these people flee to? The southern border of the U.S. Empire. A line on a map that divides 'us' from 'them.' Debates have raged for years as to why people come to the United States. Undoubtedly, the reasons are as varied as the countries they are leaving behind, but it is undeniable that most people are attempting to find peace and prosperity that is understood to be unattainable in their homelands. 

For the last three decades, the U.S. Empire has tried to prevent people from crossing its southern border 'illegally'. Billions of dollars have been spent to “secure the border” and prevent both people and goods from crossing it. Despite all of the efforts and money that is thrown at the situation, the border conditions have remained essentially unchanged. People remain desperate to reach a place where they have a chance at safety and prosperity. 

The response by Christians in the U.S. has primarily matched that of the government. The prevailing thought is anyone who would violate the United States' laws and not respect the Empire's borders are criminals. Criminals, you see, are not worthy of being part of the Empire. Criminals could never be good Romans. What does this have to do with Christians? Christians, sadly, care about the borders of the Empire almost as much as the Empire does, but the Bible and Jesus himself tell us that this should not be the case. 

Borders, for a Christian, should be irrelevant. For reference, first, let’s take a look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. In Luke Chapter 10, we see Jesus layout how Christians should treat people from other countries and cultures. Here's what the text says: 

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

In Jesus' time, Jews hated Samaritans. The Jews saw themselves as the superior culture and race, while the Samaritans were considered unclean. While the relations between Jews and Samaritans aren't a 100% correlation to American Christians and immigrants’ relations, there are some parallels we can draw. 

We can see in Luke Chapter 10 Jesus breaks down the barrier between Jews and Samaritans. He is crossing the border that separates 'them' and 'us.' The man speaking to Jesus wants to wiggle off the hook, he wants to know who exactly these “neighbors” are he is supposed to love as himself. This is when Jesus hits him right in the feels. Your neighbors? Your neighbors are those folks you detest. The folks whom you have always been taught are lesser than you, not equal. 

Jesus plainly shows us who our neighbors are: everyone. Yes, even the people we don't like. Yes, even people from other cultures. Yes, even people from other countries. Yes, even people who 'illegally' cross imaginary lines on a map. 

In addition to showing us who our neighbors are, Jesus also guides us on how we should treat our neighbors. The Good Samaritan spends time, resources, and money to help a man he just met; you'll notice the Samaritan didn't ask the man what his reason for being on the road was, nor did he ask where he came from or if he had committed any violations of the law. The Samaritan saw a man in need and helped him. 

There are people in need at the southern border of the United States and many other places worldwide. When we, as Christians, use the border as an excuse to overlook people in need, we are no better than the men in the parable who didn't help, and we certainly aren't loving our neighbors. Rather, we are in defiance of the way Jesus instructed us to treat people. 

Governments use borders to establish their sovereignty and power. Borders tell us who we should care about and who isn't worthy of our time, resources, and money. But they are never mentioned by Jesus. The reality is, borders should be irrelevant to Christians. 

We have other examples of Jesus setting this precedent that borders are irrelevant. In Acts Chapter 1, Jesus ascends to heaven and gives his disciples instructions for the future: 

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Christians are to carry the story of Jesus everywhere. To the ends of the world. To all of humanity. There's no mention of crossing borders legally (or illegally) or even respecting the sovereignty of the nations we carry the Good News to. 

We aren't told to carry the Good News to the cultures and people who we like, the ones we deem worthy, but we are to take it to everyone. EVERYONE. 

Later in Acts, we see just how Jesus plans to empower the disciples to accomplish this task: 

"And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem. When they heard the loud noise, everyone came running, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers.

They were completely amazed. "How can this be?" they exclaimed. "These people are all from Galilee, and yet we hear them speaking in our own native languages! Here we are—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, the province of Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, and the areas of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism), Cretans, and Arabs. And we all hear these people speaking in our own languages about the wonderful things God has done!"

Through the Holy Spirit, God empowered His disciples to preach to people of nations. Their languages weren't a barrier, and no one asked the people in the crowd that day what their legal status was. The Gospel was preached and God was glorified. 

My fellow Bad Romans, I ask you today to look at borders in a new light. Borders are a means to an end for secular government. They serve a purpose for government, and that purpose isn't beneficial to people in need. Jesus did not need borders, He had no love or concern for their protection. So, in turn, we, the image-bearers of Christ, should not concern ourselves with the government-drawn lines on a map. 

Instead, we should love our neighbors. Help people in need. Take the love and Gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth, and to all people because they are all our neighbors. No more excuses. No more borders.

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

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!

Against Those Who Are Against the State

Antidisestablishmentarianism, an archaic word that is as hard to say as it is to understand, has its roots in the political and philosophical discourse of the 19th century, a time when questions regarding tradition and culture caused people to think about the merger of religious and government authorities. Though it has been removed from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, like other words in the English language, etymology can still provide its origin, meaning, and definition. 

To understand its full meaning, antidisestablishmentarianism needs to be broken down into parts.  The end of the word, with the letters (-ism), suggests that this is a framework, concept, or belief that people work in.  Words like despotism, republicanism, intellectualism, barbarism, and communism all denote a common doctrine or theory practiced by a group of people. The letters -arian denote a group of people themselves who believe in, or advocate for something; thus, words like libertarian, parliamentarian, and humanitarian suggest a commonality among people with similar beliefs. The -arian is the group, the -ism is the ideology.  An establishment, on the other hand, is something that has been initiated, created, or formed as an organization such as a public institution or government. Many people refer to the governing authority as The Establishment.  To disestablish something would consequently suggest that the organization be unorganized, broken apart, or altered from its current status.  The people who sought after the separation of church and state in England during the 19th century were known as Disestablishmentarians.   Those who were against this movement, of divorcing the religious and State authorities, also formed an ideology, known as antidisestablishmentarianism.  They were in essence against those who were against keeping the status quo. 

The history of this ideology begins with the story of a great schism in Christianity.  In the year 1533, Henry VIII, King of England fell in love with Anne Boleyn and sought Pope Clement VII to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.  Fearing retaliation from the Roman Emperor, Charles V, the Pope refused this annulment and threatened Henry VIII with ex-communication from the Roman Catholic Church should he pursue a second marriage.  Subsequently, Henry married six different wives over time and his disagreements with the Pope, coupled with his own ambition, led him to initiate the English Reformation giving birth to the Church of England which was separate from papal authority. Appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, Henry VIII dissolved convents and monasteries throughout his country. He made radical changes to the English Constitution and ushered in the theory of the “divine right of kings”, a theory that suggests that it is God’s mandate that a king is pre-destined to political legitimacy and absolute monarchy, subject only to God alone. This authoritarian regime set up the Church of England, an establishment that has stood since 1534 despite centuries of contention, an English civil war, and a Puritan exodus to America.  It was not until the mid-19th century that people started to question this order. Some people wanted to disestablish the Church of England as it was constituted and engage in their own form of faith and religion, but it was unclear if seeking freedom of religion would be possible under the current establishment. 

Across the Atlantic, in the newly formed United States of America, the conversation of religious freedom was held by the men responsible for creating this novel form of self-rule government.  When we look at the founding documents of the US, the “separation of church and state” is not explicitly stated, however,  in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister, the ideology that government and religion be untwined was understood to be strongly held among Americans.  In the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  

It was written with the intention that no denomination, nor specific dogma would be given preference over the people of the newly constituted republic. While it can be debated whether some or all the Founding Fathers were religious in practice, President George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796 stated, “…of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… ”.  Prior to this, Washington had also written a letter to a Hebrew congregation in which he said, “…everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid”  (www.founders.archives.gov, May 06, 2002).  This idea demonstrated an understanding that, in America, people of all faiths or those who subscribe to none are free to worship and practice their beliefs as they choose.  And, while it was maintained that a nation cannot stand but upon moral principles, it was made clear that the State shall not be a coercive force used to make people believe, or even behave, in a certain way.  

The ideals forged in the Bill of Rights were also echoed by men like Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish minister of the 18th and 19th centuries who argued in favor of non-intrusion ideology.  His thoughts on developing a Free Church suggested a similar principle--a desire to separate the church and the government. Yet, in his time, Chalmers faced people who thought it was unnecessary and even wrong to advocate that the Church should discontinue its patronage from the government.  Thus, both in America and in England we find people against the idea to separate or disestablish their faith from their subjection to the crown. 

From this thinking comes the long-held conservative belief that the traditions upheld by 18th and 19th-century peoples of Great Britain and the United States were largely biblically based, and that the laws corresponded to these faith traditions. The political framework known as conservatism is not as much a philosophy as it is an attitude. Historically associated with right-wing politics, the term “conservative” has now been consorted with a wide range of views, with traditionalism and hierarchy combing with “law and order” to make up many of its tenets. Those who identify as conservative often believe that morality needs to be regulated; their philosophy pertains to a belief that the correct values that society should adhere to are derived from a religious precept, and that they must be preserved in the community.  It is their contention that the government is responsible for, at a minimum,  laying the groundwork for appropriate behavior and that laws must be instituted to protect society from things deemed objectionable.  Policies regarding things such as same-sex marriage, drug usage, prostitution, and militant atheism need to be legislated or outlawed by the State. Conservatives believe that without the Establishment morality would cease to exist in society.  From this conviction, inferences have been made in the public square. In 1954 the phrase “One Nation Under God” was officially added to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.  Two years later, “In God, We Trust” became the motto of the United States under President Eisenhower, and that verbiage is now found on all currencies printed by the US Treasury.  Moreover, a general intolerance for different or dissenting viewpoints from traditional conservative values has grown, and those who may not call themselves “Christians” continue to be marginalized in various aspects of society, a modern demonstration of how the disestablishment crowd is mocked and scorned. 

Notwithstanding the right-wing injection of religion into State affairs, the left-wing political ideologies, often called liberalism or progressivism, have also found their own mergers with State authority and religious principles.  Those on the left who call themselves religious see the biblical commandment for charity to be something that must be orchestrated by the government.  They often invoke the “welfare clause” from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a reason to tax and redistribute money to those they deem to be “in need” or “underprivileged”. They ridicule people who oppose  State-sponsored charities and claim moral superiority to those who feel that private organizations could do the job better. Liberal establishmentarians want to use government to force people to act in a way they feel God has called people to behave.  They supersede the council that was given by church authorities and demand that power be placed in the hands of civil government. 

Of course, there remain those who are fundamentally opposed to religion, they may be agnostic or atheist and fall anywhere on the political spectrum.  These people seldomly stand silent when issues such as prayer in public schools or the public display of religious texts arise, such as allowing the Ten Commandments to hang from municipal buildings because it offends some of them.  However, this understanding of the separation of Church and State is also flawed.  Rather than adhering to any faith-based religion, they replace the prophets and holy scripture with mandates and legislation. Their deity is not an omnipresent and omniscient higher authority, but instead, an elected official, democratically elected by the “voice of the people''. In turn, their religion becomes the State itself and, in some cases, it can become their goal to ensure its powers infiltrate every facet of humanity;  leaving them to fall prey to a distinct definition of the Establishment, whether they call it a church or not.  This secularism, an ideology that can be ascribed as the marriage of Church and State, demands no profession to any dogmatic institution or faith in which they give obedience. The result of this gospel is seen in contentious elections, oppressive laws against disenfranchised citizens, war, violence, and economic demise.  The left-wing ideologues and the right-wing zealots fight each other over whose philosophy will be inculcated throughout the nation.  Each incites their own morality on the other and when it is not recognized the division has a disastrous outcome, one that is comparative to the crusades of ancient Christendom and Islam. 

It goes without dispute that many atrocities throughout the history of the world have been committed in the name of religion. Much suffering has been realized in the name of God by the subjects of kings, magistrates, presidents, and worldly authorities who have exploited religion to conquer and pillage.  While sovereignties have collapsed and have been rebuilt according to religious precepts, immorality exists where principles do not. Perhaps it is part of the human condition that compels people to forcefully propagate their innate philosophies to those around them and, oftentimes, using the Establishment as their enforcement mechanism.  Still, religious freedom is considered a human right by millions world-wide, which suggests individuals have a desire to believe in something that serves a higher purpose than themselves. The Apostles of the New Testament taught that subjection to the governing powers was ineludible, as long as that subjection did not violate the higher, divine, law of God, which supersedes any temporal political jurisdiction.  At their core, the Apostles were disestablishmentarians, as were many of America’s founding fathers and their contemporaries overseas in Great Britain who argued against the established Church of England. 

For Christians, reason dictates that morality and religion do not derive from the same place, nor should they be upheld by the same authority. There should be no established State religion from which legislation is written. There should be no church that governs the actions of Man. Ideas come and go and philosophies develop and fade away just like words.  Antidisestablishmentarianism has vanished from the common vernacular, but the concept is very much alive, it lives on in modern political practice, but perhaps it is time it vanishes as well. 

Pacifism in Action

Engage almost anyone in a discussion on pacifism, and you'll inevitably be cornered with some form of this same question (sometimes disguised as a hypothetical):"Oh, so you would just let the bad guys do bad things and not use **insert favorite weapon** to kill them?"

While this question might have merit, it's really overlooking the ultimate goal: to be a peacemaker (not stop a singular attack). Jesus tells us in Matthew 5 that children of God are peacemakers. But what really is peace?

Peace is defined as “free from disturbance”. To be peacemakers we have to seek solutions in order to calm disturbances. Ever wondered why most states call even defensible homicides before a Grand Jury? Ever wonder why legal retainers for gun owners are strongly suggested? It's quite simple: returning violence isn't considered to be peacemaking. Jesus would tell his apostles that he who lives by a sword would die by a sword. Or, more generally, he who uses violence will have violence returned to him.

When Stephen was being stoned in the earlier part of Acts, would he have been considered "harmless as doves" had he got up and sliced everyone's head off? Absolutely not. When violence was done to Stephen, like Jesus, they both endured and prayed.

Pacifism is the true path to peace, not defensible violence, and we know this! We use it all day, every day to be peacemakers. Why do you pay taxes? So that the state won't rush into your home at gunpoint. Why do you do what your boss wants you to do when you may disagree? Why is it easier to do what your spouse wants than to force your desires in the situation? Simply because pacifying someone is a phenomenal way to bring about peace and be peacemakers.

Now, I'm sure you still have, or have at least heard of, some nearly impossible to answer hypothetical questions that you or someone think pacifism would be unable to resolve.

But, let's consider a few things here.

1. Violence is not just about you.

It isn't always about stopping a single instance of violence against someone, but peacemaking has lasting implications in solving violence now and in the future. When you make peace with a person, instead of doing harm, especially when that harm includes death, the effects are generational. We are not islands, every person has a family, whether it is parents, siblings, kids, or a spouse- all are affected by what happens in that individual’s life.

Responding with violence only begets more violence. You cannot overcome evil with evil,it must be overcome with good. Your actions can help turn a violent spouse or father into a loving one. They can help turn a child disobedient to parents into an obedient child. And even further, if you are still harmed, how will those around you now see you as someone searching for peace? Would the stoning of Stephen, in Acts, have as big of an impact if he whipped out a sword and started stabbing his attackers? Certainly not. The actions of Stephen are powerful because he prayed for his enemies’ forgiveness. They’re the same actions of his Lord, Jesus, on the cross. So should our actions imitate.

What happens if you shoot at an attacker, miss, enrage them further, and are, yourself, killed? Who, then, is going to defend the others around you, who are more likely to face heightened rage themselves?.

 There are others around you. Think about when you watched a hostage situation in either a movie or a real life situation. What does the negotiator try to do? Pacify the attacker to save the lives of the group.

 “We will give you a million dollars, pizza, a helicopter...just think about what you're threatening to do!”

The Christian rapper, NF, has a song with some power lyrics talking about how our actions against violence can affect others:

This girl at the show looked me in the face

And told me her life's full of drama

Said that her dad is abusive

Apparently he likes to beat on her mama

I got so angry inside

I wanted to tell her to give me his number

But what you gon' do with it right?

You gon' hit him up then he'll start hitting her harder

That's real

Our actions of aggression can most certainly harm others.

2. If you're not peacemaking, you're forcing others to seek violence

They don't call it an "arms race" for just any reason. They call it such because the first to come up with the deadliest weapon is considered the winner. Ever wonder why tons of countries are always trying to develop nuclear weapons? Because they're trying to defend against someone with a nuclear weapon.

Back to our hostage negotiation scenario again, what often happens? They talk but show they are unarmed. Why? Arms are a threat. Someone unarmed isn't a threat. If we are to be as harmless as doves then as Christians we are to not be perceived as a threat.

If we show up with a knife, evil people will grab guns. Show up with guns, and they'll come up with bombs. Why are we participating in arms races? Let's just call them the winner and quit making things worse for others.

In conclusion, pacifism is the only solution for peace. We must quit thinking about just ourselves in a single moment and truly think about all others both now and in the future. Provoking enemies and participating in arms races will only make the enemies more powerful and more capable of harm.

Rather, we should be harmless. To love our enemy, we must seek ways to end disturbances, not provoke them.

[Photo Credit: The Flower Power photograph by Bernie Boston, taken during "March on The Pentagon", 21 October 1967.]

Never Follow Orders

Nuremberg trials

The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals after WWII where members of the Nazi party who carried out the Holocaust were tried for war crimes. The Superior Orders defense was used so extensively in these tribunals, the term has now become interchangeable with “the Nuremberg defense.” This defense asserts that a person cannot be held responsible for their actions if they were under direct orders from a superior to carry them out. In the Nuremberg trials, it was ruled that this was not a valid defense when charged with war crimes. It was certainly a sobering moment in human history for all to consider how far they were willing to go under orders of an authority figure.

Milgram experiment

Inspired by the Nuremberg trials, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram devised an experiment to measure obedience to authority figures. The subjects of the experiment were made to believe they were assisting in a study on how punishment affected a person’s ability to memorize information. The subject was instructed to give the “learner” a shock each time they gave an incorrect response. The subjects believed they were giving real electrical shocks to the other person, who in reality was an actor pretending to receive these shocks. The actor would increasingly protest as the imaginary shock voltage increased, to the point of crying out and banging on the wall for the experiment to stop. At the highest voltages, the actor would fall silent. If the subject hesitated in being willing to administer the shocks, the experimenter would reinforce the importance of them continuing with the experiment. Milgram learned that 65% of the subjects were willing to carry out the experiment until they had reached the maximum voltage of electric shock. Although every subject paused at least once to question the experiment, the majority of them were willing to continue when instructed to do so by the authority figure. This was certainly a shocking result. The 65% of subjects who continued to the end of the experiment believed that they had rendered an innocent person unconscious or potentially killed them, but were willing to do so because their instinct to obey authority was so strong.

Six years after the experiment, during the height of the Vietnam war, one of the former subjects wrote to Milgram explaining why he was thankful he had participated in the experiment:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority ... To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself ... I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience.

Muhammad Ali resisting the draft

Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight boxing champion of the world in the golden era of boxing and has been ranked the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time. He was outspoken and oftentimes provocative which led to him becoming an icon. Mentored by Malcolm X, Ali converted to the Nation of Islam. In 1966 the requirements for draft eligibility changed and Ali was notified that he would be eligible to be drafted. He announced that he would refuse to serve in the US army as it was against his religious beliefs and applied for conscientious objector status. His application was denied and he was ordered to appear for induction to the US army in April of 1967. Although he did appear, he refused to step forward when his name was called. Immediately Ali’s boxing license was revoked and he was stripped of his title as heavyweight champion. He was convicted of the criminal offense of violating the selective service laws. He appealed his case and was allowed to remain free through the appellate process. Although he was barred from boxing, he began speaking out against the war around the country. By the time his case went before the supreme court, public opinion on the war had shifted and his case was overturned. Muhammad Ali was not only willing to resist authority but to put his entire life, career, and freedom on the line to stand up for his convictions. His actions had a major effect on public opinion and increasing pressure on politicians to end the war in Vietnam. 

Who do you follow?

You are probably given “orders” to follow multiple times a day. Your boss will ask you to complete certain tasks, customers may have requests of you, your family members may ask you to do chores, even following a recipe when you cook. You can never escape following orders, but you can make a point to be conscious of making following orders a secondary reason for the choices you make. Your boss may ask you to complete a task. You choose to follow through on it because you understand and agree with the vision of the company and feel like that task is in line with that vision as well as an efficient use of your time. It is important to practice measuring the small every day orders you follow against your personal ethics, so you are prepared and willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to uphold your principles when more serious situations arise. Is doing something you believe in more important than how much money you make? Is how much money you make more important than spending extra time with your family? 

The pull to blindly submit to authority is very strong and not only psychologically. There are oftentimes serious personal and professional consequences as well. What would it take to make you quit your job or risk getting fired? What lines, if crossed, would result in the ending of a personal relationship? It’s important to have clear boundaries in every personal and professional relationship, but these boundaries don’t come without consequences. It may not be as black and white as ending the relationship altogether, but deciding what is and is not worth fighting for requires serious talk and some negotiation. 

It’s easy to look back on the Holocaust, the Milgram experiment, and the Vietnam war and perhaps picture yourself on the right side of history, standing up to authority and refusing to harm your fellow human beings. Don’t make the mistake of believing yourself to be harmless. These were not anomalies in history, but examples of harnessing natural human nature into a force for catastrophic destruction. The benefit of hindsight makes things easy to recognize, but even today, we see praise for government agents separating families, imprisoning peaceful people, or even killing. Recognize this nature also lies within yourself and stay vigilant. Take responsibility for every thought, word, and action and never simply follow orders.

COVID-19 Stories: ReOpen MN

On March 16, 2020, Minnesota was pretty much closed for business. I went to a restaurant for lunch that day. My party and another party of two were the only ones dining at a normally busy local lunch destination. The staff was cleaning furiously and paying special attention to everything we touched. Restaurants in Minnesota were to be closed on the following day. 

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a man who usually has a soft-spoken and pleasant demeanor that conflicts with his heavy-handed governing style, addressed the state to let us know that he had not ordered a shelter-in-place order because Minnesotans were doing it on their own. It was a relief to see that the governor was recognizing that people were making smart decisions on their own, but it was unlike our governor. On March 25th, he unilaterally issued an executive order that Minnesotans were to shelter-in-place until Good Friday, an order which would later be extended until May 1st.

By the time the initial order would have ended, it was obvious that many Minnesotans were fed up. Many proceeded with Easter family gatherings as if everything were normal. By the end of the following week, it was clear that Minnesota was becoming an emotional powder keg, ready to blow at any time. Many were scared for their health and the health of their loved ones. Others dealt with the challenges of being out of work and having their kids out of school. I was most concerned about what a world with a devastated economy, a massive amount of fear, and an overreaching government would look like for my daughter. I didn't know how I was going to stand up for my family in the wake of this frightening new world that was unfolding. 

Those feelings prompted a liberty-loving friend and me to embark on a complaining session. I should have known better. Complaining to this particular friend (shout out to Matt Kowalski) oftentimes results in him brainstorming a course of action to pursue. We were sick of seeing a growing number of friends struggling financially, and we were more than happy to play revolutionaries. Soon we were rallying a team of people with similar ideals and skills to join us and the five of us became the founding members of ReOpen MN. That’s when things started actually happening. Our Facebook page grew quickly. We made relationships with similar groups and it was awesome.

That all changed for me the day that I asked the members of our page about their personal stories. It was like the balloon of optimism I had been riding had been violently poked with a needle, and the needles just kept coming. One of the first stories I received was about a drug overdose. Then, a story about a man dying of heart failure, yet the surgery was deemed "elective". Heart-breaking story after story followed:

• A married couple I knew personally whose daughter survived brain cancer was unable to get the myriad of follow up appointments she needed.

• A laid-off nurse who could no longer get the spinal injections she needs to relieve her crippling pain.

• A woman who was blocked from accessing treatments she needs to manage her Lymes disease.

• Several single parents who couldn't possibly care for their families on the money the government would give them.

The endless stories put the whole thing in perspective. I had been worried about people's long term financial insecurity and the effects it may have on things like suicide rates, but people were telling me personal stories about death and suffering that were actually happening in real-time. While governors spew rhetoric about saving "even one life", they've chosen to pick who lives and who dies. 

It gets harder and harder for me to tolerate the "people's lives are more important than the economy" narrative when people are dying due to economic circumstances. In an attempt to save those with compromised health, we've chosen to let many others die. I understand we've been trying to keep the healthcare industry from being overwhelmed, but in doing so we've also told that industry who to save and who to let go. 

As a Christian, I have to believe all life is sacred and made in the image of God. I'm not willing to choose who will live and who will die. The saddest part is most hospitals aren't even having the problems with capacity that were predicted(The University of Washington model tracks ICU bed capacity. On April 2nd it was reported that New York governor Andrew Cuomo was warning that New York would run out of ventilators in 6 days. On April 15th, New York was giving ventilators to other states.) As we can see now, the decision to prioritize some lives over others did not have to be made.

Constitutional Crisis: The Real Virus

My progression towards Anarchism began when I started studying the founding documents and the other writings by the authors of The United States Constitution. Little did I know that I was on a path that would turn my understanding of the political world upside down.

The Constitution is the document that outlines how the government is to establish and maintain its legitimacy and restrict it’s authority. The first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, are supposed to secure and protect our Liberty. Do I believe the Constitution has been proven ineffective? Yes. Do I believe if the Constitution was actually followed we would be in a better situation than we are today? Yes. Does this mean the constitution should be regarded as some God given authority? Absolutely not! It is probably best recognized as a rule book ratified by the States to create the Federal government. 

At the time of this writing, we are in a crisis, and that crisis is not Covid-19. We are in a Constitutional crisis. We are in a Loss of Liberty crisis.The Bill of Rights is being stripped right before our eyes, and it is happening with thunderous applause from Americans. I expect pushback from other Anarchists and Statists alike for this article and that's fine. Both will say, why do you care what the Constitution says--you are an Anarchist.

There is a very simple explanation for that and it goes something like this: I believe Anarchists have a real responsibility to have a working knowledge of the United States Constitution, because with it we can point to the numerous violations of the Constitution committed by the government in conversation with both Statist and non-Statist.

We will never convince a Statist that Anarchism is preferable to a centralized government without being able to point out the violations of our Liberty the federal and/or state governments  have and continue to commit. To do this we as Anarchists need a working knowledge of the Constitution--without that, Statists will continue to disregard our attempts at pointing out how a Voluntary society is preferable to a society that relies on a centralized government. 

Before we continue

I need to preface the rest of this article with this: my understanding of the Constitution is from an originalist point of view. I have no interest in Supreme Court rulings that are meant to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about who the final arbiters of the Constitution were and it is We the People. Not someone adorned in a black robe.

He made this clear in many letters written about his concern for Judicial tyranny.

“If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,”..., then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law…”

Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general supreme one  alone. This will lay all things at their feet… I will say, that” against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm…”

Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

The oath

Politicians of all parties, police officers, and soldiers in the military all swear the same oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.This oath makes it  necessary to understand the original intention behind the Constitution, the same intention that is being violated daily by those who swear an oath to it. 

I completely agree with Lysander Spooner’s assessment of the Constitution, when he says:

"...whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." 

And to quote my favorite founder, Patrick Henry, who himself refused to sign the Constitution:

“It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it….Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing- give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else!”

Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

That being said I still believe we should have a working knowledge of the Constitution. We have to, as Anarchists, be capable of pointing out to someone when they are defending government actions that violate the Constitution. People are waking up to our awful situation, but they need some direction. The Constitution isn't difficult to understand, especially if you approach it by reading what was put down in various State responses.

James Madison served as one of the chief architects of the Constitution and championed the Bill of Rights. He took extensive notes of the proceedings of the Federal Convention and insisted that the document be interpreted according to the understanding of its ratifiers. He believed the records of the state ratification conventions provided the best evidence of the Constitution's original meaning, saying:

“Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the  Constitution. As the instrument came from them it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State Conventions. If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not in the General Convention, which proposed, but in the State Conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution.”

How’s the Constitution today? Let's examine the 1st amendment  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

We are witnessing this amendment being violated by governors and law enforcement officers alike, both of which, we should remember, have taken oaths to uphold this “sacred” document . For instance, look at the pastor in Tampa who was arrested for holding a church service or the multiple reports of folks being given citations for hanging out with family and friends. One such example is a father being detained for playing catch with his 6 year old daughter in a Colorado park.

Let's examine the 4th amendment

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In Rhode Island, the governor announced that the national guard will be conducting house to house searches to hunt down New Yorkers seeking refuge in their state. In addition, Rhode Island police officers will be pulling over every vehicle they see with a New York license plate.  This order was rescinded due to a lawsuit threatened by NY governor Cuomo, which in itself is laughable considering his continued violations of the 4th amendment. 

Let's examine the 5th amendment

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject  for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

“Due Process” is defined by the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Upon examination of this article, we should be able to admit that every stay-at-home order and business obliged to close due to state-force clear violation of the 5th amendment.

We have a real opportunity as Anarchists here 

Our rights are not suspended due to a pandemic and with a working knowledge of the Constitution, we as Anarchists/Voluntarists can begin to point out the multitude of violations the state has made against its own rules. 

Before we can begin to point out what a free society could look like, we must meet people where they are. Your average American will not take the time to research the original intent of the Constitution, but will choose to listen to what their favorite politician or mainstream media outlet says regarding the content of the Constitution, making it even more important to have this type of knowledge.

I applaud anyone who can help point folks to Liberty without pointing out the many contradictions and violations of the state. Studying the constitution has allowed me to better explain the infringements being made on our individual and collective rights, both as Americans and, for many of you reading this, Christians. 

Love Y’all!

The Pacifist Case For Gun Rights

Growing up, I learned that Jesus said to love our enemies. I understood the practical application of this to mean I should just ignore people who are mean to me. I believed that obviously wars are necessary (how else could we defeat the Nazis?), and, of course, you should defend yourself if someone is trying to hurt you or steal from you.

The first time I heard the idea that people who want to physically hurt me might be the same enemies Jesus said to love, it blew my mind! Not because I disagreed, but because I never thought about it in that way before. Then I took  a closer look at what Jesus was saying:

But to you who are listening, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

Luke 6:27-30

He is asking us to really see those seeking to cause us harm and look past their actions, to see who they really are, what their needs are, and to love them as God does. How can I help this person engaging in harmful behavior and maybe show them kindness and love they may have never experienced before?

In Biblical times people expected that when the Messiah came, He would be a warrior and a political leader. He instead allowed himself to be tortured and executed by political leaders. By doing so, he conquered sin and death and changed the world forever.

Jesus explained that the kingdom of God doesn't work the way the kingdoms of the world do. Whoever wants to be first must be last, and whoever wants to be greatest must be the servant of all. The way to bring about God's kingdom on Earth, the way to bring about peace, love, and justice, is by being a servant, even of those who would try to hurt you.

Now this does not mean closing your eyes to evil and sitting back doing nothing while horrible things happen. Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers. Being a pacifist means very actively working toward peace. If you witness someone stealing or murdering, it is not in their best interest to allow them to continue in this behavior. However, it is also not in their best interest to hurt or murder them in order to stop them.

God's justice works through healing and restoration. Meeting evil with love is the only way to stop the cycle of violence. This is why it is also important to actively love your neighbors and heal your community before people are driven to making the choice of harming others. 

During the civil rights movement, nonviolent resistance proved to be the most effective tool. In Martin Luther King Jr's letter from the jail in Birmingham, he explained why he was engaging in demonstrations against unjust laws and the importance of engaging in this activism non-violently. Civil rights groups actively worked toward a more peaceful world by shedding light on unjust laws to expose the violence and evils occurring in the world, rather than continuing to accept the status quo. They did this in a way that was loving toward their oppressors. Their actions showed they would not seek to harm anyone and would take blows and imprisonment without retaliation, and that they would not allow their oppressors to continue in their harmful behavior. They were seeking a way of healing and forgiveness.

One of my favorite books, Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, tells the story of Jean Valjean, a man driven, through poverty, to steal bread. He is imprisoned for this offense and remains there for 19 years because of multiple escape attempts. Upon his release, he finds that he is still not really free because no one is willing to hire an ex-convict. He is shunned from society and unable to even purchase food. A bishop takes him in, offers him what little food he has and a bed to sleep in. Jean Valjean, out of fear that he will never see kindness again in the future, takes the opportunity to steal the bishop’s silverware and leave in the night. He is then captured by the police. He tells them the bishop gave him the silverware, and the police take him back to get the bishop’s side of the story. To Jean Valjean’s amazement, the bishop not only corroborates his lie, but also gives him his silver candlesticks, saying he left in such a rush he forgot he had given him those as well.

This is everything of value that the bishop owns, and he freely gives it to the man who robbed him. He tells Valjean that with those candlesticks he is buying back his soul for God and that he must promise to become an honest man. This act of faith and kindness completely changes Jean Valjean’s life. In a world that treated him brutally his entire life, this was the first time anyone ever told him he has a soul and was willing to make a very real investment in his future and potential for goodness. Jean did not let this opportunity go to waste and spent the rest of his life living up to the Bishop’s investment in him. While this is a fictional example, fiction is often very adept at clearly illustrating important truths.

These examples show that we are not called to non-violence as just a rule to follow “because Jesus said so,” but because it is part of God’s plan to heal this broken world. It is our most effective tool to end suffering and create peace.

So how does the idea of gun control play into all this? Would a world of peace, love, and justice not include guns? Maybe. The thing it definitely wouldn't include is violence, as it's impossible to get there through violence. Many people believe the best way to limit gun violence is to make guns more difficult to own legally. The problem with this approach is that, in the name of peace, it increases violence. All laws are backed by force (violence). If something is illegal, the government will use force, up to and including violent force, to stop it. Of course, the government authorizes certain classes of people (military and police) to be exempt from these laws. In the case of gun laws, law enforcement officials are tasked with stopping other classes of people from merely passively owning weapons by using force if necessary. 

The only human rights are property rights. You own yourself and the product of your labor. Any attempt to harm peaceful people or steal or damage their property is a violation of their human rights. Guns are just property. Any violent attempt to separate someone from their property is not only immoral but ineffective. It is clear that other prohibition measures, such as alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and the War On Drugs, were massive failures. They not only increased violence and destroyed lives, but were ineffective at eliminating or reducing these items. This is what prohibition of any item does. 

The only way to achieve peace is by peaceful methods. Stop looking for political violence to be used against your enemies and start looking for ways to better love them. Make the decision that the cycle of violence stops here with you.

God Weeps for His Church

---

Biblical tradition has a way of hunting down and haunting the worst inclinations of people.  The prophets were bold enough to do this in real-time. Regardless of the character, biblical prophets gave necessary, albeit challenging, direction to God’s people.  Hosea, for example, went to such lengths to demonstrate God’s displeasure with Israel that he married a prostitute, “for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” He then named their subsequent children for God’s anger – “I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel,” “No Mercy,” and “Not my People.” Hosea goes on to conduct divorce proceedings with Israel on behalf of God, speaking to their idolatry, insolence, and deference to kings in place of the Lord, before God offers forgiveness for repentance.

Now, I'm no prophet.  I don't claim to have a word from God burning within me to reconcile His people to Him.  What I do have, like the prophets of old, is a hard word for American Christians. For too long, the Church - the body of Christ - has clung to ‘Ol’ Glory’ and the tenets of particular political parties instead of Christ Himself.  I find myself included in this group more often than I care to admit. 

In a political climate where ripping paper and shirking handshakes are business as usual, divisiveness and persuasion-polarization are nearing a fever pitch.  That's not to say this is the worst these United States have seen; we killed half a million of each other in a so-called "civil" war, we shot fire hoses and sent dogs on protestors for equity, we've survived the Great Depression and the Great Recession, 9/11, and the wars of Communist Containment and the Global War on Terror.  

Today, though, the discourse has shifted.  We aren't arguing ideologies; we're battling neighbor against neighbor over practically anything.  These aren't ethereal principles being advanced squarely in the political arena; this is the Colosseum with a line in the sand.  We want ever-more extravagant theatrics in place of debate, and we're all told to pick a side. This is progressivism in contemporary terms.  Every facet of life is political because every facet of life is due for examination with a federal lens. It is our duty as Christians to not only resist this basest urge but to divorce ourselves completely from it.  

Based on the latest Pew data, American Evangelicals and Mormons have an empirically Republican bent, while historically black Protestant churches are reliably Democrat supporters.  Both camps of political Christians have been resounding supporters of their most recent presidents, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama, respectively. Each report "ascribing a high-level of importance to their personal faith and say they participate in religious activities," yet the question is, 'where are the fruits?'

It doesn’t take a lot of time on the internet to find behaviors, statements, and policies from both parties and presidents that poorly represent Christ or make the country less safe for faith adherents.  To name a few:

• The bipartisan support of the federal domestic spying program.

• The seemingly never-ending wars of the Middle East.

• CIA torture program.

• The ever-growing list of governmental powers and its associated bloated budget. 

• The rampant and grisly drone program known world-wide for targeting weddings, funerals, and school buses full of children.

Many of the worst aspects of the American government are common ground for the political class.  Yet Christ-followers are not flooding the streets or rebuking these policies in any meaningful way.  Institutionally, the Church remains silent on much of this, instead choosing only to affirm social issues they deem worthy.

Instead, conservative Christians attempt to justify war crimes, the pardoning of war criminals, torture, despotic immigration measures, and a record-setting military budget on Christian grounds.  Conversely, liberal Christians can be found publicly supporting abortion, questions on marriage and ‘social justice,’ and turning a blind eye to the same foreign policy atrocities as their counterparts. 

This phenomenon isn't just misguided theology.  It is the worst aspect of an increasingly partisan and growing state apparatus that intrudes upon all aspects of life and therefore necessitates picking a political team. Some refer to it as mere tribalism, that peoples' tendency to organize along "in-group" lines manifests in such ugly ways.  Christians, though, should see the political process for what it is in our terms: idolatry. 

Throughout Hosea – and within the rest of the prophetic and historical books of the Bible, beginning in 1 Samuel 8 – God's anger is directed at this very inclination in His people.  The Israelite's belief in man-made social organization, be it rulers or erudite policymaking, to usher in God's will for them was a great offense to God. It was hubris to think kings could establish a utopian vision of peaceful coexistence in love-filled communities while subduing the earth.   But it wasn’t only pride, rather, a direct repudiation of God’s order. Creation wasn't to hand the reins of control to man, but rather an invitation to ride along in the cart while God led the way. 

Historically, liberal Christians, particularly those in the black community, are motivated by injustice when picking political sides.  Yet injustice continues, even within the ranks of the Democratic party, it is often perpetrated directly upon the poor and minority communities they claim to support.  Abortions, draconian laws, the separating of families for non-violent crimes, oppressive police states, and hefty tax burdens are all foisted upon these folks by the very representatives they vote into office.

On the other hand, conservatives have tended toward traditional means of governance, including ‘original intent’ within Constitutional ‘exegesis,’ to preserve the liberty to worship and the values of Christianity.  Yet, the blood of innocence cries out from the earth, spilled from regulators and warmongers lurking in DC these very Christians are frothing to support. The Christian Evangelical movement is wholly distorted by red-faced bluster about patriotism and ‘walking with a big stick,’ moot principles for those meant to inherit this earth.  

As flags were unfurled and hearts were covered, American Christians should have been the first to take a knee.  Not for one particular issue, but for the glory of God. There is no functional difference between the statue of Nebuchadnezzar and the monuments American's hold dear.  The worship of the golden calf and the obsequious praise of the stars and stripes are one and the same. What’s worse, Christ-followers aren’t being threatened with the lion’s den, but worship stone and paper joyfully.

Brothers and sisters, resist the urge to venerate troops or the framed-faces of presidents adorning our walls.  Sing your songs not to cloth and stone but to God’s glory, and refuse to pledge your allegiance to any king but Christ. For we are called to be set apart from unbelievers for God’s sake, not to be unrecognizable in the crowd of faces seeking man’s direction.

Contributors

John Dangelo is a Christian, husband, father and full-time emergency room nurse.  As a former Marine Corps veteran, John writes about the relationship of Christians and the state, foreign policy, and has been featured with antiwar.com.  You can follow his blog and Instagram at antiwarwarvet.com and @antiwarwarvet.