Christianity and Anarchism: The politics of the Kingdom of Heaven

Part I:  An Introduction to Anarcho-Christian thinking

Upon initial inspection, the title of this essay might appear quite abnormal.  One might be lead to question the validity of any of the following material and dismiss the current essay off-hand, simply because the heading is atypical.  “It certainly,” one might say, “is at least anachronistic.  After all, isn’t anarchism a pseudo-Marxist philosophy which had its origins in the later half of the 19^th century.  And don’t the philosophical assumptions of anarchist theory come into direct conflict with the main tenants of Christian theology.”  Though there is some truth to these objections, anarchism, especially the variant of anarchism known as anarcho-syndicalism, is the political theory which best corresponds with the demands of the radical Christian life-style to which Jesus called each one of his disciples.

     Before I move on, let me clarify that it must not be assumed that the terms “Christianity” and “Anarchism” are synonymous terms.  Anarchism is essentially a human political philosophy that was formulated in reaction to systematic, socio-economic injustice.  It is my contention that Christianity (the teaching of Jesus Christ) established an entirely new order contra novum ordo seculorum.  Jesus did not come merely to institute a novel political philosophy.  And he certainly did not descend from the heavenly realms in order to provide opposition to the Roman Empire or any of the other “evil empires” found within the global context.  Jesus’ death and resurrection constitute the beginning of an entirely new creation.  In this respect, an appropriate way to view the first Easter Sunday is as the rebirth of the created order.  Indeed, this is the way that the author of the Gospel of John viewed this event, as is hinted at by the language of that text (which could be seen as the Genesis account of the New Testament).  In view of all of this, however, it must be said that out of all of the secular political philosophical positions, the Christian, should feel most comfortable with that of the anarchist.

     The general thesis of this text is not new.  Nor is it the invention of the author of this essay.  There is a long established tradition of anarcho-christian thinking, whether it is overt or unspoken.  There are a number of individual thinkers who would classify themselves as both Christians and anarchists: Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, Dorothy Day, Leo Tolstoy, Ammon Hennacy and Peter Maurin, to name just a few.  One of the most notable Christian anarchist thinkers of the modern period is Philip Berrigan, a co-founder of the Plowshares movement (a radical Christian anti-war/anti-nuclear movement).  Though other Christian anarchist thinkers (I have in mind here Karl Barth, Kierkegaard and, more recently, Jacques Ellul) have provided more in-depth theological analyses of the Christian anarchist perspective, he has provided one of the most concise and articulate explanations of the Christian anarchist philosophy, as it relates to the principles elucidated by Jesus Christ, to date:

One of the best-kept secrets of the world has been the activism-the nonviolent resistance-of Jesus.  A close reading of the Gospel reveals His calling to account an unjust, corrupt system.  Kindness does not adequately describe His relationship to the poor or to those who suffer.  Compassion is better.  “My heart is moved with compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat.” (Mark 8:2)  Nor does nonviolent revolutionary sum Him up.  Anarchist is better: one who lives self-government, representing the poor, resisting a criminal state, and attending to the just works of God.  “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22:21)  Since all belonged to God, he gave nothing to Caesar.  Most of the references to Jesus’ kindness and antiviolence are suppressed today, simply because the established church has chosen chaplaincy to the imperial state.  Virtually no one teaches Christians the nonviolence of Jesus, nor his calling to community, nor his voluntary poverty, nor his choice of the cross.  Especially his choice of the cross, that living symbol of resistance to evil, including systemic evil-resistance to imperial governments, to predatory corporations, to nuclear weapons, to war, to the despoliation of the environment, to killing in any form.  What are these organizations of oppression that lie to us, rob us, and sometimes kill us?  Empires, nation-states, globalized corporations, world trade organizations, tariff and trade agreements (NAFTA), war ministries (Department of Defense), banks, stock exchanges.  Jesus would denounce and resist the scurrying, blind creatures that build and idolize them, while loving them and agonizing over their conversion.  (Roddick, 156-7)

It is very difficult to dispute the various claims made above.  Indeed, if one reads the gospels, one will find a Jesus very similar to the one Berrigan described.  However, following centuries of imperial/corporate incorporation and cooption, the true teachings of Jesus have been marginalized and outright ignored, if not perverted and radically changed altogether.  For instance, since Aquinas first developed it in his Summa Theologica, the church has held fast to what is often called the “Just War Theory (Jus Ad Bellem).”  However, it is difficult to amalgamate any “just war” theory with the teachings of Jesus (specifically those teachings found in Luke 6:27, Matthew 5:5, Matthew 5:39 and Matthew 5:40).

    

Part II:  A Clarification of Anarchist Principles

At this point, one may be tempted to object stating “But isn’t anarchy merely an off-shoot of nihilism, or Marxism?  Doesn’t the true expression of the anarchist desire simply result in chaos?”  To respond in short, no.  (In fact, when confronted with such a misunderstanding of anarchist philosophy I am tempted to use the Pauline double negative, “No!No!” in response.)  Such statements are not just oversimplifications, or generalizations of the anarchist position, but are gross perversions of the main principles of this school of thought.  One of the main proponents of anarchism, Peter Kropotkin, saw this tendency to dismiss anarchism as another version of nihilism early in the philosophy’s development.  He discussed this problem in his lecture, Anarchism: It’s Philosophy and Ideal:

Those who are persuaded that Anarchy is a collection of visions relating to the future, and an unconscious striving toward the destruction of all present civilization, are still very numerous; and to clear the ground of such prejudices of our education as maintain this view we should have, perhaps, to enter into many details which it would be difficult to embody in a single lecture. Did not the Parisian press, only two or three years ago, maintain that the whole philosophy of Anarchy consisted in destruction, and that its only argument was violence?

Following the line developed by Kropotkin above, I feel that a little clarification is necessary and is important to develop a full and unobscured understanding of the relationship between anarchic thought and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

     The question as to what constitutes the anarchic theoretical perspective must be addressed here.  It must be noted above all that anarchism does not mean a general revolution; a revolution against all and any authority.  Rather, the proponents of the anarchist school of thought denounce and decry artificial authority (authority that originates in the simple accumulation of wealth, or in the presence of coercive institutions).  We must turn to Michael Bakunin in order to see what is meant by the anarchist revulsion apropos synthetic, or unnatural authority:

What is authority?  Is it the inevitable power of the natural laws which manifest themselves in the necessary concatenation and succession of phenomena in the physical and social worlds?  Indeed, against these laws revolt is not only forbidden – it is even impossible…Yes we are the absolute slaves of these laws.  But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or, rather, it is not slavery at all.  For slavery supposes an external master, a legislator outside of him whom he commands, while these laws are not outside of us; they are inherent in us; they constitute our being, our whole being, physically intellectually, and morally [italics added for emphasis]: we live, we breathe, we act, we think, we wish only through these laws.  Without them we are nothing, we are not…The most stubborn authorities must admit that then there will be no need either of political organization or direction or legislation, three things which, whether they emanate from the will of the sovereign or from the vote of a parliament elected by universal suffrage, and even should they conform to the system of natural laws – which has never been the case and never will be the case – are always equally fatal and hostile to the liberty of the masses from the very fact that they impose upon them a system of external and therefore despotic laws…Does it follow that I reject all authority?  Far from me such a thought.  In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.  For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant.  But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me.  I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character , their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure.(Curtis, 353-5)

To make this point more succinctly one could say that, according to the anarchist view, authority should only be granted to individuals who have a particular kind of knowledge, that this authority is limited to the area of that individual’s knowledge, and finally that the authority granted to the individuals in question is voluntarily given to them by each individual citizen and is in no way binding with regard to the populace abroad.  Rudolf Rocker puts it this way in the first chapter of his book, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice:

ANARCHISM is a definite intellectual current in the life of our time, whose adherents advocate the abolition of economic monopolies and of all political and social coercive institutions within society.  In place of the present capitalist economic order Anarchists would have a free association of all productive forces based upon co-operative labour, which would have as its sole purpose the satisfying of the necessary requirements of every member of society, and would no longer have in view the special interest of privileged minorities within the social union.  In place of the bureaucratic institutions Anarchists desire a federation of free communities which shall be bound to one another by their common economic and social interests and shall arrange their affairs by mutual agreement and free contract. (Rocker, 1)

In other words, the ideal anarchist state is a small, cooperative federation/community of individuals, each sharing their resources and their abilities for the common good.  This ideal is directly reflected in the early church, as it is described in the second chapter of the book of Acts: “All the believers were together and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need [italics are added for emphasis].” (Acts 2:44-5) 

     One who is familiar with the writings of the Apostle Paul might also be able to recognize the distinctly Pauline nature of Bakunin’s doctrine of “natural authority.”  Paul also held a view that the best community should be composed of individuals who, each being possessed of a particular gift or social function, minister to one-another according to his/her ability.  This is particularly evident when one reads the above selection from Bakunin alongside the twelfth chapter of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians:

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same but the same Spirit.  There are different kinds of gifts but the same Lord.  There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.  Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.  To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, to still another the interpretation of tongues.  All of these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.  The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body.  So it is with Christ.  For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.  If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body…The eye cannot say to the hand “I don’t need you!”  And the head cannot say to the feet “I don’t need you!”  On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor…But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other [italics added for emphasis]…Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Cor. 12:4-27)

From these verses, it certainly appears as though the Apostle Paul subscribed to the same anti-hierarchical ideals described by Bakunin.  We see that each individual member of the church has been gifted by the Spirit, and in that area he has limited authority; however he is not to lord this authority over the heads of his fellow believers, but is supposed to use his/her gift for the common good.  Jesus specifically commands the church, the collected body of his followers, not to develop a hierarchical system of authority:

Jesus called them [his disciples] together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.  Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many [italics added for emphasis]. (Matthew 20:25-28)

     The conclusion which one must draw, following an analysis of the two biblical passages above is that Christianity, at the very least, shares a similar critical view of human governments and systems of power.  More likely, however, is that the Christian world view is the same as that of the anarchist school of thought, and that anarchism is a closely related secular cousin of Christian theology.

Part III: Biblical Anarchy:

     In this third section, as the title should have made clear, it is my intention to provide the reader with an exposition (or an exegetical analysis if you prefer the language of Theology) of specific biblical passages in which the congruity between Christian and anarchist thinking are most apparent.  This does not mean that the anarchic nature of the biblical teachings are limited only to these passages.  Indeed, an anarchistic thread can be found throughout the Bible.  In the interest of concision, however, (this is after all a pamphlet and not a book) I have limited my remarks to the passages in which the anarchism of the Bible is most perceptible.  In the interest of eliminating confusion, I have decided deal with the various anarchic biblical passages in a series of subdivisions, assembling the biblical texts together according to the anarchist principles which they support in common.

A. The “Golden Rule”

     As was stated earlier, one of the main doctrines advocated by the anarchist school of thought is universal solidarity; the idea that all human beings should live in collective, voluntary relationships that benefit the common good.  This necessarily implies a system of ethics in which humans are conceived of as “ends in themselves”; human livelihood and well-being is to be the center of the social order.  Of course this necessarily excludes the exploitation which is inherent in the socio-economic order of global capitalism, the military-industrial complex in general, and any form of hierarchical organization within the social order.  There are a number of biblical passages which sustain this anarchic analysis with regard to social organization and human interaction.

     The first such passage to be examined is found within the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of Mark:

One of the religion scholars came up.  Hearing  the lively exchanges of question and answer and seeing how sharp Jesus was in his answers, he put in his question: “Which is the most important of all the commandments?”  Jesus said, “The first in importance is, ‘Listen Israel: The Lord your God is one; so love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence and energy.’  And here is the second: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’  There is no other commandment that ranks with these.” (Mark 12:28-31 from the Message translation)

From this passage it is clear that Jesus gave individuals a position of primacy over and against the accumulation of wealth, the power of the state, etc.  In this passage, Jesus’ anti-hierarchical views are made exceedingly apparent.  One cannot be a slave owner, while at the same time claiming to love his slave as he does himself.  The institution of slavery is not one which one would like to participate in as a slave.  This excerpt also appears to exclude other systems (capitalism, state-socialism, etc.) in which human beings are necessarily treated as the means to an end rather than as “ends in themselves.”  Jesus’ anarchic formulation of ethics is rudimentary morality, and provides substantive qualification regarding human actions where other ethical systems (for example Kantian deontology, or capitalist “rule of law”) remain ethereal, abstract, or disjointed from concrete reality.

     A similar passage is found within the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew:

Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults – unless, of course, you want the same treatment.  That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging.  It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own.  Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt?  It’s this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part.  Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor…Here is a simple rule-of-thumb guide for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you, then grab the initiative and do it for them.  Add up God’s Law and the Prophets and this is what you get. (Matthew 7:1-5, 12)

Again, in this segment of the biblical text we are exposed to Christ’s radically collective vision of the common good.  Individuals are not isolated atoms of consumption, but instead are symbiotically connected to the well-being of their fellow homo sapiens.  Indeed, it appears as though Jesus expected his followers to go beyond simply providing for those who are in need, but to bear the responsibility of initiating a relationship of common exchange with other individuals.  We must go beyond simple, charitable giving to living collectively with one another in community.  This statement can be further reinforced by reflecting on the passage from the book of Acts cited above (Acts 2:44-45).

B. Pacifism, Nonviolence, and Nonresistance

     Other anarcho-christian principles that are intimately connected with the concepts of collectivistic interaction are often referred to as Pacifism, nonviolence, and nonresistance.  These existential responses (some anarchists may refer to them as “propaganda by deed”) to the hegemonic oppression of state/capital apparatus are deeply rooted in the anarchist critique of the artificial authority of the state and the corporation.  A majority of anarchist theorists and scholars view militarism, police violence and oppression, and the wage-slavery system that has been brought into existence by the corporate entities that dominate the neo-liberal, capitalist sphere, as an extension of the monopoly of socio-economic power possessed by the state and the multinational.  Indeed, for most anarchist thinkers violence in any form represents a form of coercion similar to that exercised by the political hierarchy.  As a result many anarchists have adopted a strategy of nonviolent resistance, boycott and general strike in order to change the economic and political order without embracing a political or social dichotomy similar to that created by the oligarchic system of capitalism or the bureaucratic system of state socialism.

     C.T. Butler and Keith McHenry, the anarchist activists and founders of the anti-nuclear federation Food Not Bombs, elaborate on the anarchist position with regard to the use of non-violence as a stratagem, workable tactic to be employed in the struggle against state oppression and capitalist exploitation:

Nonviolence means responding to situations of injustice with action.  The key to nonviolence is the ability to see potential violence in a situation before it becomes violent and act to de-escalate that potential.  If we cannot stop it from happening, we can at least work to minimize the effects.  It is extremely important that we act in a manner consistent with our values.  It is never in our interests to use violence against the police or others.  On the practical side, they usually can muster significantly more violent force than we could.  But, more philosophically, we don’t want to use power to dominate in our efforts for social change.  We want to create a society based on human rights and human needs, not the threat and use of violence.  We do not want to dominate; we want to seek the truth and support each other as we resolve conflicts without violence. (Butler & McHenry, 74)

  

     In the current American social order, it may be difficult to see how these ideas relate specifically to Christianity.  In fact, all throughout its history the church has been associated with various atrocities (the Catholic Inquisition), violence (the European and American witch trials) and has even lent its support for a number of armed conflicts (the Crusades).  This, however, is anathema apropos Christian theology itself.  Though persons and institutions which have claimed to be “the church” have participated in violent and oppressive activities, the actions of these individuals and organizations come into direct conflict with the actual teachings of Jesus and the early church.  Human hypocrisy in no way hinders the message of the Gospel itself.  Rather, human hypocrisy provides us with a sharp contrast to the actual message of Jesus and his apostles.  Hence there is no possibility of developing a “just war theory” within the bounds of church doctrine.  Such a blatant attempt to support violent action would necessarily be heretical.  There are a number of different biblical passages that can be analyzed in order to provide support for this position.

     The first such passage extends back into the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law of the early Jewish religion.  It occurs in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, in the thirteenth verse.  It is important to remember the context of this verse.  The nation of Israel had recently been liberated from under the tyrannical, oppressive governance of the Egyptian empire.  More importantly for our purposes, it must be recalled that the liberation of the Hebrew nation was the direct result of a divine intervention into the historical dialectic.  The Israelites did not liberate themselves through an initiation of human aggression, political coup de tat, or violent revolution.  Instead the Lord asked His people to trust Him for a deliverance that he would bring about through methods familiar to us now.  In the wake of this event, the miraculous exodus of Yahweh’s people, he issues ten commands which are to direct His chosen people as they establish a divine realm in Cannan.  The sixth of these commands is: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). 

Jesus reestablished, or reasserted this divine edict that had been concealed, and even abandoned through generations of declension and syncretism on the part of the collection of peoples known as “Israel.”  Within the context of His famous “Sermon on the Mount” (the delivery of which is the closest Jesus ever came to formulating a manifesto) Jesus clarified His pejorative position, not just regarding murder as a particular form of violent or aggressive activity, but apropos human violence in general.  For Jesus, murder and violent action were not the only opprobrious aspects of human nature.  Jesus instead chose to attack the root cause of human brutality; namely hatred and conscious vehemence towards one’s fellow man:

You’re familiar with the command to the ancients, ‘Do not murder.’  I am telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder.  Carelessly call a brother ‘idiot’ and you just might find yourself hauled into court.  Thoughtlessly yell ‘stupid!’ at a sister and you are on the brink of hellfire.  The simple moral fact is that words kill. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Jesus does not limit pacific action and love to relegating one’s consciousness or one’s passive responses to the activities of others, rather He encourages His disciples to embrace active forms of love in their quest for emancipation from the secular socio-political system:

Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look:  ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’  Is that going to get us anywhere?  Here’s what I propose: ‘Don’t hit back at all.’  If someone strikes you, stand there and take it.  If someone drags you into court and sues you for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it.  And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life.  No more tit-for-tat stuff.  Live generously.  You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’  I’m challenging that.  I’m telling you to love your enemies.  Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst.  When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves.  This is what God does.  He gives his best – the sun to warm and the rain to nourish – to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nasty and nice.  If all you do is love the loveable, do you expect a bonus?  Anybody can do that.  If you simply say hello to those who greet you do you expect a medal?  Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. (Matthew 5:38-47)

In other words Jesus expects us to extend love and generosity beyond the normal boundaries of the capitalist economic order.  We are to love those who do not have the economic affluence to “repay” or reward us for any of the fruits (I deliberately chose to avoid the word “products” in this context for reasons that ought to be obvious) of Christian benevolence.

     With regard to the second portion of the text (the love your enemies section) Jesus here is speaking not just of personal enemies, though he is concerned with our personal hatreds as well.  In this particular section Jesus appears to be rebuking the Zealots, the Sicarii, or “Fourth Philosophy” adherents; those who proposed violent revolt with regard to the oppressive power of the Roman state.  One of the main weapons of the Zealots was to create a xenophobic, Jewish nationalism which viewed all pagans as enemies of the “chosen people” of Yahweh.  There is a striking similarity between this biblical passage and a portion of a text from Rosa Luxemburg.  I first encountered this particular piece authored by Luxemburg while rereading a book entitled, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, by Murray Bookchin:

Speaking of the right of nations to self-determination we [meaning anarchist theorists] dispense with the idea of a nation as a whole.  It becomes merely a social and political unity [for the purposes of measurement].  But it was just this concept of nations as one of the categories of bourgeois ideology that Marxist theory attacked most fiercely, pointing out under slogans like “national self-determination” or “freedom of the citizen,” “equal before the law” – there lurks all the time a twisted and limited meaning.  In a society based on classes, the nation as a uniform social-political whole simply does not exist.  Instead, there exists within each nation classes with antagonistic interests and “rights.”  There is literally no social arena – from the strongest material relationship to the most subtle moral one – in which the possessing classes and a self-conscious proletariat could take one and the same position and figure as one undifferentiated national whole. (emphasis added)

(Bookchin, 70)

At first glance it may be difficult to find anything but an artificial correlation between the ideas expressed in Luxemburg’s statement and the segment of the Sermon on the Mount quoted above.  However, Luxemburg and Jesus give concrete expression to revulsion regarding the manufacture of synthetic “enemies,” the foment of xenophobia, by means of state propaganda.  Both Luxemburg and Jesus reject the “us vs. them” philosophy of nationalistic, proto-state capitalism, as well as the similar philosophies as regards the conglomeration of human potential (formal religion, state sponsored “socialism,” tribal linkages, etc.).  These ideas are echoed by the anarchist philosopher (a term which most anarchists would view as oxymoronic) Mikhail Bakunin:

We should place human, universal justice above all national interests.  And we should abandon the false principle of nationality, invented of late by the despots of France, Russia, and Prussia for the purpose of crushing the sovereign principle of liberty…Everyone who sincerely wishes peace and international justice, should once and for all renounce the glory, the might, and the greatness of the Fatherland, should renounce all egoistic and vain interests of patriotism. (Bookchin, 71)

We too, as Christians (we must remember this term means “little christs”), must pursue the unique form of protest against social injustice, which Christ instituted not only in word, but in deed (most anarchists would prefer the terms “propaganda by deed” or “direct action”).  We must resist the powers of this world, not through violent revolt, not through mere passive resistance, but instead through active, life-filled, self-sacrificing love.  Most importantly, this love must not be limited to members of one class, one racial group, one nation-state only.  This love must be extended, in ever widening circles, even to those that we may (in secular political terms) consider to be our enemies (the bourgeois proponents of capitalist exploitation, militarism, and economic oppression).  Many times Christians ignore this duty, out of anxiety for the future, and make the mistake of assuming that they must bring about the justice of the kingdom of God through force of will, as well as overt violent action.  However, Jesus reminds that His purposes come about through a direct inversion of the world’s political order.  Jesus reminds his followers that they do not need to participate in the conflict and struggle for socio-political power that is inscribed upon and symbolizes the political factions of the current historical epoch.  Rather, God in His justice uses peace to establish His dominion and, thereby, excludes armed insurrection or violent revolt in any form:

Then they came on him – grabbed him and roughed him up.  One of those with Jesus pulled his sword, and taking a swing at the Chief Priest’s servant, cut off his ear.  Jesus said, “Put your sword back where it belongs.  All who use swords are destroyed by swords.  Don’t you realize that I am able right now to call to my Father, and twelve companies – more, if I want them – of fighting angels would be here, battle ready?  (Matthew 26:50-53)

       

                 

C. The Freedom of Simplicity

     The title of this section refers specifically to the material aspect of the socio-economic, human community.  Apropos its spiritual and philosophical aspects, anarchism is a complex, rich and nuanced economic and political school of thought.  Also, contrary to a common misconception, anarchism does not reject scientific or technological progression in favor of a naive primitivism. On the contrary, anarchism readily embraces technology due to the fact that technology (if used properly and for these ends specifically) possesses an immense libratory capacity with regard to human labor.  Indeed, if technology was put to use in this way, if technology was used for the betterment of human society rather than the aggrandizement of capital in all its manifest forms, much of the onerous labor with which humans toil could be eliminated, thus liberating human kind to pursue more creative forms of labor.  In fact, the unreasoning abhorrence with and vilification of technology often does more to serve the cause of the hegemonic institutions of global capital.  As Bookchin stated in his magnificent text, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: the Unbridgeable Chasm:

Denouncing technology and civilization as inherently oppressive of humanity in fact serves to veil the specific social relations that privilege exploiters over the exploited and hierarchs over their subordinates.  More than any oppressive society in the past, capitalism conceals its exploitation of humanity under a disguise of “fetishes,” to use Marx’s terminology in Capital, above all, the “fetishism of commodities,” which has been variously – and superficially – embroidered by the Situationists into “spectacles” and by Baudrillard into “simulacra.”  Just as the bourgeoisie’s acquisition of surplus value is hidden by the contractual exchange of wages for labor power that is only ostensibly equal, so the fetishization of the commodity and its movements conceals the sovereignty of capitalisms economic and social relations.  There is an important, indeed crucial, point to be made, here.  Such concealment shields from public purview the causal role of capitalist competition in producing the crises of our times. (Bookchin, 33)

At this point one may be induced to question in what regard the anarchist philosophical school proposes simplicity to be the primary principle with regard to human organization.  The reply to this question is twofold.  The response most often heard among anarchist circles is something akin to the Gandhian aphorism, “Live simply, that others might simply live.”  It is this response that provides the most obvious link between anarchism and Christian thought.  There is, however, another anarchist perspective with regard to the idea of simplicity.  The anarchist George Nicholson describes this form of anarchist thinking in his essay entitled, The Simplicity of Anarchism:

The most frightening aspect of anarchism to the regimented mind is the simplicity of truths it contains.  Whilst society is quite prepared to accept the feasibility of planetary flight, alchemistry and other things within, and beyond the realms of logic, the simple possibility of man being self-governing and capable of standing on his own feet – without the aid of political or legal crutches – is regarded as something akin to lunacy, or dangerously fanatical at least (emphasis added). (Freedom, 39)

Whereas it is quite easy to see how the aforementioned

Gandhian anarchist simplicity is related to Christian theology, the applicability of the simplicity of Nicholson is less apparent.  For the sake of clarity we will explore both of these elements in relation to the teachings of Jesus and his disciples. 

     As it was stated earlier, it is a matter of relative simplicity to make a connection between what I have termed Gandhian anarchist simplicity and the biblical Christian tradition.  There are a number of passages and texts which one would be able to cite in support of this form of simple living:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired.   Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Mathew 19:16-26, NIV)

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.            (Matthew 6:19-21, NIV)

All the believers were together and had everything in common.   Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. (Acts 2:44-45, NIV)

     It should be readily apparent from even a cursory reading of the above passages that Christian theology is in no way compatible with any life-style marked only by consumption and capitalist accumulation.  Rather, it appears as though the Christian attitude towards human wealth as it relates the organization of human society has a great affinity for that proposed by a majority of anarchist thinkers, particularly Joseph Pierre Proudhon, who stated that “property [meaning the accumulation of private property] is theft.” (Curtis, 133-5)  The Christian author and theologian, Richard Foster, makes clear the importance of simplicity with regard to the Christian worldview in his tome, The Freedom of Simplicity:

Contemporary culture is plagued by the passion to possess.  The unreasoned boast abounds that the good life is found in accumulation, that “more is better.”  Indeed, we often accept this notion without question, with the result that the lust for affluence in contemporary society has become psychotic: it has completely lost touch with reality.  Furthermore, the pace of the modern world accentuates our sense of being fractured and fragmented.  We feel strained, hurried, breathless.  The complexity of rushing to achieve and accumulate more and more threatens to overwhelm us; it seems there is no escape from the rat race.  Christian simplicity frees us from this modern mania.  It brings sanity into our compulsive extravagance, and peace to our frantic spirit.  It liberates us from what William Penn called “cumber.”  It allows us to see material things for what they are – goods to enhance life, not to oppress life.  People once again become more important than possessions.  Simplicity enables us to live lives of integrity in the face of the terrible realities of our global village. (Foster, 3)  

The above application of anarchist simplicity to Christian thought and action will not often become a matter of conflict or contention.  However, the application of anarchist simplicity in its secondary form, namely the Nicholsonian abolition of coercive governmental structures, to Christianity is more obscure.  Many non-anarchist theologians cite Romans 13:1-2 and Titus 3:1, contending that the relationship between anarchism and Christianity is not only incongruous, but is outright oxymoronic.  It is the opinion of this author, however, that these verses have been read without regard to their original context, and that, rather than calling upon Christians to obedient submission to the state (or in our age, the hegemonic power of transnational capital), these biblical passages are a warning to Christians not to bother contending with “the powers” by manner of violent revolution.  The anarchist and Christian theologian, Jacques Ellul, makes a similar argument:

As in the case of all biblical texts (and all other texts!) we must first refuse to detach one phrase from the total line of thinking.  We must put that phrase in the general context.  Let us, then, take Paul’s argument as a whole.  In Romans 9-11 Paul has just made a detailed study of the relations between the Jewish people and Christians.  A new development begins which will cover chs. 12-14 and at the heart of which is the passage that we are now considering.  This lengthy discussion begins with the words: “Do not be conformed to the present age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”  Paul’s general and essential command, then, is that we should not be conformists, that we should not obey the trends and customs and currents of thought of the society in which we live, that we should not submit to the “form” of them but that we should be transformed, that we should receive a new form by the renewing of the mind, that is, by starting from a new point, namely, the will of God and love.  This is obviously a strange beginning if he is later to demand obedience to political authorities!  Paul then goes on to teach at length about love: love among Christians in the church (12:3-8), love for all people (12:9-13), and love for enemies (not avenging oneself, but blessing those who persecute), with a further exhortation to live peaceably with all (12:14-21).  The passage on authorities follows next.  Then all the commandments are summed up in the commandment of love and of doing no wrong to others (13:8-10).  In ch. 14 some details are offered as to the practice of love…This, then, is the general framework or movement within which the passage on authority occurs.  It seems so odd, so out of joint, in this larger context that some exegetes have thought that it must be an interpolation and that Paul himself did not write it.  For my part, however, I believe that it has its place here and that it does come from the apostle.  We have seen that there is a progression of love from friends to strangers and then to enemies, and this is where the passage then comes.  In other words, we must love enemies and therefore we must even respect the authorities, not loving them but accepting their orders.  We have to remember that the authorities have attained to power through God.  Yes, we recall that Saul, a mad and bad king, attained to power through God.  This certainly does not mean that he was good, just, or lovable.  Along the same lines one of the best commentators on the passage, Alphonse Maillot, relates it directly to the end of ch. 12: “Do not let yourself be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let every person (therefore) be subject to the higher authorities…”  In other words, Paul belongs to that Christian church which at the first is unanimously hostile to the state, to the imperial power, to the authorities, and in this text he is thus moderating that hostility.  He is reminding Christians that the authorities are also people (there was no abstract concept of the state), people such as themselves, and that they must accept and respect them, too.  At the same time Paul shows great restraint in this counsel.  When he tells them to pay their dues – we are rightly reminded of the answer of Jesus regarding the tax.  Far more boldly Jesus claims that we owe neither respect nor honor to magistrates of the authorities.  The only one whom we must fear is God.  The only one to whom honor is due is God…(emphasis added). (Ellul, 80-1)

D.  Freedom from Earthly Authority

     The Ellul passage which ended the previous section provides the perfect foreword to the current section.  That Christians should hold anarchic positions apropos earthly systems of governance is not a view typically held.  Quite to the contrary, usually it is more common for Christian theologians to be of the opposite persuasion (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell being the examples par excellence).  The common view, however, is misguided and unbiblical.  In fact, there are numerous biblical passages that appear to indicate a shared view between the Christian tradition and the anarchist school of thought with regard to formal, systematized, bureaucratic governments:

Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.  "What is it you want?" he asked.  She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."  "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?"  "We can," they answered.”  Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father."   When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.   Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.   Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:20-28, NIV)

Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.  They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail.  But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out.  "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."  At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.   When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles.  But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside."  On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.  Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people."  At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.  Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest.  "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."  Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!”   (Acts 5:17-29, NIV, emphasis added)

The Israelites said to Gideon, "Rule over us—you, your son and your grandson—because you have saved us out of the hand of Midian."  But Gideon told them, "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The LORD will rule over you." (Judges 8:22-23, NIV, emphasis added)

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice               and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Isaiah 58:6-7)

     From the passages cited above, it should be abundantly clear that the hegemonic socio-political strictures that have been established by terrestrial bodies of governance have little to do with the “Kingdom of God,” about which Jesus was so fond of speaking.  Indeed it is the great opprobrium of the Church of the current historical epoch that they have so misconstrued the biblical text, as a whole, to be supportive of the political powers, and in doing so, if Walter Wink is at all correct, have embraced the demonic powers which lie at the core of the oppressive political strictures and structures of the modern era.  With regard to this development we must reread a particular passage of Paul in a new (though not new to Paul) light:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power.  Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:10-12, NIV, emphasis added)

It would take a great deal of exegetical dexterity to create a formal analysis of this particular Pauline passage in such a way as to make it supportive of secular political authority.  Rather it appears as though Paul and the modern theologian Walter Wink hold a shared view of the secular entities of political authority and the demonic quality apropos the ethos of their power. 

Even though this conceptual framework regarding the conflict that exists between the “Kingdom of God” and the “kingdoms of man” is embedded deep within the Biblica/Gospel narrative, it is an idea that is still quite alien among the pulpits of the modern church.  Indeed, a majority of the people who would designate themselves as Christians are not even aware of the fact that the choice of the term gospel by synoptic authors was intended to be a direct confrontation with Roman power, or that the title which the Gospel authors had given to Jesus, “Prince of Peace,” was given to accomplish a similar goal.  For the term gospel (which meant good news) was regularly applied to the edicts and birth announcements of the Caesars.  The title “Prince of Peace” was a parody of a title claimed by Augustus Caesar during the height of his power, an era referred to as the Pax Romana (Roman Peace).  In view of the fact that a few individuals may still find it difficult to see any correlation between secular power and demonic influence we will examine one more passage which should leave little doubt in this regard.  This particular passage is taken from the Gospel of Matthew, within the context of Jesus’ temptation at the hands of the accuser:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.  "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."  Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matthew 4:8-10, NIV)

If one limited oneself to only a superficial reading of this passage, it may be difficult to grasp the connection, the correlative relationship that lies betwixt supernatural evil and the terrestrial, political realm.  One must ask, however, how the devil was able to offer the kingdoms of the earth if they were not under his control and dominion.  Some may respond that, in this regard, the devil was simply being dishonest, and that he in fact did not have power over the systems of human governance.  “Indeed,” one might say, “there is nothing over which God does not have dominion.”  In a way, the verity of this statement cannot be dismissed or disproved without resorting, at least partially, to a heretical line of thinking that runs parallel to certain strains of mystical and philosophical dualism.  On the other hand, the accuser must possess a certain level of authority with regard to the kingdoms of man, otherwise Jesus would have just responded simply, “Nice try, but the authority you offer is not yours to give.”  The question which must be asked is why Jesus does not choose to respond in just such a way.  It must be that the devil does possess a certain authority (as a result of the Fall no doubt) over the governments established by humankind.  The authority which Satan possesses in relation to the world governments is obtained through the same methods he uses to gain control over individuals; the authority has been given to him as a result of free human choices.  Satan only has authority over the rulers and kingdoms of this world if they have chosen alliegence with him and his purposes.  Corporate possession works in the same manner of individual possession.

Part IV: No Masters Yes, But No Gods?

At this point in the text a very difficult issue must be dealt with and resolved.  A famous anarchist axiom (it is even the title of an anthology of anarchist writings compiled and edited by Daniel Guerin) resounds with a message that appears to be incongruous (even blasphemous) when placed in the context of Christian theology: “No Gods, No Masters!”  This double negative apropos authority has long been the resounding cry of the anarchist scholar/activist, and it is thought to be beyond reconciliation in relation to Christian theology and dogma.  In the wake of the previous section of this text, it should not be difficult to see why an orthodox Christian could, and indeed should have little difficulty embracing the first portion of the abovementioned, anarchist motto.  It is not so clear, however, as to the manner by which a Christian could reconcile himself/herself to the second verse of this anarchist refrain.  In fact, when one examines the tension created by the conjunction and juxtaposition of Christian theology with the anti-theistic tendencies found in anarchist scholarship and thought, one finds oneself entangled in a rather murky philosophical quandary.  In order to extricate ourselves from the pedagogic and analytical mire into which we have just stepped, we must once again take into consideration the work of the Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul:

Leaving the historical and moral field, we must now consider the metaphysical attacks of anarchists on religions in general and Christianity in particular.  We will find in effect four decisive objections.  First, we naturally run up against the slogan: No God, Master.  Anarchists, wanting no political, economic, or intellectual master, also want no religious master, no God, of whom the masters of this world, as we have seen, have made abundant use.  The nub of this problem is very simply the idea of God.  Now it is true that for centuries theology has insisted that God is the absolute master, the Lord of lords, the Almighty, before whom we are nothing.  Hence it is right enough that those who reject masters will reject God too.  We must also take note of the fact that even in the 20^th century Christians still call God the King of creation and still call Jesus Lord even though there are few kings and lords left in the modern world.  But I for my part dispute this concept of God.  I realize that it corresponds to the existing mentality.  I realize that we have here a religious image of God.  I realize, finally, that many biblical passages call God King or Lord.  But this admitted, I contend that the Bible in reality gives us a very different image of God.  We shall examine here only one aspect of this different image, though new ones also come to light and give rise to the following questions.  Though the biblical God is the Almighty, in practice he does not make use of his omnipotence in his dealings with us except in particular instances which are recorded precisely because they are abnormal (e.g., the Flood, the Tower of Babel, or Sodom and Gomorrah).  God’s is a self-limited omnipotence, not through caprice or fancy, but because anything else would be in contradiction with his very being.  For beyond power, the dominant and conditioning fact is that the being of God is love.  It is not merely Jesus who teaches this.  The whole Hebrew Bible does so, at least if we read it attentively.  When God creates, it is not to amuse himself, but because, being love, he wants someone to love other than himself.  Nor does he create by a terrible explosion of power but by the simple Word: “God said” – no more.  God does not unleash his power but expresses himself solely by his Word.  This means from the very outset that he is a communicative God.  By contrast, in the religious cosmogonies of the ancient Near Eastern world, the gods (including those of Olympus) are always squabbling, creating violence, etc.  In the creation of humanity, the second story (Genesis 2) shows that the word is what characterizes humanity, too.  The primary role of human beings is to be those who respond to God’s love.  They are created to love (this is what is meant by the image of God). (Ellul, 32-4, emphasis added)

The crux of the problem then, as Ellul makes abundantly clear, relates to the misconceptions held by anarchists with regard to divine ontology, specifically in relation to divine personality and authority.  Anarchist theorists repeatedly make the erroneous assumption that divine authority has a nature similar to that wielded by the terrestrial powers; i.e. authority supported by coercion and violent repression.  This, however, is not the case when one is discussing Christian theology.  According to traditional Christian doctrine, the penultimate revelation of God’s power and authority occurred within the context of the crucifixion event, God’s direct confrontation with Death; the force upon which the authority of the powers rests.  Consequently, the ultimate disclosure of God’s power occurred in the event of Jesus’ resurrection, the incident which provided occasion for God’s final victory over death and, as a direct result, our victory, through the Holy Spirit, over the powers (be they supernatural or terrestrial).

Part V: Beyond Anarchism (Christianity and the Politics of Reconciliation)

     As I mentioned in the first section of this text anarchism and Christianity are not synonymous terms.  Anarchism is a secular human response to socio-economic injustice.  In contradistinction, Christianity (at least according to traditional orthodoxy) is a divine response to human evil, or sin, which has marred God’s good creation since the disjunctive event known as the Fall.  Throughout this text I have taken great pains to show that Christians should not view anarchism as an alien philosophy, or anarchists as heretics and enemies of orthodoxy.  Rather, Christians should embrace anarchist activists, scholars and theorists.  This task, however, was not undertaken in order to create an over-simplified understanding of the relationship between Christian theology and the anarchist worldview.  Anarchism, being a secular response to injustice, is ultimately (like all other human forms of organization) fraught with injustice in its own right.  Often, one finds that when the anarchist challenges the power structures of the current, hegemonic political system, the anarchist creates a dichotomy (an “us” vs. “them” paradigm) congruent to that created by the very political powers that the anarchist seeks to challenge.  The reader may be lead to question whether I have just contradicted the entire premise of my original thesis.  Indeed, there is here at least the appearance of a paradox, due to the fact that I initiated this text with the argument that anarchism presents us with a social schema which is the least incongruous within the context of Christian theology and the socio-political order of the “Kingdom of God,” to which Jesus was always making reference.  This, however, is not the case at all.  I still affirm the idea that anarchism is the only human system of social organization that embraces many of the principles and ethical teachings advocated by Jesus (particularly in His Sermon on the Mount).  Nonetheless, a majority of anarchist theorists find it difficult to acknowledge, understand, and (most importantly) accept one of the most important tenants of Christian theology, and as a result anarchism remains divisive, discordant and conflict ridden, separating the world into two camps: the poor and the wealthy; the abusive and the abused; the powerful and those who seek to wretch power from corrupt hands.  At this point, it appears as though there is no escape from the human tendency to fight injustice with injustice, hatred with hatred, and to create new dichotomies in the place of recently dismantled ones.  In other words, there appears to be no hope with regard to human redemption.

     It is exactly at this point of “despair” that the exceptional claims of Christian theology “become manifest.”  Even a cursory reading of Jesus’ most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, will give one an indication of the divine response to injustice and evil (see Appendix II).  As the Christian theologian, John Stott, has stated a number of times, the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount was the closest that Jesus ever came to developing a political manifesto proper.  Upon reading this sermon we are challenged to ask ourselves several questions apropos Jesus’ response to evil and socio-political, and economic injustice.  It is my contention that the politics, the social and relational requirements presented in the sermon, may be summarized in one word: reconciliation (or, if one prefers, forgiveness).  Indeed, this is the central theme of all of Christian theology, and it is the “Key” (in the sense of George MacDonald’s Golden Key) to abolishing the endless injustice present in all human dichotomies, social systems, and governmental organizations.  In his tome entitled, Evil and the Justice of God, the distinguished theologian N.T. Wright discusses this idea of a “theology of forgiveness” as a solution to exploitation, violence, and other forms of social injustice.  He does so by examining the central theme of another luminous text, Exclusion and Embrace, authored by Miroslav Volf:

Volf’s basic argument is this: Whether we are dealing with international relations or one-to-one personal relations, evil must be named and confronted.  There must be no sliding around it, no attempt (whether for the sake of an easy life or in search of a quick fix) to pretend it wasn’t so bad after all.  Only when that has been done, when both evil and the evildoer have been identified as what and who they are – this is what Volf means by “exclusion” – can there be the second move toward “embrace”: the embrace of the one who has deeply hurt and wounded us or me.  Of course, even this may not happen if the perpetrator of the evil refuses to see his or her action in that light.  But if I have named the evil and done my best to offer genuine forgiveness and reconciliation, I am free to love the person even if they don’t want to respond.  (Wright, 133)   

It should be readily apparent that the anarchist position performs the first necessary step toward reconciliation and healing within the socio-political context.  Anarchism clearly identifies the various forms of social and economic evil (capitalist exploitation, judicial injustice, etc.) and the perpetrators of these evils.  It is also equally clear, however, that secular anarchist thinkers are content to stop here.  Most secular anarchist activists, scholars and apologists are satisfied with pointing out injustice and “excluding” the perpetrators from the equation of healing and restoration.  This is the great opprobrium of the anarchist movement in general.  It is my contention that anarchism will only distinguish itself in as far as it embraces this Christian theme of forgiveness (the same is the case for all other social systems), and unsuccessful to the extent which it rejects it.  In the same sense, the Church will only be the true source of human liberation to the extent that it embraces Jesus’ teaching regarding forgiveness.  This is a point which N.T. Wright makes exceedingly clear in his discussion of forgiveness as it relates to the “Lord’s Prayer:”

But if sins were forgiven once and for all when Jesus died on the cross, why is there still sin and evil in the world at all?  And why should we go on praying this prayer day after day if we say, in creed and hymn, in liturgy and scripture, that it has already been answered?  The response to this question is that we are now called to be the people through whom the unique victory of Calvary and Easter is implemented in and for the whole world.  The Church is to be the advance guard of the great act of Forgiveness of Sins that God intends to accomplish for the entire cosmos.  Justice and peace, truth and mercy, will one day reign in God’s world; and the church, who could almost be defined as the people who pray the Lord’s prayer, is to model and pioneer the way of life which is, actually, the only way of life, because it is the way of forgiveness. (Wright, 56-7)

To accept, acknowledge and embrace this vocation of forgiveness is not unproblematic, straightforward, or simple.  It is as difficult for the Christian community as it is for those involved in the work of anarchist reform and revolution.  It will require a complete change with regard to human consciousness; it will require the “renewal of the mind” which Paul urged upon the Romans in the twelfth chapter of his epistle to the Christian community in the ancient imperial city of Rome.  For the some in the Christian community it will require an openness to those people who are radical agents of reform (i.e. anarchists, situationists, Marxists), to see them as “brothers-in-arms,” “combating” the same injustice that God has called them to address.  For others in the body of Christ it will require them to begin by conceding the fact that all is not how it should be, and that they are responsible for confronting the social, economic and political injustices that impede the work of Christ in their lives and in the lives of others.  Finally, for the secular activists, anarchists, Marxists, and those with a similar bent toward social revolution for the sake of Justice, it will require a recognition of the fact that the Ecclesia, the body of Christ, is the only community with the power and agency to enact social, economic and political justice “on earth as it is in heaven.”  In other words, it will require those who seek social justice to embrace the source and origin of that justice: Jesus Christ. 

One may be lead to question the urgency with which I am presenting the case for acceptance and forgiveness as an answer to injustice.  This may be seen as naïve and politically unrealistic.  It is, however, the only formula that does not propose a new dichotomy of “us vs. them,” the modus operandi of the “Kingdom on earth.” Forgiveness and the politics of reconciliation are the only methods of socio-political action that contain within them the seed of the new world and the new social order.  Similarly, the theologian and author, Charles Ringma, argues that Christians have been called to catalytic action that give birth to a new order rather than to activites that simply dismantle the arcane and confused system which dominates the present:

The greatest form of revolutionary change is not to pull down the old.  It is to create the new.  The use of radical language has been lost to the church.  Such language has become the sole province of those to the left of the political spectrum.  However, both radical language and action needs to be restored to the church, for the church can never be the mere supporter of the status quo.  Because the church’s final vision is based upon a new heaven and new earth characterized by righteousness, the present calling is to demonstrate the embryonic form of the new world.  Ellul remarks that the Christian, by making “the coming of the kingdom actual, is a true revolutionary.”  For the kingdom of God does not reflect the values of this age.  Nor is it premised on worldly priorities.  Nor does it build our political and economic systems.  Instead, the kingdom of God is the great disturber in our world.  It is the action of God that subverts our proud achievements.  It is the presence of God’s grace [what I have referred to as reconciliation], peace, and justice in a world that finally manages to pervert its own good. (Ringma, 229)

In light of the above passage, the importance of divine grace and human reconciliation in relation to the human socio-economic order should be clear.  In short, this doctrine of forgiveness is, to borrow an appropriate term from the late philosopher Jacques Derrida, the Différance  between the Christian answer to injustice and human evil, and all other forms of social organization, anarchism included.