Talk:Christian anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Love

I am dissapointed there is not mention of Jesus's notion of the new law (covenant) which is written on the heart, that being love your neighbor as yourself. Article needs a lot more specific Biblical reference.

This isn't actually history. We all indulge our hobby-horses in this fashion sometimes. A mention of the 16th century perception of Anabaptists as anarchic might give the appearance of weight. The Cathars are a dependable stick to beat anyone with. I do it all the time. But were they Christians? Basically, I don't think "Christian anarchism" can fly as a historical conception. Just my opinion, Not Pretty Or Valid, I'm sure... Wetman 13:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes you are right, their Christian status was probably dubious, although they clearly were religious dissidents with an anarchic underlay. I've put in brief mention of the Anabaptists, very interesting, I didn't know about all that, what an educational place this is!

Thanks TonyClarke

you say "Basically, I don't think "Christian anarchism" can fly as a historical conception." but Christian anarchism is real. Just read about Leo Tolstoy.TheTruth12 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity became the official language of the Empire in c390.

? --Sam

[edit] Fall of the Roman Empire

I deleted the sentence:

"The Bible illustrates that the early Christians, shortly after Jesus' death, were living a simple and anarchist-like way of life, with "no poor" and "total equality".

1. On Total equality - Passages such as Acts 4:34 show that people provided for the poor, but plenty of passages, such as 1 Timothy 6:17, show that there was not total equality. 2. On anarchist-like way of life, even where provision was made for the poor, this was not done without human authority, e.g. the aposltes appointed people with this responsibility in Acts 6:1-7 Saying "the Bible illustrates", without references, is not very helpful. -- BenStevenson 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas

I admit I know nothing about it, outside what I just read on the web page, but http://TheChristmasConspiracy.com/ certainly claims to be both anarchist and Christian. So I restored that link to Christian anarchism. Your edits are usually excellent. I hope you don't mind that I reverted this one. --DavidCary 03:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To DavidCary: Look a little further into the page. The Christmas Conspiracy advocates a limited nation government based on the "Founder's vision of a strictly limited government". While they have some anarchist stances in terms of markets and localized governments, they still accept the overarching view of a national constitutional government. Hope this clears this up. Thanks for the note, by the way, but this conversation usually is taken up in the talk page. --The Grza 18:04, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? Their front page claims:

Our goal is to eliminate the State altogether. Jesus told us to. So call us "anarchists."

I tried looking a litte further into the site.

http://TheChristmasConspiracy.com/abolition.htm

claims:

Can't we use the Constitution to return to the kind of limited government envisioned by its Framers?

No.

Am I mis-reading something somewhere?

--DavidCary 22:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it probably doesn't belong on this page though... does it? it seems a bit too narrowly oriented toward a subsection of north america --Buridan 00:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess you're right. They argue with the point a bit, and in some sections argue for a limited constitutional government in line with the original constitution by repeatedly citing the founding fathers and their opinions on government as the "true" opinions. I read a little more though, and you're right. They're anarchists, they just seem to be a little confused about our founding fathers. Thanks. --The Grza 04:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Law of mallards

Never heard of this; google search gives only this article (and a mirror). Can someone supply some references, context, and relevence to the article as a whole? Alai 17:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of the phrase before, and I'm pretty sure it just means informal and friendly relations. So it's the sort of thing anarchists would approve of, but I don't think it makes LDS anarchist. Zach 01:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seems like a big gap

Christianity before Constantine I and the Great Apostasy was pacifist and I think usually forbid Christians to be involved in government. Which is a lot closer to anarchism than some of the other things on this page -- anyone care to research and add this? I won't have time for a couple months. Zach 01:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax resisting

Can I get a source for this claim: " Some also choose not to fund violent government activities or armed forces through tax resistance." ? Traditionally, they believe they should not resist paying taxes. I wasn't aware that there was a split from that position. RJII 01:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ammon Hennacy was a Christian anarchist and tax resister. Not because he was self-centered but because he felt it was the best way not to support his government's violent actions. Strangely more people are choosing tax resistance from the UK and US today than ever before because of their governments positions in Iraq. You do not read about them because with internet access to offshore banks and personal assets neatly tucked away in a foundation or company, it has never been easier to be a nonviolent tax resister through legal means. The ones I know have funded charities rather than give money to the government.

Take your point on Leo Tolstoy though. I did some research and I could not find any evidence that he did resist, even though he was highly critical of what unethical uses taxes went towards. nirvana2013 14:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is from Tolstoy's work "The Kingdom of God is Within You": "

Q. Can he pay taxes to such a government?

A. No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government, and is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some kind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by the authorities.

RJII 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Tolstoy said about taxes "It is impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some kind". He wrote that in Russia in 1894 but times have changed. One can resist taxes without violence, and in fact perfectly legally, through tax avoidance. Our politicians have been using this technique for years! But I agree with Tolstoy, if one thinks the only option available to resist taxes is through violence then pay up, and pay up immediately without hesitating. --nirvana2013 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting that. If you refuse to pay your income tax, what happens? Violence is inflicted upon your property "he is obliged to offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by the authorities." Also, you may get tossed in jail, which is violence as well. The way to avoid violence from being inflicted on your property or you is to pay taxes. RJII 13:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Your reasoning is off. If you dont pay your taxes, Violence is INFLICTED UPON YOU. Thats ok. A Christian anarchist submits to violence being inflicted by someone else onto himself. Just like Jesus (when someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other). The question is whether you can avoid paying taxes without you inflicting violence on someone else. As Tolstoy says "the Christian cannot employ violence." TheTruth12 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You won't "get tossed in jail" for tax avoidance, it's legal. --nirvana2013 15:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a point to note, that Q&A on tax resistance did not originate from Tolstoy. He is quoting the words of Adin Ballou from "Catechism of Non-Resistance". --nirvana2013 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Tolstoy quote seems to be advocating tax resistance, or at least taking the position that to pay war taxes is "bad and shameful" and akin to conspiracy in murder:

“If only each King, Emperor, and President understood that his work of directing armies is not an honourable and important duty, as his flatterers persuade him it is, but a bad and shameful act of preparation for murder – and if each private individual understood that the payment of taxes wherewith to hire and equip soldiers, and, above all, army-service itself, are not matters of indifference, but are bad and shameful actions by which he not only permits but participates in murder – then this power of Emperors, Kings, and Presidents, which now arouses our indignation… would disappear of itself.”

-Moorlock 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am really confused as to how Christian anarchists can avoid paying taxes when Jesus said "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." If someone has another interpretation of this besides Jesus wanting people to pay their taxes, please explain it to me.TheTruth12 06:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Is there a preferred, or opposed, economic system for Christian anarchists? RJII 05:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

anarchists are opposed to capitalism and other forms of economic domination. kiwirad

So they're communists. RJII 15:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, any source for the claim that they Christian anarchists oppose capitalism? RJII 23:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No they are opposed to any earthly government, including communism. Communism is imposed, normally by force. Can't people care for each other without living in a system? We are all children of God after all. Nirvana2013

Communism is not a government. It's an economic system. And, it doesn't have to have to imposed if you get a group of altruistic people together. Whether it would last any significant amount of time before people started asserting their self-interest is another question. Anyway,

This is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "Anarchism continued to develop, partly in the direction of Proudhonian 'mutuellisme', but chiefly as communist-anarchism, to which a third direction, Christian-anarchism, was added by Leo Tolstoy..."
And this: "A third category is Christian Anarchism, which is very similar to Communistic Anarchism except that it derives its ideas and doctrines from the Christian Gospel rather than from worldly philosophers." [1]

It sure looks to me like Christian anarchists are communists. RJII 23:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Tolstoy was a follower and very strong supporter of the economics of Henry George. We might call it a free-market in everything within a system of communal land ownership. Georgism, like Tolstoy, doesn't fit into common capitalist/communist popular dichotomies, and further, has advocates from all over the political spectrum. The most consistent dichotomy to fit Christian anarchism is centralism/decentralism. We are pure decentralists. Also understand it as social organization by voluntarily joined Intentional Communities. The degree of voluntary cooperation (voluntary socialism) and degree of voluntary competition (voluntary free-market) could vary in different Christian anarchist communities, but the voluntariness is the foundation. Carltonh 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So, there's no explicit opposition to profit or "capitalism"? RJII 23:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Under the socialist definition of profit and capitalism, yes there is opposition. However, this is an incomplete definition that unfortunately obscures debate. I'm keenly aware of the semantic problem (and the degree where it is more than semantics) as a supporter of both Kropotkin and Murray Rothbard. Much of the over-limiting of definitions dates back to Proudhon who famously wrote both Property is theft and Property is freedom among other apparent contradictions if one doesn't allow for multiple definitions. To properly answer you NPOV explaining every side would take a lot of time, and might offend some peoples' idiosyncratic vocabulary (including some Christian anarchists). But "Capitalism" as a system of top down regulated markets is centralist, just as much as a system of top down regulated Soviets. Some anarchists define Capitalism as precisely that top down system, and that many so-called defenders of free-markets are really only defending exploitation through regulation and control of markets, like NAFTA, etc. For an argument for "Free-market anti-capitalism" see www.mutualist.org. Carltonh 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm very familar with that site and individualist anarchism. I'd like to see some kind of source or quote that shows Christian anarchism is anti-capitalist. If you don't have one off hand don't worry about it. Maybe someone will come up with one. RJII 00:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since money is a form of having power over people in a capitalist society. see: http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_anarchismcapitalismandanarchocapitalism.htm The jubilee is an anti-capitalist bibleical idea since it works against endless captial accumulation. kiwirad

My understanding is Christian anarchists have no problem earning money, if the money is earnt ethically. The problem is not money but people. For example, some people with money exert power over those who have none. The Christian anarchists I know, who have been lucky/successful in terms of making money, have set up trusts or foundations to help others and humanity in general rather than accumulated personal wealth themselves. They do not believe in the phrase "money is the root of all evil". In fact many subscribe to the phrase "poverty is the root of all evil" by quoting examples of the increased aggression and violence carried out in impoverished areas. nirvana2013 14:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I put in that they oppose capitalism and it was reverted as "ludicrous." Here's a source from the talk page of anarchism. Tothebarricades.tk, you said in your edit summary that Christian-anarchism opposes capitalism, as justification for you putting in that anarchists oppose capitalism in the intro. Do you have a source for this claim about Christian-anarchism? RJII 17:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a source[2]

The voluntary poverty of Jesus, his comments on the corrupting effects of wealth and the Biblical claim that the world was created for humanity to be enjoyed in common have all been taken [by Christian anarchists]as the basis of a socialistic critique of private property and capitalism...
Like all anarchists, Tolstoy [a major Christian anarchist] was critical of private property and capitalism. Like Henry George (whose ideas, like those of Proudhon, had a strong impact on him) he opposed private property in land...
Tolstoy argued that capitalism morally and physically ruined individuals and that capitalists were "slave-drivers." He considered it impossible for a true Christian to be a capitalist, for a "manufacturer is a man whose income consists of value squeezed out of the workers, and whose whole occupation is based on forced, unnatural labour" and therefore, "he must first give up ruining human lives for his own profit." [The Kingdom Of God is Within You, p. 338 and p. 339] Unsurprisingly, Tolstoy argued that co-operatives were the "only social activity which a moral, self-respecting person who doesn't want to be a party of violence can take part in." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 378]
For the record, the article also states "While there is a tendency for individuals in both camps to claim that the proposals of the other camp would lead to the creation of some kind of state, the differences between individualists and social anarchists are not very great. Both are anti-state, anti-authority and anti-capitalist" (though individualist anarchists may support some kind of market mechanism).

Dave (talk) 17:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

RJII 19:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana, you changed it to "many" oppose capitalism and profiting. Do you have a source of a Christian anarchist that doesn't oppose profit and capitalism? RJII 15:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem comes when an individual spends too much time and energy accumulating money for just himself, herself or their own family i.e. No one can serve two masters....You cannot serve both God and Money (Matthew 6:24). However money does sometimes have it's uses as it can be used for good causes aswell. For instance it does not have to be owned by you but used to grow a philanthropic trust or foundation (such as wikipedia), where the objective is to help people to help themselves. I am concerned that this page on Christian anarchism may start going away from the very nature of anarchism, which is choice and freedom. The only true commonality between all Christian anarchists is pacifism and an awareness that violence is self-destructive. We oppose governments who conduct violence on "our behalf" and choose vegetarianism as our preferred diet. It is God plus our own inner voice and soul that guide each of us, not laws. So coming back to economics, it is the choice of the individual how they earn their money, how they spend their money or if they want to earn money at all. If Christians want to live in a system where they are obliged to be good citizans then try Christian communism. --nirvana2013 09:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words you don't have a source. Just one notable christian anarchist that says he thinks it's ok to make a profit (engage in capitalism) would be good enough. Because everything else says capitalism is unethical. You can't reference the Bible ..you have to reference Christian anarchists' interpretation of the Bible. RJII 14:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

RJ, I think we agree that engaging in capitalism for one's own profit is not what Christian anarchists are about. All I was trying to illustrate in my previous post is that it is possible to engage in a business activity and not be "capitalist" if the proceeds are used for altruistic purposes. Let's not forget Leo Tolstoy "profited" from selling his books and was a member of the privileged Tolstoy family. He also had to make some money to pay back large gambling debts [3]. Unfortunately no one is perfect. As you know he suffered from depression and was close to suicide on one occasion as he felt the world was a living Hell (now we have entered the third of the world wars, who can really blame him). I have a problem with putting anarchists down as advocates of any economic system whether that be capitalist or communist. As was pointed out by Carltonh we are decentralists (i.e. advocates of greater power and freedom to individuals) rather than capitalists or communists in the text book sense, which normally requires varying degrees of centralisation. We are anarchists after all. Also there are more pressing issues to resolve, as unless we stop killing each other all economic systems are pretty pointless anyway. --nirvana2013 15:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

RJ, You might be intersted in this (old but still worth reading): http://www.casi.org.nz/publications/capcom.html I have quoted scripture that conflicts with capitalism - the Jubilee - which goes against the endless accumulation of modern capitalism. --kiwirad

A Christian anarchist is against any type of materialism. They would believe in a socialist-like sharing of goods.

Anarchism, Christian or otherwise, has generally utilized a critique of Marxism as well as Capitalism, though being admittedly more prone to Marxistic tendencies than Capitalistic ones. See May, Todd. The Political Philosophy of Post-Structuralist Anarchism

I think Christian anarchism would be opposed to money and property ownership. They would subscribe to the communal sharing of goods. So it would be like ideal marxism in its purest form.TheTruth12 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various Biblical Passages Cited by Anarchists

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52) ? - Omegatron 06:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have inserted it into the article --nirvana2013 19:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

more than just putting a limit on the accumulation of goods, the jubilee garantees land rights for all people in the ancient tribal confederacy of Israel and prevented the economic stratifacation of society, espeialy in the cancelation of debts on the Jubilee year. This is directly related to Samuel 8, where the people request a king and thus break down not only the placement of God as king but the prefered method of economics revealed on Sinai. Furthermore, in the probition against dept(Ex 22:25; Lev 25:36-7; e.g.), the Hebrew Bible places itself in direct opposition to modern capitalism.

I'd also like to point out the literally hundereds of places where oppresion and the oppressors are referd to as the enemies of God. Isaiah 58:5-6 is a good starting place, which also links directly to the works of Mercy described in Mat 25:42.

Considering we see an instituted governing authority for the Israelites in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers, government is not an inherent oppression. The term "oppressed" that is used in correlation of "government" is thus a mis-definition of "oppression." The Bible defines oppression as "man being bound to sin" (Rom.) and as "those who prevent the worship of the true religion". Government, however, is an instituted authority ordained by God (Rom. 13) and is even applied to the Old Testament Golden Era (see previous OT books I mentioned), so government is not an inherent oppression.--NWalterstorf 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I think it is unbalanced for this article to cite in full a long list of passages used in favour of "Christian anarchism", with little comment about how other people might interpret them, when the list of criticims does not cite the whole passage and gives the anarchist response. Therefore I will expand the quotations in the criticisms sections. -- BenStevenson 14:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven T. Byington

Editors may want to look into Christian anarchist Steven T. Byington. RJII 19:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Has he had an influence on the movement? I am not familiar with him. --nirvana2013 11:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aren't these two ideas mutually exclusive?

Although anarchism leaves room for supernatural faith. If one is under the control of a God and obeys it and supports it, is that person really an anarchist? The government is just a little "higher" up so to speak. There must be some anarchists that criticize this position as not actually being anarchist. Jdufresne 14:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Can you follow the gentle guidance of a spirit/force/God and still be an anarchist? My understanding of Christian anarchism is that it is anti-earthly authority but not one from a "little higher up", as you put it. But you are right, absolute anarchy means absolute freedom, so if God controls our environment then one day Man should try to break free from that aswell. Escape The Matrix! --nirvana2013 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Bakunin criticizes the belief in God on anarchist grounds: "[…] if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if such a master exists, man is slave […] if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty – by ceasing to exist. […] if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." (Michael Bakunin, God and the State, trans. Benjamin Tucker (New York: Dover Publications, 1970), pp. 27-8.) "If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist." (Bakunin, God and the State, p. 25). See also Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, ed. David Leopold, trans. Steven Tracy Byington (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 323. However, I think that this understanding of what it means to believe in God is defective in that it does not see the difference between submitting to a worldy power and submitting to a non-worldly power. Submitting to God need then not be so different from submitting to thought and rebellion (as Bakunin does, see Bakunin, God and the State, pp. 9 & 12).--HS 22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian existentialist Berdyaev answers Bakunin in finding the source of our freedom in God. The other thing to say is that without God we inevitably worship something else - which can enslave us - such as the state or market or other ideology kiwirad 17 october

We don't "inevitably worship something else" that doesn't make sense. We don't have to worship something at all times. I think your definition fo worship is a bit off. Jdufresne 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? Ultimately, all forms of anarchists have at least one other group of anarchists telling them that they're not 'really' anarchists, but something else altogether. Personally, I fail to see why it should matter if God existed or not to materialists, as long as we are free in the material sense and nobody is forcing us to follow such a religion. Madashell 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The ideal community described by anarchism is virtually the same as the ideal community of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The fact that religion and anarchism have been such mortal foes seems to be based on entirely cultural grounds, and not on doctrine at all. Nirvana2013 put it exactly right when describing "God as in control of our enviroment." In fact, from a scriptural perspective, God is our enviroment. This is the point of the revelation of the divine name "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" on Sinai to Moses (esentially, this is God explaining that what is happening is what is God, God is being/Being). Bakunin himself denies the possibility of revolt against this when he calls such natural, physical laws "omnipotent" (he actually uses that word), and further that we are slaves to such laws (God and the State.)Dionysius84 23:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just cultural grounds. Christianity demands submission to god, which to a lot of anarchists is functionally identical to submitting to a government, as someone just barely above your bit mentions, with 'quotes from Bakunin'. Think, read, then post. Pope Guilty 05:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxation

What does this mean exactly: "However Ammon Hennacy refused to pay taxes without resorting to violence"? You can't just refuse to pay taxes. If you don't pay, it's taken from you. The only way to refuse is by forcefully holding on to it. Can you explain? RJII 22:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ammon Hennacy made a stand against the U.S. government during WWII. He said he would not pay taxes on the grounds of being a conscientious objector. They seemed to let it go. They didn't even put him in prison, as far as I am aware. I suppose they had bigger fish to fry, with a war to fight and all. His income was negligible anyway as he had taken up simple living and bartering. He called it a "One Man Revolution in America!" --nirvana2013 22:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah ok. He wasn't using force to hold on to his money. He just didn't mail in a check, so to speak. RJII 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it strange he would "advocate" tax resistance. Those who followed that could get into significant legal trouble right? Not everybody is going to have Hennacy's luck of the government leaving him alone. RJII 23:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

He actually announced to the U.S. government that he would not pay taxes, rather than just failing to mail a cheque. A brave man indeed to confront the government. However he believed he had truth on his side, given his understanding of Christianity i.e. however noble the cause may seem, violence is never the answer, whatever others say or do. Mahatma Gandhi also discovered that if enough people took a moral stand against injustice through such activities as non-payment of taxes, then there is very little a government can do because truth is on their side (if not the law). It would certainly be an interesting turn of events if a large number of people in America took the same stand regarding the current Iraq War. --nirvana2013 10:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If government needs money to fund a war, it doesn't have to tax. It can just increase the money supply and cause inflation. Inflation is the government taking value out of your money without actually physically taking your money. That's why it's been called a "secret tax." Most wars throughout history were financed through inflation. RJII 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. It might make them sit up and think though, even if the actual reduced proceeds from a few hundred people doesn't make a dent in the defense budget. Anyway most people undertake these actions for their own conscience i.e. they don't like the thought that even one cent of their tax paid is being used for statist aggression in another country --nirvana2013 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Tolstoy did not "oppose" tax resistance [4] --nirvana2013 09:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like it clarified that many of the Christian Anarchists did not see themselves as being pacifists. For example the Berrigan brothers and the plowsharemovement today were and are non-violent activistswho practise non-violent resistance and definitely not pacifists.

I don't understand. A person can actively practice nonviolent resistance and also be a pacifist. Being a pacifist does not mean you are passive. --nirvana2013 17:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

yea, what that person said makes no sense. plus if you look at the Berrigan brothers, it appears that they are indeed pacifists, and it makes no mention of anarchism. so whatever TheTruth12 18:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, some catholic workers and other christian anarchists (including Ammon Hennacy[5]) have practiced tax resistance by keeping their incomes below the tax-line, thus legally avoiding the income tax. There are other, similar methods: a religious vow of poverty for instance has its counterpart in IRS regulations. This is a method that is non-resistant (in the violent sence of "resistance") but that still frees someone from the ethical burden of being a supporter of the government or of its actions.-Moorlock 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a really difficult bit of sripture here, and the most up to date scholarship is a bit divided on this point, but the generally accepted sense of this passage hinges on the statement that the Sadducees asked him the question of whether or not to pay taxes "in order to trick him." We must assume that this encounter takes place in a large group of people, and we also must assume that these people are bristling under the yoke of Roman taxes, if not there would be no trick to the question. The trick is that if Jesus says "No, don't pay your taxes." then the crowd is still on his side, but the centruions would arrest him. If he says "Yes, pay taxes" he would loose all stret cred. He takes a coin from the someone and on it is imprinted the image of Caesar, as all Roman coinage had. In this context he might be paraphrased as "This looks like Ceasar, give it back to him, to God give what is due to God." In this move he both criticizes the coercion of the authorities and the coercion of the mob. In this sense, the contemporary scholarly conception of the passge, the section is extremely anarchistic. Dionysius84 04:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a false interpretation. Jesus says "Give to Ceasars what is Ceasars, give to God what is God's", not "don't give to Ceasar just give to me." The trick was this: if he said "give only to the government", then Jesus would not be holding Himself as Authoritative, and a higher authority would be given to the government. The opposite would be if Jesus said only give to God what is God's and not to the government, Jesus would have been arrested on the spot for Treason. It's one of those questions which present a false dichotomy, or a trick, similar to the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Jesus answered saying "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, and give to God what belongs to God." That way he acknowledges an authority of the government (Rom. 13, 1 Peter 2), as well as the supreme authority of Himself, and thus avoids the trap of the trick question.--NWalterstorf 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Anarchism and Christian Pacifism are not the same thing

There are many Christian Pacifists (for example many Anabaptists) who are not Christian Anarchists and there are surely some Christian Anarchists who are not pacifists. It is not at all helpful to equate the two terms. They may have concepts in common, but they are not, by any means, the same theological viewpoint. mennonot 23:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Mennonot, not all Christian pacifists are Christian anarchists. However all Christian anarchists are pacifists. Please note Christians who actively rebel against authority using force or violence, are not called Christian anarchists but Christian terrorists. --nirvana2013 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement on one hand, but I disagree with your second statement. Terrorism (at least as defined in the Wikipedia article) is a tactic, not an ideology or theology. Whether Christian anarchists use nonviolence, violence or terrorism, they still base their actions on a Christian anarchism.

Please note that I am in no way advocating for the use of violence by Christian Anarchists. As a pacifist, I wish that everyone would agree that obedience to Jesus requires a commitment to nonviolence, but I don't think Christian anarchism can be usefully defined in a way that precludes the use of violence. mennonot 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly the way individuals such as Ammon Hennacy defined it [6]. Anarchism may use nonviolence, violence or terrorism to achieve it's goals, depending on the individual or movement in question, but Christian anarchism uses only nonviolence. An Anarchist may also be a Christian, but he or she may not necessarily be a Christian anarchist (not small "a"). --- nirvana2013 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess the burden is on me to come up with a self-defined Christian anarchist who isn't a pacifist. A quick google search on Christian Anarchism doesn't turn up any examples in the first pages, so I guess I'll cede the point for now. It does seem to be the case that all the prominent Christian Anarchists up to this point have been pacifists. mennonot 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mm, for what it's worth, I am an anarchist and also a Christian. I am not, however, a pacifist, which excluses me from most of the Christian Anarchist tradition. sigh. - Jonathan.

if someone can, explain to me how to be a true pacifist without being an anarchist. it seems that government must use force. At the very least, it must have a military to defend itself, and must arrest and punish criminals. Otherwise, it ceases to be a government. it seems that if someone is a true pacifist, they would be against governments, since they must use force.

[edit] Why the section on Anglicanism?

A monarch created his own Church to make his own authority in his Kingdom more complete, and somehow this is a move in the direction of anarchism? Why shouldn't we just delete this section? Anyone? --Christofurio 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

the logic to me seems clear. In this one move, the Anglican church redirected the notion that law and the state was given by some god, and thus ordained by eternal law (ala Aquinas), opening up the theoretical space for anarchical Christianity. Granted, I'm not sure that the article's section actually does this move justice though. ~~----

You might as well say the same thing about Rome's break with Byzantium circa 800 AD. In both cases, there was just a change in the design of the ladder, from one with a rop rung in Constantinople to one with a top rung in Rome to one with a top rung in London, with a second rung in Canterbury. --Christofurio 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Anglican break from Catholicism was probably achieved through aggressive threats between Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII, which is not in the spirit of Christian anarchism and therefore at odds with the rest of the article. I originally included the section to show that Anglicanism was an intermediary step between Catholicism and Nonconformism, plus to illustrate that the Catholic Church, like the state or monarchy, gain wealth through taxes i.e. Peter's Pence. I am happy for the section to be deleted. --nirvana2013 10:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the Anglicanism section and incorporated some of the words under Nonconformism. Let us know if this is not OK. --nirvana2013 11:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a much more sensible use of this material. Good work. --Christofurio 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text from anon

I have deleted the following text "Some Christian anarchists believe in self-defence using Luke 22:36 where Jesus told his followers they should "sell their garment" to buy a sword if they didn't have one as the justification (the sword being for protection and not for cleaning fingernails)." Please provide your source. Which Christian anarchist? --nirvana2013 14:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit has been re-inserted by ChristianAnarchist. Still no reference or source given to which Christan anarchist follows this principle. Many Christians I would agree bear arms on the back of this passage, but I am not aware of any well-known Christian anarchists. Moved passage reference to "Criticism" section. --nirvana2013 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The mention of the "sword" Jesus refers to in Luke 22:36 is not a literal sword. The context is of the trials that were to soon come, that they were to prepare. Just earlier Jesus mentioned of what was in store for Him, and He also declared that Peter would deny him. The context is of what would soon happen; and right after this passage, Jesus agonizes in the Garden for what lays before him. Finally, the statement "See, Lord, here are two swords!" were the apostles not quite grapsing the statements the Christ was saying (soon followed by a rather comical statement from Jesus, "It is enough"). Thuis is similar to how they misunderstood Jesus' statement "beware the leaven of the Pharisees" in which one of the apostle mistakenly replies "he means we haven't brought enough bread."--NWalterstorf 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Christian Anarchist

You ask which Christian anarchists believe in bearing arms?? I DO !! I am my own source. I do not rely on you to tell me what a "Christian Anarchist" is... I rely on my own indepent study of many texts and my own reason to determine what should be followed, what should be ignored and what should be considered. I rely on Jesus' words in Luke 22 for my belief. If you want further "reference": it's - ME. You are not the "Christian Anarchy" dictator so stop changing my edits.

A known source is required, not just you. If it is just your own personal point of view, then it is termed POV and breaches Wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:No original research). Your reference has been accommodated under Christian_anarchism#Criticism. --nirvana2013 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a reference: Luke 22. Perhaps you missed it. It is certainly more "reference" than what you are providing. I don't think you "own" wikipedia nor do you have any "authority" over me. The comment is replaced. Christian Anarchist.

You are correct I do not have authority over you or anyone else, I am just keeping to Wikipedia guidelines (see Wikipedia:No original research). Please provide the reference to any Christian anarchist (other than you) who supports your claim that the Bible passage reference is part of Christian anarchism. --nirvana2013 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree that since you are a Christian anarchist and justify it by Luke 22, then cite that in the article and no other reference should be needed.

Well, I did cite Luke 22, but nirvana the self-defined "enforcer" of wikipedia "rules" claims it isn't good enough. Who is this guy anyway?? I sure don't recognize his self-granted "authority". If I had more time, I would simply reinstall it every day if I had the time...

O.K. I added Ellul as a reference to being able to defend yourself as a "Christian Anarchist". I hope this makes Mr. Nirvana the tyrant satisfied...

Why use Ellul as a reference for this idea? After reading Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective by Jacques Ellul I do not see that conclusion at all. It is my understanding that Ellul would probably simply say that it is realistic to expect that some Christians (regardless of political affiliations) will defened themselves using violance, in so much as it is also realistic to expect that any Chrisitan will commit all kinds of sins. --David Hays, 6 October 2006

No problem. I have tidied up your edit, let me know if it is not OK. --nirvana2013 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted, nirvana2013, that your request earlier for a source which cites Luke 22 as a source is a bit unfair. Any passage of scripture is implicitly part of Christian Anarchism, simply because it is Christian. It does not have to have a history of use by notable Christian Anarchists to be valid for this article.

He took Luke completely out of context. Not only that, but 2 Peter 1:19-21 rebuttals the private interpretation.--NWalterstorf 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Berrigan — Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

I suggest that the remark about Philip Berrigan being twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is removed. A Nobel Peace Prize nomination is not necessarily prestigious.

[edit] This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia

It's right up there with "Golden Age of Islam" and "Persecution of Atheists". Why aren't these being deleted?209.7.59.103 18:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that all three of your "worsts" are religious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.10.51.2 (talk • contribs).

why do you think it is a bad article? how could you deldelete it? are you saying there are no Christian anarchists?TheTruth12 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See, the funny thing about Wikipedia is one must at least marginally back up one's points. Do you find these articles badly organized? Offensive? Inaccurate? Do you have the same problems with the two other articles named as this? Clarify. --Jammoe 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:209.7.59.103 is a vandal, see talk page/edit history. ANON 9/9/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.115.241.23 (talk • contribs).

I'm a Christian, though I don't hold to Christian Anarchism. This article is relevant, even if you disagree with it. The article is not created to prove a point or to push forward an argument, but it is to deliver information on said articles.--NWalterstorf 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformation

This section makes very little sense in the context of this article. Someone who knows more about post-Schismatic Christian history has got to bring this section into line with anarchism ar I will delete it. In no way does a criticism of Catholicism equal anarchism, especially when many contemporary anarcho-theologians are anarcho-Catholics. The Restoration section makes even less sense here, as Mormonism and its offspring are anything but anarchistic. This article is so full of holes right now because we are all grasping at straws. Let's try to get back to the basics of both anarchism and Christianity so this article has any credibility whatsoever.Dionysius84 19:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Luther's infamous theological justification of killing revolting peasants in order to maintain the status quo makes any positive inclusion of him in an article on Christian Anarchy peculiar indeed. "Luther's Works: The Christian in Society III, Vol. 46 isbn 080060346X".

(Mormonism is not usually considered to be part of the Reformation, nor is it considered to be under the umbrella of 'Christian religions' by any other group than themselves.)

Is there will to delete these two paragraphs "The Reformation" and "restorationism" as being too far afield?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cannot be relevant here, on the basis of the both the terms Chistian and Anarchism. 1. It is disputed whether they count as Christian. 2. Christian Anarchism is described in this article as "the belief that the only source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable is God, embodied in the teachings of Jesus. Christian anarchists feel that earthly authority such as government or the Christian Church do not, and should not, have power over them." The LDS church fails to fit the definition here because standing as a candidate for President of the USA and claimed the authority of the various LDS priesthoods, do not fit with not recognising any authority but God. -- BenStevenson 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting (again) the reformation section of this article and will continue to delete it until somebody gives a damn good reason why it is included. The Anabaptists could easily be a section, as could many heretical movements, but that would not be a Reformation section. As is, this is simply and anti-Church section. Unless someone provides extremely good textual references otherwise, Luther, Calvin, and the rest can have no place in any anarchistic history. They are authoritarian, severly anti-semitic and mysogynistic, not anarchistic.Dionysius84 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. As an aside, I don't think Calvin, who says of the Jews that "God had preferred [them] to all other nations" [7] and says that men and women are equal [8] can be called severely anti-semitic and mysogynistic, although maybe I have not read enough Calvin to tell. -- BenStevenson 11:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I read Calvin all the time, and he never says anything anti-semitic.--NWalterstorf 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonconformism

Currently the article says: "Nonconformism was a break-away movement from Anglicanism over the 16th and 17th centuries, with adherents known as dissenters against the Church and state."

More accurately, noncomformists were dissenters against particular established churches, such as the Church of England. Non-comformists, as well as people who opposed any established church, also included people who set up state churches in the American colonies, so these people can hardly be anarchists. This section either needs expanding or deleting because it is inaccurate to make to general statement that could be seen to be implying that nonconformists were anarchists. -- BenStevenson 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the term "anarchist" was widely used in the 16th and 17th centuries. However, George Fox's views were anti-establishment and anti-Church. --86.133.21.82 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Bourgeois and Joseph Sobran

I doubt either of these two would regard themselves as Christian anarchists. I have deleted them. If you disagree, please take up via talk page. nirvana2013 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William B. Greene

Can he really be considered an anarchist if he loyally served his government as a colonel in the Civil War (with no remorse or regrets)? I suggest he is deleted from the article, he does not sound much of an anarchist. --nirvana2013 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not pure enough for you, eh? Are you planning on removing Kropotkin from the anarchism entry as well? I'm guessing you might not think much of most of the great libertarians of the period prior to 1870 or so, when "anarchism" became a common designation and anarchist organizations and ideologies started to take their modern forms. It's an open question whether folks like Garrison and Ballou were "really anarchists." As it is, nearly every major history of anarchism counts Greene among the mutualist anarchists. And he was much more consistent in his principles that many of the nonresistants who later made peace with the Civil War and Reconstruction. Libertatia 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And what, btw, is this "with no remorse or regrets" stuff? It's not supported, or even suggested, by the paragraph in the entry, nor by the William Batchelder Greene page. Libertatia 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you he is termed an anarchist, but please name one self-proclaimed Christian anarchist that served their government in the armed forces. He may be an anarchist (and even a Christian) but not a Christian anarchist. --nirvana2013 16:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the burden here is on you to give a sourceable rule that shows that "Christian anarchism" has a specific ideology of which Greene can be shown to be in violation. But there are also several serious problems with your request. Prior to about 1870, you're probably not going to find any "self-proclaimed Christian anarchists," largely because you will find very few self-proclaimed anarchists of any sort. You will find garrisonian nonresistants that refuse to use the term because of its negative associations. Of the 19th century figures listed currently, Greene is the only one I know of who used the term in a favorable sense. Ballou, with his "practical Christian socialism" and nonresistance, was at pains to distinguish himself from other libertarians of the day. Greene was a self-proclaimed "Christian mutualist," adopting the term used by Proudhon to describe his entire social philosophy, of which political anarchism was a part. So he proclaimed himself a part of Proudhon's tradition at a time when other Christian libertarians were actively disclaiming any connection. As a "self-proclaimed anarchist" his credentials are better than just about anyone in the period. You can consult his 1850 work, Mutual Banking for details. The Introduction rethinks social solidarity in terms of communion, and The Cherubim announces Christian Mutualism. A look at his final major work shows the consistency of his religious and political beliefs. Libertatia 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quakers

Removed section on Quakers that read "Did not have ministers, buildings, or set times of meetings.

The only correct information in the section was that it was founded in the 17th century by George Fox. If the writer read any 17th century Quaker writings, he would find Friends ministers and meeting houses mentioned. He would also find that there were set meeting times in the 17th century. <This is a talk section, but, if you like, I can give 17th century references>

Michael

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) seem to have much in common with Christian anarchists. For example, they do not have doctrines (group decisions are taken by mutual consent), hierarchies (they have no ministers or leaders), or preachers acting as intermederies between God and the congregation (they believe everyone can connect with God, hence their silent "Meetings for Worship"). Also George Fox was very much an anarchist, believing in individual salvation rather than Catholic doctrine or government enforcement of law. I would suggest that the Quakers and/or Nonconformism be worked back into the article. nirvana2013 19:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Libertarianism

Pardon me for my ignorance, but aren't Christian libertarianism and Christian anarchism two different things? Why does the entry for the former redirect here? I believe separate articles are in order for the two.

Libertarianism, of course, believes in the necessity of a limited government to provide civil defense and criminal justice for those who infringe on others' rights. Anarchism believes that such authority is unnecessary and that individuals can fend for themselves. Is this a proper distinction? I'm hardly educated in these matters but it seemed like a noteworthy mention. If I am in error, feel free to correct me.

Parker

  Libertarianism does not equal the U.S. Libertarian Pary. ANON 9/9/06

A Liberal Christian usually falls into the category of "the Bible is not authoritative". There are Liberal Christians and Christian Anarchists who are Liberals, and the two will sometimes apply to eachother, and other times not. However I would never say that being a Liberal Christian makes you a Christian Anarchist. Though metaphysically the presuppositions will conclude in such a manner which is autonomous at it's core, usually the two are compartmentalized for explanation.--NWalterstorf 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian in this context is a reference to Libertarian socialism (or rather, uses the word in the same sense it is used there) as opposed to the "anarcho"-capitalism proposed by right-libertarians. Additionally, I am unaware of a tradition of Christian Libertarianism in that sense, although if one does exist the redirect should be changed.

Oh, and, Libertarianism and Liberal Christianity are different animals. --Black Butterfly 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of POV

The article's generally alright, but this stuck out for me:

The most common challenge for the Biblical literalists is integrating the passage in Romans 13:1-7 where Paul defends obedience to "governing authorities." Christian anarchists who subscribe to Paul's teachings argue that this chapter is particularly worded to make it clear that organizations like the Roman Empire cannot qualify as governing authorities. If it could, then, according to Paul, "they [Christians] would have praise from the authorities" for doing good. Instead the early Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire for doing good, and became martyrs. Further, the "governing authorities" that are legitimate in the passage were never given the authority to make laws, merely to enforce the natural laws against "doing harm to a neighbor" in verses 8-10 (see tort and contract law). This interpretation makes all statute laws of states illegitimate.

Not only is the use of the term "good" almost invariably POV, but bits of this section sound a little defensive. It might be fine, but it seems off to me. --Jammoe 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If we wanted to rebuttal that rebuttal, we could mention Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah who, in the book of Daniel, submitted to the rule of the Babylonian government even though Babylon's government was corrupt. Roms. 13 shows a submittion to government, as well as Daniel. What Rom. and Daniel tells us is that we are to submit ourselves to the government - who like Daniel took the Babylonian name Beltshazzar, Hananiah allowed his name to be changed to Shadrach, Mishael to Meshach, Azariah to Abednego - to the furthest extent possible, studying their colleges, learning their languages and culture; they submitted until the government compromized the Hebrew fundamental views, when they could go no further. Secondly, we could mention Jesus' classic line about taxes, "Give to Ceasars what is Ceasars, and to me what is mine."

A little extra info about Romans 13: it refers to submission to government until you can go no further, but it also refers to war, "the government does not carry the sword in vain" is a clear message to carrying out laws, let alone pre-existing laws.

Finally, 1 Peter 3:1-7 gives reference to the Christians under Roman persecution. It was custom under Roman government and laws that the Wife Submit to the headship of the husband. While it was custom when the Hebrews were their own kingdom, the Roman law was even more strict to the point which the husband had a Dominion over the wife, and personally owned her. In Peter's letters we see "Wives, submit to your husbands", and "husbands, love your wife." Peter did not say, "rebel against the governing authorities", nor did he say "wives, do not submit to your husbands." Instead he took a pre-existing law, created by Rome, and made a principle out of it which does not defy the governing authority. Further more, 1 Peter 2:13-21 begins with, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituded among men: whether by king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right"(NIV), and continuing to the end of said section. Then again, this is not necessarily a debate forum, but if anyone wishes to add this information I've included, they can feel free to do so.--NWalterstorf 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/Talk%7EChristian_anarchism_a919.html"