This draft was started on June 5, 2021. This is a work-in-progress until this notice remains.
Christian anarchism is a particular theological framework and doctrinal position that stipulates that human governments are antithetical to the Christian faith in the sense that they are not part of God's ordained moral order but are instead a result of man's sinfulness, allowed by Sovereign sufferance only in God's forbearance and foreknowledge.
Christian anarchism espouses an exclusivist ontology, viewing the Kingdom of God in and through Jesus Christ as an exclusive sphere or realm of rule, allegiance, loyalty and fidelity that is mutually exclusive to all other claims of rule, allegiance, loyalty and fidelity.
Separately, Christian anarchism may also be seen as an ethical framework that provides an explicitly Christian metaphysical foundation to anarchist or natural law ethics, by grounding it in the ethics (or, moral law) revealed in the Scriptures, which is, for the scope of the current subject matter, unsurprisingly, coincident with anarchist or natural law ethics, that are derivable from pure reason.
At this juncture, already, the reader, if not already a Christian anarchist or if not already positively disposed to these ideas, will find the above introductory comments to be jarring. Some prefatory notes are, therefore, in order.
Christian anarchism is not meant to be some obscure or esoteric theological curiosity or technical argument about minutiae on marginal subjects and neither is it meant as a new teaching or revelation. Rather, the ideas are presented as being wholly compatible with the rest of orthodox faith and as old as the Gospel and indeed as merely being a re-emphasis of a core and essential aspect of the Gospel that has been, for various reasons, eclipsed, obfuscated and corrupted, both gradually and suddenly, as well as intentionally and unintentionally.
The people newly becoming aware of the idea are known as 'Christian anarchists'.
To frame the discussion, using an analogy, the reader is now invited to imagine that the ancient heresy of Docetism suddenly starts dominating the churches. This heresy denies that Christ was fully man. In this environment, we may imagine a newly awakened group of people known as "Christian incarnationists" preaching a new awakening called "Christian incarnationism". Now, the idea itself is old and is a core part of the Gospel and Christian Scriptural revelation. This awakening would only exist as a separate thing because large portions of the church lost this particular truth.
Likewise, it is the case today with the necessity of "Christian anarchism" and "Christian anarchists". It is the prayer of many Christian anarchists, as it is of this author, that one day there will not be a need to preach this truth with such a strong and special emphasis, and that it once again becomes part of mainstream Christian preaching and teaching, as it was in the beginning of the Gospel, with Christ and the Apostles.
First and foremost, it is important to define the key term "human government", which is here synonymous with the "State"
Definition of 'The State'
The State is a group of human beings that are assumed by many concerned (not necessarily most or even a majority) to have an exemption to the moral law, which normally applies equally and equitably to all human beings, without exemptions or exceptions, given the simple fact that all human beings are equal in moral dignity. These special persons, that are part of the State, are assumed to have "authority" over everyone else, i.e. they are assumed to be entitled to a rightful monopoly over violence, ostensibly to "define" and enforce "law", over a given population. If one man is an authority over another, it is analogous to and literally akin to master-slave relationship. The slave does not and cannot consent to such a relationship. In such a relationship, the master is not bound to the moral law, by definition, with respect to the slave but literally owns and supersedes the slave's conscience and self-ownership. However, if every man is bound to the moral law, then, "authority", whether of a private master-slave type or that of a State does not exist.
In the above, we only discuss authority. The power of the State, however, is an entirely different matter. The power of the State, as the power of the master, is real. However, in the case of the private master-slave, the slave's beliefs about the illegitimacy of the situation may not have much influence over removing master's power and control, whereas, in the case of the State, the power of the State rests entirely on the mythical false belief that confers the non-existent attribute of "authority" to the gang of criminals or terrorists with criminal intent, currently in charge. It is not hyperbolic to refer to the State as a gang of criminals or terrorists, since these people have obtained and frequently use unjust power, obtained through the criminal violation of moral law.
A frequent red herring is that there might be consensual forms of association, hierarchy and organization that are sometimes also called "governments" (e.g. church boards, corporate organization, etc.). Furthermore, the institutional "governance" of the prevailing customs/conventions etc. in any given society are also quite unlike a State. However, historical reality and common usage make these distinctions and clarifications unnecessary. Making this distinction might also leave the reader with a modicum of unfounded and misleading hope that there might actually be extant or past human governments that were not necessarily 'States'.
The Church believes that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God incarnated in human form. His birth, life, words, deeds, death, resurrection and ascension, and the inauguration of a new Kingdom of peace, justice and righteousness, with Jesus Christ Himself as the rightful and just and only King, is the Good News (Gospel) that He began to proclaim about Himself, and which proclamation was continued by the Apostles and the Church, ever since, which was built on that foundation.
Of course, this Good News for all humanity is bad news for the powers that oppress and enslave people and corrupt justice and peace among men today. The most oppressive and brutal types of these powers are States -- i.e. terrorist or criminal gangs that enjoy false legitimacy by virtue of arrogating to themselves, and having people believe, the aura or veneer of the Kingdom.
A defining moral commandment in the Mosaic Law, as it relates to inter-personal ethics in human relationships, is the prohibition of murder and theft (as well as rape and fraud). In fact, murder, rape and fraud may be seen as a type of theft -- thereby, logically reducing the prohibition of the moral law to "thou shall not steal". In any case, the objective morality of this law, equivalently, the objective immorality of theft is widely (perhaps, universally) believed, even among those outside the Abrahamic faith traditions. (Hoppe showed that the right of any human being to their own property is impossible to argue against).
A more simplified form is "don't hurt people". Even children understand the rightness and perfect symmetric fairness of this rule.
This law is universal -- which means that no human being can be rightfully exempt from it.
Now, of course, in fact, people break the moral law all the time -- however, the point is that if the moral law is universal, no law of morality exists that rightfully exempts some human beings from it, such that a commitment of theft miraculously becomes lawful, in some exceptional circumstances.
If natural moral law is equitable and no human being may rightfully enjoy special privileges over another -- thereby, rendering impossible the institution of rightful monopoly over violence/power/enforcement/law, aka the State, how is justice achieved when enforcement becomes necessary.
When enforcement against injustice (theft) is necessary, it is a market need and the short answer is that the market need will be met by those who find it profitable. This may be the victim or their direct agents, or other third parties. Sometimes, victims may choose to forgive a debt of justice owed them. In other instances, a community may choose to peacefully ostracize (voluntary disassociation) a particularly egregious or repeat offender, to reduce risk of enforcement against particularly unsavory characters and as a means of deterrent.
What is the role of the Church? The Church is the Kingdom of God. As such, moral law, justice and jurisprudence is or ought to be practiced within. In particular, the Church is a place where ostracism or forgiveness may be practiced much more frequently -- both of which are less laden with violence and risk than pure enforcement. In this way, the Church models Christ. Even if absolute pacifism is not mandated, it is at least noble and heroic and worthy of emulation and, quite likely, salvific. Another perspective is that the enforcement of justice may very well be permissible in every case, but not necessarily always good. Some more thoughts are collected here.
..beatitudes..
...caesar...
The problem with modern exegesis is essentially that the modernist (i.e. Statist) worldview completely permeates almost all theological traditions such that anarchist truth has been successfully rendered as impossible. The idolatrous and blasphemous Statist presumption suffuses large swaths of formal Christian religion.
There are various ways to start to break through the vise grip.
Ethan Paul Dobbins
When Jesus said render to Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God what is God's it said that it was a rebuke because the Jews were seeking a reason to have him convicted to be killed by the Romans. Anti taxation sedition was their goal. His answer satisfied a Roman because they felt that they're allegiance was to Caesar but a Jew who knew their scriptures knew that they said dozens of times that God alone is the possessor of the heavens and earth. He asked them to see the coin and asked who's face was on it and it was Caesar and the inscription said that Caesar was the son of God to a Jew this meant that Caesar was making himself equal to a god and the god it referenced was his deified biological human father. A Jew would know that this coin violated the rule against graven images as well as idolatry. A Jew would know that if they rendered everything to God that is his there would be nothing left for Caesar. Why did they ask this question? Because many lower class Jews including those who follow Jesus believed that taxation was wrong. Jesus himself said that the children of God are free but only to pay so as not to offend. The Christian anarchist who is concerned about taxation being theft is emulating the selfless Love of Jesus because they are firstly concerned with the poor and downtrodden who are disproportionately affected by taxation and government regulation by licensure and fee. Taxation isn't just theft. It's slavery. I don't want my fellow man to be enslaved to the elites.
True moral law de-legitimizes initiatory violence.
However, the question of the morality of defensive force remains. Defensive force manifests either as security or as enforcement of justice -- usage of coercion to forcefully prevent theft or regain restitution from a non-cooperative violator.
Clearly, if any type of force is valid and moral for a Christian, then, the only type of force that is valid or moral is defensive force.
The school of thought that lands on the side of even eschewing defensive force is called 'pacifism'. Many Christian anarchists [who? cite?] have argued that the example of Christ before Pilate as well as some instructions given to the Apostles indicate the necessity of strict pacifism for Christians. Examples from history (Gandhi, Operation Auca, Rosa Parks, etc.) as well as anthropological insights from Rene Girard point to the necessity of self-sacrifice ("turning the other cheek") if one is to extinguish violence. The other side would argue that this sort of self-sacrifice is virtuous and heroic and morally exemplary but not necessary. The question remains vexing for the current author.
Politics, especially in modern electoral democracy and the action of electing representatives, is largely violence and war -- it authorizes a small group of people to lay exclusive legal claim to legitimate violence.
Having said that, there may be some actions within the poltical realm that can be seen as self-defense - for example, defensive voting against further tyranny in resolutions or using the platform to spread the message without ever cooperating with passing any bill.
If pacifism is not necessary and self-defense is permissible, some self-defensive political action may be useful. For the most part, for most people, the sheer psychology of power dynamics and the structure of the State as well as one's own weaknesses of ego or finances, renders this route fraught with risk and danger, and it might be best avoided altogether.
Outside voting and elections, there are necessary peaceful and non-violent ways to speak truth to power -- to any level of the State.
