Talk:Christian anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[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 Count Lev Tolstoy.TheTruth12 18:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity became the official religion of the Empire in circa 390, by decree from Emperor Teodosius.

? --Sam

Cathars wasn´t christians, no them ever pretended to be. www.radicaljesus.com for christian anarchist history. Thanks User Reverend Eliecer Guillen. Doctor in Theology. Venezuelan Evangelical University.

[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 apostles 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)

Jesus displyed disregard to authorities, calling vixen to King Herod, in an age where even rebels overthrowing kings was respectful from honour and reverence to rulers. Apostles and deacons(servants in koiné greek) wasn´t authorities in a political sense. Every anarchist movement-secular or christian- can admit leaders or guides,but stripped from any poilitical power in their cells and groups. Servants-Leaders in christianity, or "leaders no bosses" in secular groups. User Eliecer

[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. --TheGrza 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. --TheGrza 04:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC) --- Because you consider a link misinterpret your dear "founding fathers", you delete entire links and sections in an article. This is point of view right down our throats and simple vandalism. Eliecer

[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)

Choosing a life of simple living was the method employed by Ammon Hennacy and Dorothy Day. If you possess little or no money, the Beast has little or nothing to take (see Render unto Caesar...). nirvana2013 08:53, 22 June 2007 (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)

The idea that "socialism" or "Communism" means centralized state-planned economics originates with Stalin, and to retroactively apply it onto previous forms of socialism is anachronistic. it's equally inaccurate to project that centralized planning onto anarchist visions of socialism and/or communism, which were traditionally based around communal ownership of land, factories, workshops, and other "primary" goods, free access to those priimary goods for all individuals who had the inclination to make use of them, and free markets in which all individuals would be free to sell or share the things they had produced. anarcho-communists believe in a gift economy, as practiced among many tribal societies, in which everyone gives things to each other to earn status, sometimes referred to as "social currency", within the group and thus everyones physical needs and need for recognition are fulfilled simultaneously. individualist anarchists believed in a currency-based free market, but both are actually textbook examples of free markets because neither relies upon any authority to regulate them.
this is true for virtually all anarchists from proudhon on, with the sole exception of so-called "anarcho-capitalists" who refuse to recognize hierarchies of wealth and access created by individual ownership of primary goods. Some modern anarchists who haven't bothered to read their history or the seminal works of the ideology they claim to adhere to take the stalinist view of communism and try to incorporate that into their anarcho-communism, but historically speaking they're as much an aberration as the anarcho-capitalists. Anarchism has always meant totally free markets without any state to regulate them + community level control of the means of production. as such it's clearly distinct from both marxism and capitalism. Most anarchist economists historically argued that such a state of affairs would eliminate wage slavery since without hierarchies of access no one could force others to work for him instead of for themselves. christian anarchists were, and still are, well within the anarchist mainstream here. They oppose the hierarchies of access that create wage labor and capitalism and they oppose the hierarchies of wealth that result from it. Christian doctrines that oppose coercion and usury provide strong doctrinal basis for arriving at these positions. No anarchist is opposed to getting out, working hard, and producing wealth, we are simply opposed to getting wealthy off the labor of others (profits) via wage slavery. Anarchocelt 09:49, 9 June 2007 (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)
In a perfect anarchy, one can submit to a demanding person if one wishes, as one can submit to a demanding God if one wishes in Christianity. However, either way this discussion is irrelevant as it doesn't concern the article. Talk pages aren't for discussion of the topic in question - it's the contents of the article we should be concerned about.. Leon 07:20, 25 February 2007 (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)

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 18:39, 7 April 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)
At issue in this passage is not authority, it is taxation itself. Literary and archeological evidence point to a Judean tax resistance movement concurrent with the life of Jesus. Most probably, the people to whom Jesus spoke were a part of this movement, otherwise, again, the Sadduccees questions makes no sense as a trick. His response to the question of Roman money is essentially the same as the Temple's response, if it looks like Caeser then it must be Caeser's. What is money to God? The answer, then, means that give Caeser back his money, and give God back what resembles Him, in Jesus theology what resembles God is love.Dionysius84 22:40, 19 February 2007 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.217.56 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2005
A bit late, but William Greene and Thomas J. Hagerty would qualify. Possibly Ralph Chaplin after his conversion. Jacob Haller 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth12 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 January 2006

The points you made are exactly why I went from being a Socialist pacifist to an Anarchist pacifist. When I would tell non-pacifists that I am a pacifist, they would usually ask me "What about if someone attacks the country?" After awhile, I finally realized the answer was "What if there was no country?" So I became an Anarchist. I now see this as the most logical stance. My answer to your question is that many pacifists probably think that Anarchy equals chaos, which would mean more violence, because that is the idea given my society.Quakermetalhead 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is the sixth commandment "you shall not murder" an advocation of pacifism? Most people believe murdering others is wrong, whether they are pacifists or not. Wouldn't it be better to reference the more obviously supportive doctrine of turning the other cheek? Illegalbrain 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The military kill soldiers and civilians during wartime. Its just that this, along with the death penalty, are defined by governments as legal and therefore not murder. However to truly not commit murder (whether legal or illegal) and follow "thou shall not kill", one would have to be a pacifist. Unfortunately Christian pacifism is a minority view in Christianity. nirvana2013 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If one is to go by the Old Testament, there is Biblical support for the death penalty: murder, adultery, and other sins were punishable by stoning. It could be said that Jesus was against it based upon his forgiving of the woman caught in adultery, but in reality he was attacking the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of the Pharisees. I am for the death penalty, but only in the case of horrifying and intentional murder/torture/mutilation, or more precisely, when a person is a danger to society at large. I would that Christians, as a people, would live life more fully for Christ and begin to really impact the world, making the death penalty no longer necessary in order to protect the people. But until then... David Schwartz

[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)

Jacques Ellul did not advocate violence. He said violence is on the order of necessity. Which does mean that in this world it is necessary. But Ellul believed that Christians are freed from the order of necessity and therefore it woudl be sinful for them to use violence. He held to a type of two-kingdom theology. I am a member of the International Ellul Society and a regular contributor to the Ellul Forum Journal. One person above has misinterpreted and twisted Ellul. Any reference to Ellul and advocating violence should be taken down. No Ellul scholar would agree with that, even if this lone individual who posted above would. --Alexis-Baker 15:03, 12 June 2007 (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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
While it is true that in the 17th century, all Quaker meetings had no hierarchy or doctrines, the Quaker faith has since branched into many groups, with the largest split being the Programed and Non-Programed Friends. The latter of which is most like the original Friends, being without hierarchy and having silent worship, and the former is more like most Christian denominations in that they have preachers and programed church service. So, if you are going to talk about Anarchy with modern Quakers, this should be mentioned. However, while you can find many modern-day non-programed Friends who are Christian Anarchists or Non-Christian Anarchists (with me being one of the latter), I would certain not say all are, and not even the majority. It would probably be best to talk about the ideas of Christian Anarchy that George Fox incorporated into the Religious Society of Friends when he created it, most notably the belief that God is the only authority.Quakermetalhead 07:00, 13 March 2007 (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)
The Americans have a strange use of the term Libertarianism. A joke I once heard goes to the effect of "The european Libertarian throws a rock at the windows of a McDonalds store owned by an American Libertarian firing back with a shotgun." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.0.146 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the number of those who call themselves Christian libertarians is small compared to other movements or disciplines. If I had to give a short definition, it would be this, "According to the Reverend Andrew Sandlin at The Chalcedon Foundation Christian libertarianism means: 'The view that, in terms of jurisdiction, life should be lived in maximum individual freedom under God's law.'" This does, in fact, sound similar to the most basic definition of Christian anarchism. This article, however, is an embarrassingly poor representation of Christian libertarianism. I have no opinion of how it represents Christian anarchism.

I am tempted to begin counting words or sentences to make my point but I think, without getting persnickety about it, I can honestly say there is less than a ten percent overlap between the contents of this article and one that I imagine would cover the Christian libertarianism of which I know.

Having broached the subject of what I know, I have to confess that I am not a scholar on the subject except for having studied it privately for thirty years and discussed it publicly in an email group for eleven years. I have reason to believe that at least two people on this page know me as Bill (the list steward). I am disappointed that this is the best Wikipedia has to offer a subject as dear to my heart as Christian libertarianism and I would heartily and enthusiastically support a separate article for it. </rant>
WDRev 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest starting an article stub on Christian libertarianism. nirvana2013 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on Christian libertarianism has now been stubbed. Anyone knowledgeable about Christian libertarianism and any that could help with style are invited to contribute.
WDRev 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of POV

Sirs, I have made a few edits to the page to remove what I felt was in an anti-anarchist tone. I feel that it is now significantly better, and, though I am an anarchist, I tried to maintain a neutral voice. Let me know of any issues. Zeldafreakx86 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't want to get into an argument at all here, but I feel like I need to firstly call NWalterstnorf out alittle here. What is being presented in this article is the basis for Christian Anarchism, a system of thought which differs substancially from normative Christian theology and from normative anarchist theory. It seems you feel differently about the interpretations of many of the Biblical passages used by Christian anarchist in support of their beliefs, which is fine for you, but does not belong in this forum. Second, I urge you to read the section on Romans 13 in Ernst Käsemann's Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1980.) In his response to Lutheren Churches supporting Nazi policy based on their interpretations Romans 13, he makes quite the case for Paul's intention being much more nuanced and anti-athoritarian than has been read for the last thousand years. I should add, Käsemann was acedemically considered to be one of Europe's top scholars in the field of Pauline theology.Dionysius84 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the pov citation in the conversion of the roman empire. "orthodox" is a scholarly term used to differentiate the various heterodox theologies from what became the dominant, Nicene Christianity.Dionysius84 05:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But orthodox means right teaching, therefore, true teaching, and unorthodox means not-right teaching, therefore false teaching. Wikipedia articles shouldn't mischaracterize Co-Lucianist theology or label this theology false and the section does both.Jacob Haller 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Specific fact tags (besides the POV issue):
(1) That the edict of Milan ended the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. Theodosius and his sons resumed large-scale persecution of non-Nicaean Christians.
(2) That 'Arians' taught that the person of Jesus was less divine. (By the person of Jesus, do you mean the Logos, or the incarnate human Jesus?) Of course in many theologies, the incarnate human Jesus was divine and created. And in some Co-Lucianist theologies, e.g. Arius,' the Logos was divine and created.
(3) The one about 'Arianism' more easily justifying human authority. Jacob Haller 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards the use of the term orthodox, isn't pov to reject the scholarly use of the term because of what it colloquially means? Henry Chadwick, Peter Brown, Jaroslav Pelikan, Benedicta Ward and Kallistos Ware, as examples, all employ the term to simply mean majoritarian theology in the pre-schismatic Christian community. Would you also object to the use of the term orthodoxy to refer to the autonomus Eastern rite churches, Byzantine, Greek etc, because it means right teaching and denies authority to Catholics and Protestants? (to be clear, I mean my tone here to be illustative, not pedantic or mocking. Just want to use an example.)

other responses
(1)Point taken as regards Julian, although I don't know what you mean about Theodosius. Hinson (Hinson, E. Glenn. "Early Church." Abingdon Press, Nashville. 1996. p. 214) says "Theodosius himself, therefore, deserves credit for turning the empire into a fully Christian state." In this he is citng the edict Cunctos populos
(2)again citing Hinson (I have it handy) "To be sure, he existed before everything else, "the firstborn of all creation," yet he belongs to the order of creation."
(3)This point comes from Jaroslav Pelikan's "Credo." (Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan, " Credo : historical and theological guide to Creeds and confessions of faith in the Christian tradition." New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press, 2003.)Dionysius84 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards the illustrative/rhetorical question, YES. Jacob Haller 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards Theodosius, Honorius, and Arcadius (see Theodosius I):

Two days after Theodosius arrived in Constantinople, (November 24, 380), Theodosius expelled the non-Nicene bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople, and surrendered the churches of that city to Gregory Nazianzus, the leader of the small Nicene community there, an act which provoked rioting. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop Acholius of Thessalonica, during a severe illness, as was common in the early Christian world. In February he and Gratian published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (i.e., the Nicene faith). The move was mainly thrust at the various beliefs that had arisen out of Arianism, but smaller dissident sects, such as the Macedonians, were also prohibited.

and from Philostorgius, Church History, book 10, chapter 6:

Eunomius himself he ordered to be banished from the city of Chalcedon, and to he sent into exile at Halmyris.

and Magnus Maximus applied Theodosian prohibitions to western controversies (see Priscillian):

On the murder of Emperor Gratianus in Lyon and the accession, at Trier (Trèves, in Germany) at least, of the usurper Magnus Maximus (383), Ithacius fled to Trier, and in consequence of his representations a new synod was held (384) at Bordeaux, where Instantius was deposed. Priscillian appealed to the emperor, with the unexpected result that, with six of his companions, he was beheaded at Trier in 385, the first Christians martyred by Christians. This act had the approval of the synod which met at Trier in the same year, but Ambrose of Milan, Pope Siricius and Martin of Tours protested against Priscillian's execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution.

Okay? Jacob Haller 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards "Arian" theology ... the Co-Lucianist position in question was not

  • that the Logos was created, therefore less divine,

but was

  • that the Logos was created, and fully divine,

Eunomius states (1st Apology, chapter 24):

Wherefore if the Word of God demonstrates that his Will is his Operation, and not that his Substance is such; and that the Only-begotten subsisted by the Will of the Father; 'tis certainly necessary that the Son preserve this Likeness, not as to Substance, but as to Operation, which is also his Will. Whence also we ought to be persuaded to preserve that true Notion of his being his Father's Image, which the blessed Apostle Paul declar'd, when he said, Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the first-born of every Creature; for in him were all things created, both things in Heaven, and things on Earth, visible and invisible.9 For therefore is he call'd, The Image of God. Now these words, All things were created in him, together with the Appellation of the First-born, do not give us the Character of an Unbegotten Substance : for here is nothing about Substance, but about that Operation whereby he, as a Son, performs all things.

As regards human authority, doesn't Ambrose, de Fide, book 2, chapter 14, call for holy war, under Imperial leadership, against Goths and Co-Lucianists? Jacob Haller 00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Page Needs So Much Work

I have already begun a massive overhaul on the organization, information and tone of this entire page and I would hope anyone reading this will help me out. The page jumps around topically and makes no sense (For instance, why was Thomas Jefferson being equated with anarchism?), the facts are by and large wrong or highly opinionated, the neutrality is all over the place, and the worst part is you get no sense of what Christian anarchism is. Please bear with me as the page goes through some changes over the next few days. It will seem incomplete and stupid looking at times. Let's work together here. Dionysius84 08:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like TJ should be associated with Christianity either, as it's pretty well documented that he was a Deist. Murderbike 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

this page still needs a lot of work. Half of it is personal beefs from one loner "anarchist" who wants to advocate for "self-defense" and such, despite the fact that Christians throughout history have agreed that self-defense is illegitimate, but they have disagreed on whether defending a third innocent party with violence is legitimate. That section should be completely removed. Citing an isolated bible text in support of it is no excuse to flaunt the tradition or to try to make it seem like it is a characteristic of people who hold views like this one the article is about.Alexis-Baker 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The best way to improve the article is to make edits and cite your sources. I agree self-defense is not a CA principle. Do you know of any other self-proclaimed (and notable) Christian anarchists other than Ammon Hennacy? I believe one of the problems with the article is that editors are sourcing individuals who they believe fit with Christian anarchism but the individual in question has never made such a claim. I believe that the term anarchist is a relatively recent development, although I suspect there have been anarchists ever since the first civilization. However who invented the term Christian anarchist? Was it Hennacy? nirvana2013 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Jacques Ellul, Dorothy Day, (and many Catholic Workers), Leo Tolstoy are a few who actually use the word anarchist to describe themselves. Léonce Crenier was an anarcho-communist, he converted but I am not sure if he continued to use the word or how that conversion affected him. I suspect he remained sympathetic.
The quote from Petr Chelčický should be taken down. He was not "anarchist" since it is both anachronistic and theologically wrong. I am not aware that John Dear describes himself in these terms either. It would be legitimate to take his name off this list therefore, until someone formally asks him about it. Alexis-Baker 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Leo Tolstoy wrote about anarchism but I believe he never actually declared himself as an anarchist, or Christian anarchist for that matter. The title is posthumous. nirvana2013 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that is true. That should be noted, but Tolstoy is definitely a safe bet to call an "anarchist," if there is any safe bet at all, he's it. Ellul did call himself anarchist and so has Dorothy Day (perhaps citations are needed, and criteria for who does and does not count to be added to the list).Alexis-Baker 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I find Jacques Ellul denied that he was an anarchist. Ellul wrote that he was "very close to one of the forms of anarchism," but he then proceeded to emphasize what separated him from the "true anarchist" as follows: "The true anarchist thinks that an anarchist society -- with no state, no organization, no hierarchy, and no authorities -- is possible, livable, and practicable. But I do not." Jacques Ellul (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, tr.) Anarchy and Christianity, p.19 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981). Granted, Ellul's book contains many contradictions and at points perhaps verges on incoherence, with Ellul stating just four pages later that "Anarchy . . . has a bright future before it. This is why I adopt it." Id. Still, I have to ask -- is it proper to say that Ellul identified himself as an anarchist, when Ellul characterized the anarchist vision is an impossibility, and bluntly denied that he was a "true anarchist"? Eric Alan Isaacson (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is then only Ammon Hennacy who is a notable Christian anarchist. He did say he followed a One Man Revolution in America!! The discussion on whether Jacques Ellul is, or is not, an anarchist should also take place at Talk:Jacques_Ellul. nirvana2013 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be continued confusion over whether this is a page on some single ideology, Christian Anarchism, or whether it describes the various expressions of anarchism that have made Christianity a central concern. The first approach seems to involve a good deal of OR, as there doesn't seem to be a single school of Christian anarchists. Emphasizing the label "Christian anarchist" also seems wrong-headed, particularly when we're talking about the historical sections. Prior to about 1875, almost nobody calls themself an anarchist. That didn't prevent nonresistants, come-outers and mutualists from being good "no government men" and women. Libertatia 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Libertatia on this. This entire article is a farce, factually anachronistic, factually wrong at some points, latent with individual's personal agendas and poorly written. I think it has no business purporting itself to be describing a movement or a thrust of thought (there is no movement and the thrust of thought described is so problematic that it describes only a few lone people who have imposed their view on this wiki article).Alexis-Baker 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism Sub-Section

Not all Christian anarchist anti-capitalists have favored "democratic ownership." William Greene was a mutualist favoring distributed, egalitarian, individual or small-group ownership. And how many anarchists of any stripe favor 51% rule? The whole section needs clarification. Jacob Haller 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section and replaced with Simple living. Captalism is not a CA principle, although many prefer self-ownership rather than state ownership. Self-ownership needs to be respected first prior to reaching the ideal of no ownership. Henry David Thoreau viewed self-ownership as a key criteria on the path to achieving utopia. nirvana2013 10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I took down Jesus Radicals as a link. I am a founding member of Jesus radicals and we want to disassociate from this badly written, poorly researched, factually incorrect article. Do not link us from this article on supposedly "Christian anarchism." Alexis-Baker 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (See http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=2980 for verification that Jesus Radicals link should be taken down.)

Heya,
While I can understand Jesus Radicals' issues with the article as it stands, the site is a valuable source of information on Christian Anarchism; as such, it would be a useful source for further reading for those who read this article and wish to learn more.
Further, it is not the place of a particular group to make this kind of judgement. If Google, say, decided they did not agree with the content of the Wikipedia article on search engines, would it be right to remove references to them from the article? No - because from a Wikipedia perspective, regardless of the content of the article, such information is valuable for those wishing to learn more.
I agree this article is in need of attention. However, I would ask that you lay out your precise criticisms of the article as it stands and point to ways in which it could be improved.
In my view the key problem with the current article is that it claims mostly reads like one (or several clumsily combined) interpretation of Christian Anarchism (ie: original research), rather than an overview of the tradition as it stands with reference to key thinkers, major events, etc. As you evidently have a background in this area, any input would be much appreciated.
I will refrain from re-inserting the Jesus Radicals link for now, but as a matter of courtesy, not obligation. --Black Butterfly 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the "courtesy" however if you do put it back in, I or someone else will jsut take it down, and that cycle will continue till someone gave up (and there are more of us than you I bet) :) . I have in the above discussion noted a few issues.Alexis-Baker 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Early Church

The section on Paul is unnecessary. sounds like someone's personal beef with another person's tacked on. Should be deleted or cite some sources that are anarchists.

The section on the early Acts church being "anarchist" is factually anachronistic and the "resistance" movement part is also. I deleted it.' Alexis-Baker 12 June, 2007(UTC)

Ammon Hennacy, a self-proclaimed Christian anarchist, believed Paul "spoiled the message of Christ". [9] nirvana2013 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "X was Christian anarchist" and "X has provided inspiration for contemporary Christian anarchists". the former is by definition POV (seeing as anarchism as a specific philosophy had yet to come about, the claim is all about interpretation), the latter is a statement that can be cited with reference to Christian anarchist thinkers. I remember reading an article a bit ago arguing that the social model used in Acts could form an example for an anarchist society - will try and find it. --Black Butterfly 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ammon Hennacy did proclaim he was a Christian anarchist, it is not POV [10]. nirvana2013 10:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to clean up the following passage, and realized that I have no idea who, what, or when any of it is referring to:As the Christian community grew and spread, the some prominent members began to advocate legalism[citation needed] and strict obedience to church doctrine. This type of religious authority and adherence could be compared to the theological economy of Israelite sacrificial religion in the second Temple period which Jesus directly attacked in throwing the money changers out of the Temple district (Matt 21:12). This needs to be elaborated upon to make any sense. (note: I know I wrote the last sentence of it, but I was just trying to make something happen here)Dionysius84 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacifism and nonviolence

I deleted the paragraph on the Amish and Mennonites since it is unnecessary. I do not know many people who regard the Amish and Mennonites as "anarchists" and so the whole paragraph builds a strawman argument only to knock it down. Alexis-Baker 12 June, 2007(UTC)

Fair enough. nirvana2013 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New structure

Hail.

I would like to propose a new structure for this article. The problem which seems to be arising here is one which I've encountered repeatedly on wikipedia. if someone did not describe themselves, and was not described by others, as an anarchist, is it right to classify them as such? In my view, it is not - any such judgement would by necessity be original research. If, on the other hand, a notable anarchist figure can be found who cites pre-anarchist figures as an inspiration, and this viewpoint can be described in an article, that is a different matter altogether - and IMO, worthy of inclusion. The article on the History of anarchism contains a section on precursors of anarchism, each of which is described by reference to some influential anarchist figure (e.g. Kropotkin's views on Zeno), is what I'm getting at here. With that in mind, I would propose that we re-organise the article as follows:

  • History: looking at the history of explicitly Christian Anarchism (Tolstoy, Catholic Worker, etc.)
  • Historical antecedents: information on the early church, Doukhobors, Free Spirit, etc. with reference to (Christian or non) Anarchists describing anarchistic tendencies within the groups.
  • Key figures: Ellul, Yoder, Tolstoy, etc. - those who explicitly identify as CA.
  • Principles: basically an amalgam of the current "Anarchistic biblical views and principles" and "Biblical passages cited by anarchists" sections, but with the original research and cruft removed.
  • Criticism: divided into two sections, anarchists who object to the Christian element ("no gods, no masters") and Christians who object to the anarchist element (authorities appointed by God).
  • See also/External links

how does that sound? --Black Butterfly 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you're reinventing the wheel a bit. There is no reason to privilege figures who used the term "anarchism" over those who used terms now firmly established in the secondary literature as meaning the same thing: Christian mutualism, Christian non-resistance, etc. I'm not sure, for example, Tolstoy is any more Key than Ballou, who influenced him, and was among the most prominent non-resistants of his day, or Greene, who Christianized Proudhon's anarchist mutualism almost as early as Proudhon professed it. Libertatia 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I refer you back to the History of Anarchism article, in which a distinction is made between the people who established anarchism as a philosophy and those prior to them who could be taken as influences and predecessors. There are a number of groups (Anabaptists, the early church, the Brethren of the Free Spirit, etc.) who, while not anarchist, have had an influence on Christian anarchist thought.
Part of my desire with this was to remove the (largely OR) "views and principles" and "bible passages" section and combine those sections which have some kind of reference into a single piece.
Would also recommend removing the spirituality section as it does not indicate anything distinct to Anarchist Christianity. --Black Butterfly 09:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am still waiting for someone to confirm whether Ammon Hennacy was the first individual to actually describe himself as a Christian anarchist, therefore coining the term. If he was, then this is a key point, as all individuals before him are only sources of inspiration. I believe the article needs to keep within the remit of describing the 20th/21st century Christian anarchism movement. If there is material which falls outside this remit, then a second article should be started under the title Anarchism and Christianity, like the separate Jewish anarchism and Anarchism and Orthodox Judaism articles. nirvana2013 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The History of Anarchism article clearly locates the beginnings of anarchism about 1840, rather than in the 1870s, when the term became widely used, let alone the 20th century. There is no "Christian anarchism movement" as far as I can tell, and it appears to be OR to assert that there is one. Libertatia 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Restricting the page to the Tolstoyan tradition (and deleting the pre-Tolstoyan and non-Tolstoyan traditions) would be POV. Suppose I want to look for info on the other traditions which intertwine Christianity and anarchism, where do you think I'd look first? Suppose I knew nothing of their history, why would I check Greene, Hagerty, etc.? I would only find one tradition (that including Tolstoy and later Ellul), I would not see the other traditions, and would not see the variety of views of Christian anarchists. Jacob Haller 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with how you laid out trying to put some control on who is an who is not labeled anarchist. Those who called themeselves that and who cited anarchists as inspiration sounds like good criteria, not arbitrariness. John Howard Yoder, however, did not call himself an anarchist. He explicitly disavowed that position and was severely critical of Tolstoy for his anarchism. I am an editor of a forthcoming book by Brazos Press of Yoder's lectures—Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution—in which he spends significant time on this.
As to the criticism section, why is that a necessary part of the article? I am not an expert on wikipedia, but do all the other articles include "criticism"? It just seem like overkill and more like a debate point than an informative point. The fact that this article exists with that term
As for the historical antecedents, I think that that is original research as well. Jacques Ellul cites antecedents in his book Anarchy and Christianity. One could simply say that Ellul pointed to these movements as antecedents, and then describe them. But some criteria needs to be developed on what to include because of the inherent ability of people to see in anything an antecedent if it suits a purpose. So using Ellul, a careful and respected scholar, might be a way to help reign it in.
The term itself "Christian anarchy" originated with Vernard Eller in a book by that name. Ellul named his book, Anarchy and Christianity, which is quite different as title. I know a good number of people who reject Eller's terminology on the grounds that it sounds like a new religion, which is not what Eller meant at all, but it seems to be what some outside of Eller are getting at. Eller actually only analyzed theologians in that book and never engaged any secular anarchist, and never did. But that term he did not mean a melding of secular and religious ideas, but simply something within Christianity that keeps people from violence and ruling over others. Ellul on the other hand, meant a kind of tactical alliance, without equating the two terms. This seems like an important point to include in this article, because it is with these two authors that this wiki article has its origins.
There are also Christians who are "Aristotelian anarchists" such as Stephen R. L. Clark, who comes at this from a different perspective than Ellul and Eller, but he used the term "Aristotelian anarchist" later than they I believe. It would be a Thomist type of anarchism, using natural law, whereas Eller and Ellul reject that concept (natural law).Alexis-Baker 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Christian anarchist movement" appears to be nonexistent, in any sense more precise than the article now presents. To build this article around a nonexistent tradition, and force the earliest figures to declare Christianity central to an anarchist philosophy off into some other article is really absurd—and probably amounts to a POV-fork. Back in April, when nirvana2013 was attempting to exclude William B. Greene from the article, I asked for any legitimate source that showed "Christian anarchism" to be a single, coherent ideology. I'm still waiting. I certainly haven't turned up anything that fills the bill, which suggests strongly that the proposed limitation of "remit" is based on OR. Libertatia 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are common, though not universal. We might page move to Anarchism and Christianity or Christianity and anarchism if the current approach encourages synthesis-pushing, but the criticism sections could then expand into criticisms of each other... Jacob Haller 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties posed by a "Christian anarchism" page are no greater than those we face on, for example, the page for individualist anarchism, and they are far less than those facing something like the anarchy page. A page move seems unnecessary. All that seems necessary is avoiding the imposition of some OR consensus on the article. Libertatia 22:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The spirituality section seems not only unnecessary, but also inaccurate and highly biased: "One could describe Spirituality as anarchic, as it's based on individual freedom and choice rather than keeping within rigid boundaries. The emphasis in Spirituality is on listening to within and personally connecting with the Divine, rather than following any set doctrines." This may be one person's idea of spirituality, but there are plenty of people who define their spirituality as keeping within boundaries, and following doctrines. Illegalbrain 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted half of the above cited problem line, but tried to augment the first part to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. However, it still needs to be fixed. I added what are now the first two paragraphs to better justify why there is a spirituality section, which I think there should be, and will try to keep adding to it.Dionysius84 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of authority

Secular anarchists recognize several sources of authority; cf. Bakunin, God and the State. These are rational and/or shifting authority. Christian anarchists, in my limited experience, recognize the same kinds of secular authority, reject most of the same kinds of secular authority, and regard God as having the same kinds of rational authority (but not shifting) if not also unique kinds of rational authority. So the sole source statement seems misleading. Jacob Haller 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The existing claim needs to be sourced if it is going to be retained. Libertatia 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I would think that Christian anarchists would recognize a right to not follow God. Submission to God would have to be a voluntary decision in order to be a libertarian philosophy. God himself allowed man the liberty to not work for him, right? If God said, "Work for me or I'll torture for enternity" then that would be coercion, but if God said, "Work for me or I'll not give you eternal life and not save you from the devil" then it would be voluntary. Illegal editor 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance in Opening Paragraphs

Many regard Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1894) as a key text in Christian anarchism.[citation needed] Tolstoy called for a society based on Christian love, Christian nonviolence, and freedom. His work was one of the inspirations behind Mahatma Gandhi's use of nonviolent resistance during India's struggle for independence, and the American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr.

The second sentence is irrelevant to the article. After all, were Ghandi and King Chrstian anarchists?

--Wassamatta 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

Good point. I just nuked it. :D Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Well, I'm going to start on a rewrite tonight (since I can't sleep), as this article needs work in every way imaginable. I shall document material I remove or radically alter as I do so (where my changes are too long to fit in an edit summary). The first is the entire "Criticism" section; if you need to ask why I did this you need to get off Wikipedia. The second is this statement:

They may be summarized as a belief that the only source of authority to which humans are ultimately answerable is God, as embodied in the teachings of the Bible.[dubious – discuss]

The "dubious" tag was appropriate. Not only is this not true, it actually contradicts later parts of the article, which says that many Christian anarchists disregard the works of Paul (like him or not, he is in the Bible, and disregarding him is disregarding a rather good chunk of the NT), and that they would rather not "obediently [follow] every passage in the Judeo-Christian Bible". As it happens, even these statements are not descriptive of all Christian anarchists, but whatever. More to come. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Next up:

His work was one of the inspirations behind Mahatma Gandhi's use of nonviolent resistance during India's struggle for independence[1], and the American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mentioning King in this context is misleading; this implies that Tolstoy had directly influenced King, yet it's not at all clear that King had even read Tolstoy. See the cited source for details. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And I've nuked the entire "Biblical passages cited..." section, because this is original research, plain and simple. If you can find any of these passages cited by Christian anarchists (not "hey, this looks like something they might cite!"), then start adding them back in. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
...and I give up. This article needs an superhuman amount of work, but there's a load of {{fact}}s and {{or}}s for anyone else who cares enough to start finding sources. I'll be back later. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 01:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Diggers?

I was surprised that the article does not mention Gerrard Winstanley or the True Levellers. Jackaroodave 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I am a Christian anarchist but this article would need a critical view to provide a fair view point.

220.255.44.10 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnosticism

It is not possible to teach this to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.179.230 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Tolstoy - Russian Orthodox?

As far as I am aware following his Orthodox Christian upbringing and a time of reflection, Tolstoy rejected the organized Church due to the hypocrisy he witnessed and the strong ties they had with the Russian militaristic government. Hence he followed his own spiritual compass and Bible research (Christian anarchist), and did not class himself as Russian Orthodox. nirvana2013 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry about that error. You are right that he did not adhere to Russian Orthodoxy. Apologies on that. Jc3schmi 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem. nirvana2013 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable individuals?

I removed the following two individuals from the list of "Key individuals" because I question their notability:

John Dear is a Jesuit priest, writer and peace activist.
Dave Andrews is a prominent member of the Waiters Union, community developer, Neopelagian thinker, author of Christi-Anarchy (1999), speaker, and activist [11].

I have never heard of either of these men, which, granted, does not necessarily mean anything. But, neither of them has an article, and both entries are very short, seeming to indicate there is not much to be said for or about them. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check Dave Andrews now. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

There is a neutrality dispute tag at the head of this article, directing inquirers to this talk page. However, I can find no discussion of a neutrality dispute on this talk page. Will the poster of the tag please dispute the neutral POV of this article here? If not, will someone please remove the neutrality-dispute tag after allowing a few weeks or months to pass for this request to be answered? arkuat (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the tag should be removed over the coming days/weeks if there is no discussion. It has been hanging around for some time. nirvana2013 (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collectivism versus individualism

Just wondering are most christian anarchists Collectivists and Social anarchists or individualists?--Fang 23 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Anarchist Icon

To whom concerns: I have been wanting replace the 'old' Anarchist Icon on the 'Christian Anarchism' page with one that I have created specifically as a Christian Anarchist Icon. If you would like to see what I speak of, please go to Wikimedia Commons and search for 'christian anarchist'. There you should see my icon I've created.

The problem is, I don't know how to go about getting this Icon loaded onto the Wikipedia 'Christian Anarchism' page in place of the old Anarchy symbol.

Please help...

Christanarchist (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Anarchism and GLBT Rights

Whats their take on Homosexuality and Bisexuality and Sexuality in general. I'm interested as this article does not note anything about their views on those topics. Arkkeeper (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know of any views from notable Christian anarchists on GLBT. nirvana2013 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)