Christian Anarchism???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

One cannot be a "Christian anarchist". Anarchy means "no rule". Christians are monarchists. Jesus Christ is our King, there is no "separation of church and state" in the kingdom of God (that's just Baptist-Masonic secularism which results in exactly what we have today - an all out assault on Christianity and an attempted removal of Christianity from the public sphere).

For a good understanding of Christian anarchism, one might want to read, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy. Anarchism, by definition means "no rule". A "Christian" anarchist would therefore imply, "no rule but Christ". And so, the Christian anarchist would hold that the only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable is the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus. It therefore rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. Christian anarchists denounce the state, believing it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous. However, they are not opposed to paying taxes as Christ and the NT commands. Nor are they opposed to laws that serve the common good. However, the Christian anarchist ultimately holds that they belong to a kingdom that is not of this world. Christian anarchists hold that the "Reign of God" is the proper expression of the relationship between God and humanity. Under the "Reign of God", human relationships would be characterized by divided authority, servant leadership, and universal compassion—not by the hierarchical, authoritarian structures that are normally attributed to religious social order or governments. Most Christian anarchists are pacifists—they reject war and the use of violence. The Christian wouldn't desire to take over government and use it to impose their interpretation of biblical law on others, as the theonomist would. Instead, the Christian anarchist views themselves as sovereignly a part of God's kingdom, as an individual. And encourages others to also experience this individual sovereignty under the "Reign of God" as individuals.

Since Christian anarchists understand that the NT teaches that Christians are to obey the government, they are not squeamish about disobeying the government when obeying God is pitched against obeying man. Obedience to the government is merely a form of tolerance towards government, not loyalty to government.

Christian anarchists also acknowledge that the NT teaches that Christians are to pay taxes. That being said, many Christian anarchists vote and advocate that tax revenue be spent on social initiatives that serve the common good and strengthen the poor, the sick, widows, and orphans.

"Stewardship over ownership"? You mean abolition of private property?

The Christian anarchist understands that all things belong to the LORD. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and the hills they stand upon. The idea that we truly "own" anything as our sole "possession" is an illusion born of pride. What we have will be left to others upon our passing from this life. And so, we must embrace the reality that we are but "stewards" of all things be it money, possessions, or natural resources. Being stewards implies that we have moral social responsibilities. The Christian anarchist knows that one is blessed to bless others. And so, they do not see taxation as theft. Nor do they have any remorse for the greedy individual who clings to what he claims is his own. For, such an individual, in claiming ownership, becomes a thief. In that he now claims that God isn't the owner of all things. The poor sad soul will one day die and all that he claimed was his own... will be given to another. And so the glaring fact remains, he was but a steward.

Christian anarchists wouldn't abolish "private property". Christian anarchists advocate a change in perspective towards what is called private property. We should view what we call private property as a sacred trust for which we are stewards. We should never view it as entirely our own. And so, we should always be at the ready to see how it might be used for the common good.

Besides, you're a socialist, you supported Bernie, you support government control of health care,

Under Bernie's plan, I could see any doctor I wanted to see. Under my current plan, I can't. In addition, under Bernie's plan, I could see a doctor whenever I felt the need to. Under my current plan I can't. It should be noted that government funding isn't the same as government "control". The government funds your library card. But you have control over what books you check out.

you believe in "distribution of tax revenues for the common good" aka "wealth redistribution" aka socialist destruction of private capital.

If tax revenue isn't used for the common good, what is it to be used for?

Oh, that's right, to help pay for lavish tax breaks for the super rich so that they can store away even more money in overseas tax shelters and inflate our deficits! Sorry. I forgot.

Most don't realize that all the tax breaks we give the ultra rich cost us far more than any social program they can name. That's why you'll eventually see your mortgage interest tax exemption capped. Oh, and the amount of local and state taxes that you can write off will be capped too. While the cut your Social Security and Medicare too. The amount of classroom supplies you can write off as a teacher will be cut too. Let's face it... the American tax payer is being drained by the rich who have learned how to buy politicians to pass laws that "redistribute wealth" in their favor.

Civil infrastructure, healthcare, social security, education, defense, are all for the common good.

Is there even one of Marx's "planks" you disagree with?

List them and I'll let you know. lol

[Aquila]

Here's a decent book one can read online or download on Christian Anarchism.

Christian Anarchy
Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers
by Vernard Eller
https://archive.org/stream/Christian...ref=ol#page/n0

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From this definition, it sounds like the Revival stage of theonomic reconstruction.

[Aquila]

We are the Kingdom. Right now. No need to impose our ways on the peoples of this world, or even one another. No politics necessary. We show the world the way, and teach them to deny the authority of this world's statist systems as we have, in exchange for the Spirit led self-government under Christ alone that we've attained. Yes, Christan anarchists value elders. They serve as guides, mentors, and advisors, teaching us the ways of living for Christ. We don't execute those who are rebellious sinners, we shun them from the community in the hopes that they'll repent and return. It's more of a family than a "government".

Ideally, Christian anarchists could form voluntary communities wherein we govern ourselves in accordance to like beliefs and standards... Without any coercion from civil government, living exempt from all civil taxation, licensing, and regulation. Autonomous voluntary Christian communities. And these might take different forms as each is free to embrace interpretations in accordance to their convictions. True spiritual liberty to express faith in Christ in like minded voluntary communities.

Sadly, the civil government will only allow so much "autonomy", as seen in Quaker, Amish, and Minnonite communities.

[Aquila]

Intentional communities are an excellent example of how the Kingdom is truly expressed in a New Testament fashion. These are very independent communities that are self sustained. They live together, share all things, work together, provide healthcare, educate, etc.

The Christian anarchist would like such communities, only free from all government regulation and interference. Of course, by nature, such associations are entirely voluntary.

Christian Reconstructionism only dresses the problem of statism up in a religious package. Nothing voluntary about it. It is still authoritarian coercion. And is more than willing to use force and violence to punish those who do not conform.

This community is a great example, but rooted in Anabaptist tradition. Of course, an Apostolic expression of the Kingdom might be a little different. And, there can be conservative and liberal communities. Allowing for individual freedom of expression as it relates to one's Christian faith, without any outside civil interference, is hallmark to Christian anarchism.

https://youtu.be/9ohC8cEcdOE

[Aquila]

It's becoming more and more obvious that government is the problem. Why don't Christians form voluntary cooperative communities and work to be self-governing. I remember reading news stories on how Islamic communities in Europe gained the right to self-govern under more Islamic law.

[Aquila]

I found this very interesting. Here is an excerpt from a book titled, Christian Anarchy, Christ's Primacy Over the Powers (by Vernard Eller)...

I wonder.... It certainly proved right for Jesus not to let himself be associated with the just and righteous revolution of the tax-withholding Zealots; Rome saw to it that that godly effort came to nothing but a great big minus. Yet, of course, that revolution was violent. So let me now tell the story of the most successful Christian nonviolent revolution in history--involving that same Roman establishment, would you believe?

You see, once upon a time there was this little anarchist church--in fact, the very one we've been talking about--that of Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament Christians. And it--in its rather weak, unorganized, anarchical way (following the pattern of its anarchical apostle)--went bumbling about the empire, evangelizing handfuls of individuals here and there and leaving them in little anarchical house-groups.
Actually, in comparison to some other churches of other eras, its church-growth statistics weren't all that bad. Nevertheless, in time, some strategic planners came along who said, "Folks, this anarchical way of going at things is stupid. We'll never get the world won for Christ this way. Why, people are being born faster than we're set up to convert them (infant baptism not yet having been invented); we'll never catch up. We've got to start thinking big and quit being so leery about using a bit of organization and power. We need to operate from strength. What we really ought to do is go for the Arky--go for the Big One. God wants his church to grow. And just think of how much more good we can accomplish by using arky power rather than shying from it!"

And wouldn't you know, it worked! They went for the emperor and got him--and he brought the whole of the Big Arky over with him. Christianity was proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire--and the world was won for Christ. You know, you have to smile a bit at the Old Anarchy, thinking that three thousand in one day was pretty big stuff. I don't know just how long it took to get the changeover recorded; but I do know the Vatican computers were jammed trying to move names across from the PAGAN column to the CHRISTIAN column--until somebody realized it just easier to switch the headings.

At one fell swoop we now had a whole empire full of Christians; as finally in a position to do some real good for humanity and bring in the truly just society. Talk about revolution! The church praised God from whom all blessings flow ... and the empire snickered all the way to the bank. His empire had found the Lord and become "Christian" without having to make any changes at all; Christianity had done all the changing. Indeed, the conversion would probably qualify as "forensic justification": all it took was a word from God (or at least his official representatives) and we now had "The HOLY Roman Empire." Pretty neat, wouldn't you say?

But just look at what actually happened in this Christian revolutionizing of the empire. The church became the Biggest Arky of All, graciously taking unto itself every evil the empire had ever represented. It sacrificed all understanding and appreciation of its God-given anarchy in its zeal to make the world good and do good for it. It lost the beautiful anarchy of its house-churches of human beings to build cathedrals of politicians. (Remember that cathedral means throne of a bishop.") It lost the anarchical refusal of military service to mount armies bearing the banner of the cross and in this sign conquering. It lost its anarchical Jesus whose kingdom was not of this world to paint for itself an icon that needed a label before you could tell whether it was a picture of Christ or the Emperor (a sad, sad confusion). It lost its "holiness" in bestowing that title upon the empire instead. The trading of anarchy for Christian arky was the deflowering of the church.

So, my great fear about today's Christian revolution, out to transform and save the world for God, is not that it might fail but that it might succeed.

[Aquila]

Another interesting read:

The Christian Anarchist Home Page
https://vftonline.org/XianAnarch/homepage.htm#1

[Antipas]

Sounds like the "Wincklers"...

5 Winckler!
Come ye apart into a desert place ....Matt. 6:31

ANOTHER TERM OF REPROACH WITH WHICH THEREFORMERS regularly belabored their Stepchildren was the derogatory name Winckler. It is with the name and the issue involved in it that we shall be engaged in this chapter.

The word Winckler is derived from the German word Winckel (modem spelling Winkel) meaning a comer or anout-of-the-way place. Winckler are consequently people who gather in some comer or secluded place, for purposes of religious exercises. Such gatherings came to be known as Winckelpredigten,Winckel-preachings.a

[a. That the Winckler-gatherings came to be known as Wincklerpredigten is mute testimony to the fact that among the people who staged these unauthorized gatherings the reading and the expounding of the Scriptures was paramount, the main dish on the menu.]

Very prominent in the word Winckler, and its derivatives, is the idea of illicit, clandestine, unauthorized. In English-speaking areas, the word hedge has undergone a closely similar evolution. It meant first of all a fence-row; then, as an adjective, it came to mean illicit, unauthorized. A hedge-priest in medieval England was a man who performed the functions of a clergyman without waiting to get a license. (Such hedge-priests were plentiful enough.) The Dutchword haag has had a similar development. It means basically ahedge; but came presently to· stand for illicit. The hagepreken (hedge-preachings ) that took place in the fields of Flanders on the eve of the Eighty Years' War were called by that name not because there were hedges there but because thesegatherings were formed without license from the civil powers. The hagepreken were Winckelpredigten, unauthorized, unscheduled gatherings for religious purposes.

We encounter a related word in the sources, the word Winckelehe, a word that deserves mention here because it too was thrown at the Stepchildren, b A Winckelehe is a marriage performed in an out-of-the-way place and performed by someone unsent by the prevailing Church and its partner, the State.

[b. The Anabaptists suffered great hardship because their marriages were looked upon as Winckelehe, illegal cohabitations. This is the final chapter ina long story. In pre-Christian thinking the marriage ceremony lies very close to the center of the religious cult, as do the rest of the things that have to do with the vital statistics. The primitive Christian Church did not take over this pre-Christian emphasis upon the marriage ceremony; it honored marriage and did all it could to restore to it the dignity it deserves. But it did not consider it a specifically religious, certainly not a redemptive, institution. This secularization of marriage on the part of the early Christians drew the ire of the pagan world. We find the pagan Celsus upbraiding the Christians for this, in these words, written about the year180: "One has to do one of two things; if you think it beneath your dignity to serve those who sustain the world [the reference is to the gods] then men and women may no longer marry, may no longer rear children, nor do any other thing int his life; they can then only retire from the scene, without leaving any progeny . . . , However, if you marry anyway and rear children, enjoy the fruits and participate in life . . .then you must give the appropriate honor to those to whom these things belong [i.e., the gods], you have to perform the religious duties . . . , lest you give the impression that you are ungrateful toward them. For it is not right to participate in the things that belong to the gods without paying something for it." It is hardly necessary to point out that this whole philosophy of marriage became incorporated in the vision of "Christian sacralism." We need only to remind ourselves that the medieval "heretics" repudiated this whole sacralization of marriage, a policy that thereupon earned them the accusation that they were "against marriage." Nor will it come as a surprise that, after the Reformers had completed their swing to the right, the old medieval concept of marriage was incorporated in their views. Marriage in the old Reformed Church Orders is an ecclesiastical affair. And it speaks for itself that the Stepchildren refused to go along with this. They made their vows before their own clergymen -- and so laid themselves open to the charge of Winckelehe. The noise of the Second Front in regard to marriage can be heard in the notorious Groninger Edict of 1601. This Edict (It may be consulted in the Knuttel Collection, No. II 72, of which the University of Michigan has a copy), drawn up and promoted by the Reformed pastors of the City of Groningen, contains also this item: "All who cohabit as man and wife without the benefit of law shall be required to have themselves married in accordance with the Church Order, within one month, or face punishment as fornicators . . . . All who have themselves married [the original uses a derogatory expression here:"sich copuleren laten"] outside a Reformed Church . . .shall be punished as the case may require." Although there is,of course, not the slightest New Testament warrant for such ecclesiasticalization of marriage, one encounters remnants ofit among Reformed constituencies that have not quite sloughed off their "Christian sacralism."]

In pre-Christian society, that is, in sacral society, the religious cult is a public affair.c It belongs to the tribe or the Volk; and the chieftain of the tribe, or the ruler of the Volk, is automatically in charge. So also in the Roman society in the midst of which Christianity was laid down. Rome's temples were public buildings and that which transpired in them was every Roman's business. In Roman society, the Church and the State were fused (to use the two terms is virtually to commit an anachronism, for they were in actuality as yet undifferentiated; perhaps we had better say "the religious and the secular," although that, too, would be something of ananachronism). As a consequence, and most naturally, the rituals of religion were public; and the temples were public places, as public as the post office is with us.

[c. The reader will recall that Plato wanted to have laws passed whereby private rites of religion were prohibited. See the passage from Plato's Laws quoted in the previous chapter, p. 135.]

The vision of the primitive Christian Church called for a new kind of religious gathering. It conceived of its assemblies as events espoused by believers and in that sense non-public. To its society only they belonged who had been admitted. To its gatherings others were permitted to come, even urged to come, as spectators, or auditors as they were called, listeners, candidates; but the meeting as such was the property of those who belonged.

Significantly, the early Christians had not so much as thought of asking permission, or license, to meet. Just as the Master had gathered, and His disciples, so they met --without permission granted, or even asked, or, for that matter, thought of.

They followed this procedure intuitively --implied as it was in their basic assumptions. This policy was dictated not so much by the probability that the request would be refused anyway as by the conviction that to act otherwise was to act out of character. To meet under government auspices would be to bring strange fire upon the altar, would be to go against one of the new faith's most basic insights. The early Christians met in non-public places for principal reasons. Early Christianity conceived of society in any given situation to be a composite thing, consisting of some who glory in the Cross and some who stumble over it; and in a composite society, a cult that is common is by definition precluded.

https://www.gospeltruth.net/verduin/stepchildren.htm

According to the, Apostolic History Outline (by Rev. Marvin M. Arnold, D.D., Th. D.), the term, "WINCKELEHE", was a persecution hurled at Apostolic couples who were not married by a legally recognized or licensed priest. This slander meant, "illegal cohabitation."(L. Verduin, p.161)

It appears that historically speaking, Apostolics have nearly always been anti-establishment, and the establishment has nearly always been anti-Apostolic.

[Esaias]

Hi, Chris.