Christian Anarchy? An Oxymoron?

I have heard a few mentions of Christian Anarchy recently, a growing movement within Christianity, so I thought I would explain it as far as I can based on the little understanding I have and the bit of reading I have done since it caught my curious attention a while ago. Feel free to offer your own thoughts and understandings. As with anything, there will be those who lean towards it and those against. I may even have some details wrong. Either way, since it’s out there and getting the attention of some, it’s worth having a look at.

The terms ‘Christian Anarchist’ and ‘Christian Anarchy’ sound like oxymorons to many or simply a bad joke. The term anarchy is stereotypically associated with things such as chaos, terror and nihilism and for that reason, there are those who align with the term that often refrain from using it in public when trying to describe their ideas, understandings and beliefs as they feel that the negative stereotypes do not fit them.

For some, the anarchist stream (if it can be described as such) of Christianity is what they most closely identify with. It fits their understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus and how they believe Christianity intersects with the world and the communities around us – including the political discourse.

Before going any further we must explain the term ‘anarchy’ as far as it can be done and as far as my awareness allows.

The terms ‘anarchy’, ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’ have often been used in political theatre to malign those opposing the one using the term and thus negative definitions describing chaos, terror and the free reign of all of humanity’s negative aspects have been used with great force to demonize those who criticize whatever the present authoritative order may be, yet to simply associate anarchism with negative chaos is to miss its historical outworking and the thinkers best associated with it.

The Greek term from which the word anarchy is derived, anarcho, is broad and simply means ‘without a ruler’. It first found wide usage in the political sense during the French Revolution and was used freely by political parties to damn their opponents. It was commonly used by those on the right to condemn those on the political left of the time. This was before the left became predominantly represented by the authoritarian state. It was a term that was thrown about ad-hoc to tar one’s rivals with a negative brush, thus there were those who abhorred power who were labeled with the term alongside those who greatly desired it.

As with many terms (such as ‘Christian’) the use of the terms ‘anarchy’ and ‘anarchist’ evolved over time from being something that was considered negatively, to being adopted with pride by some very serious thinkers.

The first thinker pointed to as using it proudly as a positive term was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1840. In his work ‘What is Property?’ he became the first man to willingly use the term ‘anarchist’ to describe himself. He did so as a matter of defiance, but also in recognition of the ambiguity and paradox within the definition of the Greek term, anarcho. He used the term to denote that a criticism of authority does not necessarily equal an advocacy for disorder or disorganization. Whilst he criticized authority, he still envisioned a functioning, organized society. Thus anarchism was birthed and has had many varied adherents since who all saw/see the outworking of it differently.

In his book on Anarchism, tracing its history and its thinkers, George Woodcock defines anarchism (as far as it can be defined) as:

… a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly – for this is the common element uniting all its forms – at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of non-governmental cooperation between free individuals.

-Woodcock, G. ‘Anarchism’, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1983. P11

This picture given by Woodcock allows for many different ways for it to be outworked. There can be different understandings of the changes that need to take place, the vision of what forms of non-governmental cooperation can/should take effect, how to go about critiquing present authority and how to allow that cooperation to take place.

Whilst the aspect of anarchy that critiques present forms of authority has always been strong, that criticism does not stand alone and some (such as Woodcock) argue that it should not be the defining factor of anarchism. It is put forward that any criticism of authority should be couched in a vision of how society should be and action to take it there – this means that anarchists should be active contributors to the creation of an envisioned society (even if that vision is vague, which it often is since it involves a more organic society) as well as critics of present authority.

Criticism of authority that only calls for and leads to the destruction of present society with no vision for anything else is not anarchism according to many who identify with the term. They argue instead that such a pursuit is nihilism, destruction for its own sake. Nihilism is often associated with anarchism, but an examination of prominent anarchist thinkers demonstrates that they are not the same thing. Nihilism is the negative stereotype of anarchism.

It is here that we look to Christian thinkers that would be identified with anarchism and thus have lead to the term ‘Christian Anarchy.’

To understand Christian Anarchy one must turn to the writings of people such as Tolstoy (the Russian novelist and thinker who did not associate with anarchism as he applied the name to those who wanted to change society through violent means but is recognized as an anarchist by the likes of Woodcock and Eltzbacher) from whom Gandhi gleaned most of his worldview. Amongst the Christian anarchist ‘tradition’ there are also writers such as Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, Dorothy Day and in my own region of the world (Australasia), Dave Andrews. Alongside these thinkers/writers/activists there are also those who may not identify themselves with Christian Anarchy but still have a hand in shaping its thought. These are people such as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder.

Christian Anarchy can be identified by the following statement on the Jesus Radicals website:

Without claiming that anarchism is Christian or that one has to be an anarchist to be Christian, we claim that if Christians are to engage with the world, the best available option is anarchism because it opens up space for Christians to engage without selling out their primary allegiances and core commitments, especially to peacemaking and nonviolence. Yet violence is not the only issue at stake in politics. All governments operate on a model of ruling over people. But the Gospels claim that Christians should model Jesus’ suffering servanthood. These are fundamentally incompatible outlooks. Anarchism, at its best, is a commitment to systematically critiquing all structures that place one person or group in a position to dominate others or creation. So anarchism, as a political philosophy holds some promise for Christians because the two share a commitment to critiquing the power structures and working towards a more level playing field.

Christian Anarchy identifies with non-violence, peacemaking, direct action, critique of forms of domination, community participation and a vision of humans driven by a commitment to justice and love rather than by a desire for power. Christian Anarchy seems to follow the Christian tradition of subverting the Empire rather than embracing it.

Adherents of Christian Anarchy seem to follow the view that a life lived as a disciple of Jesus is one that naturally subverts human power and authority structures.

In the biblical story they see anarchism in the form of society of ancient biblical Israel prior to the establishment of a king, which God warned against. They also see it in the tradition of the prophets who continually held the king to account and critiqued the trajectory of society; then they see it in Jesus who continually rebuked human forms of hierarchy in parables, sermons and his instructions to the disciples. Following Jesus they see anarchism in the egalitarian early church and its subversion of the Roman Empire. Finally they sometimes see it in the libertarian nature of the book of Revelation, condemning earthly authority to destruction and vindicating those who were martyred for following the way of Jesus.

There is a common argument that Christian Anarchy is not actually anarchy. This argument posits that it cannot be anarchy because Christian Anarchists simply seek the rule of another Kingdom.

The response to this can be found in Tolstoy’s view of the Kingdom of God. Tolstoy advocated that the Kingdom of God was something that operated within us, it is a personal transformation that outworks itself socially through justice and love, thus it is argued that the active Kingdom of God is not found in a power structure (that which is rejected by anarchy) nor in the rejection of what is natural, but instead it is found in justice, peace, love, humility, self sacrifice and service to one another – all things that wholly undermine human hierarchy, authority and power and offer another way that liberates, values humanity, spurns exploitation, turns the tables on the hierarchy of rich and poor, lifts the oppressed and sets the captives free.

On the Jesus Manifesto website, the following statement from Jesus himself is put forward as the driving motive and mandate behind that site, one that is associated by many with Christian Anarchy:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.

…and alongside this, the Jesus Manifesto states this, which broadly encompasses the drive of the Christian Anarchist:

But beyond disruption and subversion, we want to proclaim something much deeper–hope. You can only challenge things for so long before you need to help create the alternative.

For more (better) information on Christian Anarchy, check out these online resources and feel free to offer your own thoughts, explanations, agreements or disagreements:

Jesus Radicals – The foremost website representing Christian Anarchy and it serves as the online home of the South Pacific Christian Anarchists.

Co-Opted? Kia Nga Tahi – The zine of the South Pacific Christian Anarchists

Christian Anarchy .com

What We Are… from ChristianAnarchy.com

Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy Over the Powers by Vernard Eller (online book)

Dave Andrews

A Call to Christian Anarchy by Greg Boyd (a helpful short explanatory article)

The Bible, Government and Christian Anarchy – another article by Greg Boyd

The Jesus Manifesto

Christian Anarchy: A Primer by Keith Hebden at Anarchy Downunder (hasn’t been updated in some time)

Authority Vs. Submission an examination of these terms from a biblical perspective.

The Bible

The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy (online book). You can also download it here. This is regarded as his central work that aligns him with anarchism.

Note: Because of the nature and often negative view of the term anarchy, allow me to clearly state that this blog has no official position on such matters. This post acts simply as an exploration of one stream of thought within Christianity. We encourage you to discuss it, agree, offer disagreements, point out strengths and weaknesses with the position explained,  give your thoughts and converse around it.