Thoughts on Christian Anarchism

 

an·ar·chism
/ˈanərˌkizəm/
Noun

Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force...

I first heard of the term "Christian anarchy" about three years back when reading up on a band I had being enjoying and I was taken aback by it, it seems like the ultimate oxymoron and to this day I do not like the term as I find it to be both confusing and unhelpful. Anarchism (at least to the general public) brings to mind pictures of chaos, rebellion and violence, while Christian anarchism emphasises subversiveness and non violence. One of the better known anarchist slogans is "No gods, no masters", while the bible says "you will have no other Gods before me" and "call no man your master for one is your master" (Ex 20:3 & Mat 23:8). So while traditional anarchism and Christianity are clearly at odds in some areas, there is actually a ton of common ground to be found as well.

Similarities

Both biblical Christianity and anarchism recognize how power corrupts those who exercise it and call for non hierarchical societies. God never wanted Israel to have a King  (1 Sam 8:7), but to be governed by Himself and guided by judges. This is similar to the function of elders in the church today. But this is not to be mistaken for hierarchy, scripture teaches that men are to submit one to each other (1 Pet 5:5), not to seek titles (Mat 23) and that anyone who wants to be great must become a servant to others (Luke 22:26). Moreover, we are specifically instructed not to exercise authority over one another (Mat 20:25). The heart of the church is realized in community, not just a weekly service run by a few and at the same time it is to be governed by consensus decision making (Acts 6:3).

Christian anarchist theology is largely based on the teachings found in the sermon on the mount with a strong emphasis on non violence and servant hood. 2 words that come up repeatedly in Christian anarchist literature are "kingdom" and "community" and they seem to be at the heart of the movement. Most Christian groups throughout history that have had an anarchist impulse in them have been community based, think of groups like the Anabaptist's, the Quakers, Misseo Dei or the Jesus Radicals. Adherents to this philosophy/theology have recognized that the bible speaks of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdoms of the earth. And the two will always be at odds with one another. Christian anarchists recognize that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Jesus and that he alone is the true King (Mat 28:18, Isaiah 9:6-7). While we are to serve, obey and live at peace with the worlds leaders as much as possible, we answer to God and pledge allegiance to Him alone. (Acts 5:29).

It is very interesting  to see how Jesus never got sucked in to the politics of his day, people  were always asking him questions, trying to get him to weigh in on earthly matters which he would kind of side step or turn around on them. He said himself that his kingdom was not of this world so why would he really devote his energy to worldly ones? Certainly he saw the oppression around him and was moved by it, but he chose not to fight against it by becoming part of it (Matt 4:8-9). This is in stark contrast to what we see in the West today. Christians often appear to place more faith in political leaders and parties than they do in God. I am sure that I am not the only one who has struggled with the idea of having to vote for the lesser of two evils when elections come around.

We would do well to recognize that our neighbor is not necessarily the one on our side of the border line (Luke 10:36-37) and that we are all of one blood (Acts 17:26). For the most part I have found the writings on this topic very interesting and in harmony with the Gospel of the Kingdom that we read about throughout scripture. Certainly a few objections will be raised by many, Romans 13 comes to mind. Instead of trying to write a mini booklet I would rather point you toward what others from within have written. Here are some great starting places for further digging.

On defining Christian anarchy

http://revolucion94.tumblr.com/post/10332179799/christian-anarchy-what-we-are

On Romans 13

http://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm

In conclusion I think that we should live at harmony as much as possible with worldly authorities but not replace God with them. Jesus and many of his followers spent time in prisons and died at the hands of their political and religious leaders. Not because they were morally loose, but because they would not bow their knee to Ceaser. Faith and politics do not mix well, ever since the merging of Christianity and the Roman empire in the 4th century the history of the institutional church has been a bloody and sorrowful one. We would do well to hear the call of God in Revelations 18:4 and "come out of her". Let us take it upon ourselves to further Gods kingdom through His ekklesia rather than build up the kingdoms of men. The church looks like Christ when it carries the cross, not the sword.

For God so loved the world, except for Esau who he hated...

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)

There are some verses in scripture that, at a glance, can seem quite confusing and even contradictory to what we know to be true about God, Romans 9:13 being a perfect example. In fact, the whole of that chapter has being misused and abused for hundreds of years by some sects within Christianity. Something that gets missed often in the above mentioned verse is that the word hate which is translated as  “saw-nay” in Hebrew or “miseo” in Greek does not mean “hate” in the sense that we use it in English, if that is what the writer wanted to convey he would have used the words “bazah, ma’as or to’evah”, the word used in  Hebrews actually means to “love less” than “or “prefer over”. If I said to you that I loved chicken less than bacon and you concluded that I hated chicken you would be grossly mistaken. So it’s not that God hated Esau the individual and predestined him to go to hell and Esau was just living out those predetermined steps, but rather the text tells us that Jacob was preferred over Esau in relation to being chosen in the lineage for the nation of Israel. That is ultimately what the context of Romans 9 is about. 

Similarly, we see the same word (miseo) is translated as hate in Luke 14:26.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Everyone knows that we are called to love our wives, children, even our enemies (Eph 5:25, Mat 5:44, Luke 6:27,35), the word hate then clearly cannot be taken to literally mean despise or loathe in these verses. It makes so much more sense if we understand it as “anyone who loves his family more than me cannot be my disciple” and similarly “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I overlooked (in favor of Jacob)”.  Scripture calls us to love our enemies, it would be fair to assume that God holds Himself to the same standards that he gives us. 

We need to be careful of steering the boat to far to the left as well though. Texts like 2 Pet 3:9 and Gen 6:6 reveal that God can love and judge simultaneously. It is not Gods love that saves us, it merely provided us with a way to be reconciled to Him (Jn 3:16). 

Examine yourself and Correction in Love

Below is principle (or chapter) 28 in it’s entirety from the book “Principles for the gathering of Believers under the headship of Jesus Christ”. You can download the book freely from the link below and I recommend doing just that. There is some great wisdom in there from the churches in Iran, China and North Korea. Because of the amount of religious carelessness that we all get to see flying around on social media, I thought this would be great to share.

http://gospelfellowships.net/principles-book/ 

IN THIS age of technology when we get hurt it is easy to go to

Facebook, or other social media to voice our feelings. For many of us

having mercy or asking: Am I correct in feeling this way? can become

an afterthought. Scripture reminds us to examine ourselves first.

Judging, criticizing, maligning character, slandering and speaking to

tear down another is probably one of the easiest things to do. Sadly,

in the Christianity of our day such unedifying practices are applauded

as righteous and discerning. Tearing down has become a ministry

preoccupation with many in the blogosphere and Internet in general.

 It is so easy for one to just spend a few minutes typing at the

computer and the result can be devastating. The defiling of the

testimony of a brother who has loved the Lord for many years can

happen in minutes when the tongue is uncontrolled. Such

correction and criticism usually comes with little or no prayer, and

without speaking to the individual himself, while appearing to be

very holy on the outside. Yet the fruit produced from many of these

types of rebukes, is usually the increase of a critical spirit in others.

Of course, there are some brothers who have fasted and prayed,

sought the Lord and had a burden from His heart. There are those

who have pleaded with the individual involved and even worked

through other brothers and sisters in the local area where that person

is located. They have only, as a last resort and plea to this precious

brother or sister in the Lord, chosen to post a public warning. Such

warnings in love are needed for those who are continuing in sins. It

is also Biblical at times to warn the Church of God of others that are

clearly false teachers.

 No public warnings must be posted on the Internet or on other

social media until the intent and love of Scriptural correction is

fulfilled. Disputes in the body of Christ must be resolved first in the

household of God according to principles set out in the Bible.

According to Matthew 18:

 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just

between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them

over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that

‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three

witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the Church; and if

they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a

pagan or a tax collector.”

 Also in Luke 17 it says: “So watch yourselves. ‘If your brother or

sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive

them.’”

 In Galatians 6 it says: “Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught

in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently.

But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.”

 Here is a simple outline on how to proceed:

 1.) Examine yourself. What evidence is there of this sin in my

own heart and life. Do I do the same things in my hidden life?

2.) If the person has propagated doctrines different from yours,

are you certain you are in the faith and correct? Have you sought

advice from a good spectrum of servant leaders? Is the beam in your

eyes greater than the little speck you are complaining about?

 3.) Have you attempted to solve the problem based on Biblical

principles?

 4.) Christ’s exhortation to watch over one another and to bear

one another’s burdens in the spirit of meekness and love should be

foremost in our mind.482

 5.) The primary aim must be the restoration of the offender and

not to destroy him or her.

 6.) Loving the sinner or enemy but not their sin, is the guiding

principle. We attempt to restore the person in gentleness and love.

This then gives a worthy witness of our faith during correction for a

testimony to the sinner, the Church and the world.

 7.) It is also true that we cannot overlook sin, as many do in

churches today. We do not want to create problems, nor dissension or

offense. We say, “We leave it to the Lord.” This is wrong. Scripture

tells us we have the duty to oppose sin against us in our Churches or

Assemblies. One rotten apple can destroy the whole barrel. Satan and

his demons are active in the Church to plant dissension, opposition,

division and anger. He seeks to sow evil so that we might devour each

other. Satan goes where he can find people of faith to destroy them.

 8.) We must forgive 70 times 7 but we should not have

fellowship with such a person unless he or she repents and turns

around. God tells us that if we forgive, He will forgive us. If we don’t

forgive, He will not forgive us.

 9.) the offender must be readmitted to fellowship when he or she

has repented, asked for forgiveness and made restitution where

possible. Warnings in love and correction in love, including expulsion

from fellowship for a time are necessary for those continuing in sin.

 In any correction in the body of Christ, may we follow the

example of Moses who flung himself in the dust before rebellious

Korah. this humble servant leadership that does not seek evil for

anyone but rather forgiveness and mercy that is approved by God.

God still judged Korah in the end for his disobedience but Moses

gave every opportunity for Korah to repent as he humbled himself in

a great way before him. Moses was not trying to build his reputation

but rather was simply following the Lord in humility. We must be

ready for such situations to occur in gatherings of believers who are

meeting under the Headship of Jesus Christ. Where the light is

shining greatly the enemy will be active to disrupt.

 May God grant us such great humility and Christ’s love in

correcting any brother or sister in the Lord.

Thoughts on Open Theism

Sitting down to write an article on Open Theism turned out to be a lot more difficult than I imagined it would be. This has been rewritten a few times already simply because it is such a difficult thing to try and define; it is a little like trying to define what colour the sea is. It may be clear in one area, blue in another and brown somewhere else.

So here is my best attempt at explaining what seems to be at the heart of open theology and how I feel about it.

Open theism is a response to the more traditional or classical view on the attributes of God. The classical view can be traced back to early Greek philosophy while the Open view, is a bit harder to determine, although similar thoughts can be seeing in the writings of Calcidius, a 4th century interpreter for Plato. Many traditionalists believe that God fully determines the future; He also exists outside of time and thus does not experience emotions in a literal sense. Open theists reject that the future, at least in the smaller things, is set in stone, some even contend that God does not operate outside of time at all and that the future is unknown even to Him. While Open Theists accept that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, they interpret them slightly differently to most evangelicals. The classical view says of Gods omnipotence that He has the power to do anything He wants to, while the open view states that we should not define omnipotence as the power to determine everything but rather, as the power that enables God to deal with any situation that arises. Likewise, omniscience is not seeing as God knowing everything that will take place, but rather as God knowing every possible (yet unwritten) scenario that could still unfold and how best to respond to that.

Rather than the three “O”’s which classical theism concentrates on, the Open crowd have chosen to focus on Gods attributes of love and the relational aspects associate to that, thus the heart of the message is that God is not behind the violence, evil, sickness or “acts of God” in the world today, neither was He an accomplice in the sense that He knew full well what men like Hitler and Nero would unleash on the world when He was forming them inside their mothers’ wombs. But rather, like the ultimate chess player ever, He is able to pre-empt any move that we can make and still with 100% certainty control the outcome for goods ultimate triumph over evil.

Regarding scripture, they will point to verses like Genesis 6:6-7 and 1 Samuel 15:11 where God regrets decisions He had made, or Exodus 13:17 and Ezekiel 12:3 where God considers different future possibilities. In Genesis 22:12 God tests Abraham so that He can “know” Abraham's heart. There are also 39 occasions in scripture where God changes His mind (like in Exodus 32:7-14 and Isaiah 38:1-5). God is also seeing to exhibit genuine emotions, like when Jesus weeps over the death of a friend before raising him back to life, similarly he also lamented over Jerusalem in Mathew 23. The father also anguishes over Israel’s disobedience throughout the Old Testament and in 2 Peter 3:9 we read that He desires that none will perish but that all would find life in His son.

You could start quoting verses in response to the above ones as well but I will leave that up to you to go and research, just Google “open theism” and plenty will pop up, trust me. I must say that for myself I am not fully satisfied that either camp is 100% right. I think both sides have some compelling arguments and holes in their theology. Because this article is about Open theism though, I will stick to that, I believe that Open Theists are spot on in that the future is not completely set in stone as some of the scriptures above reveal. 

Regarding tragedy, I do believe that God can cause a life threatening storm like we see with Jonah. He may make it rain fire like with Sodom and Gomorrah  Yet in Job we also see Satan use a "great wind" to kill Jobs children and we also see Jesus rebuke a wind that had his disciples freaking out, if Jesus rebuked it you would have to assume that it was not from God. Verses like 1 Peter 1:6-7, James 1:2-3 and the story of Job which speak of persecutions and trials reveal that, while God may not be the author of our suffering, He may allow it for our refining or for other purposes, for example, the spreading of the gospel as was the case with Paul being a prisoner in Rome. Yet I am also very uncomfortable with the classical view when we see a child die and the parents are led to believe that it happened because they made an idol of their family, or that God was pulling the strings for some other purpose. Surely God cared as much for the child's life as he does for the parents? Yes, He will use the situation for good but it does not necessarily mean He orchestrated it. Surely He weeps at the tragedies within a fallen world along with us.

Something the Open View highlights which I like is that bad things happen because people make stupid decisions and the Devil is real and active in the world. Our prayers DO have an impact in the world and we can’t take it for granted that things will just work out because God has preordained them already. Some of Greg Boyd’s thoughts on this are worth a read over at http://reknew.org/blog/. The one major thing however that I cannot reconcile with in the Open view is that God is restricted within time, there is just to much in scripture that reveals that God is beyond it, 2 Timothy 1:9 is the perfect example of Gods foreknowledge. Knowing something will happen does not equal being an accomplice to it, if anything, all it reveals is that God does not exercise his authority over others free will even when He is passionately opposed to those ideas. Obedience is always better when it comes from a changed heart rather than a fearful victim. There may be cases where He steps in to restrain evil but it would be impossible to philosophize about the when and why with full confidence. Open theists do attempt address the time issue in books like Greg Boyd's  God of the Possible, and William Lane Craig's Time and Eternity. I have not had the means to read them yet though.

Overall I think some good questions are being asked and some nice insights being shared, yet we need to be able to reconcile ALL the attributes of God without having to throw away the pieces that we may not like or understand. Some people are super aggressive in their response to Open Theism, yet I think it's at least closer to the truth than Calvinism is. I am far more concerned with the way God gets painted in doctrines like Penal Substitution or unconditional Predestination.  

The context of "Gods ways are not our ways".

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

These are beautiful words which we often hear quoted, normally when someone has gone through some sort of tragedy and they are asking, "Why God?". I also hear it used a lot when people try and explain how a loving God could let people go to hell. While the words penned above could probably be quoted to someone struggling with tough questions like those mentioned and still ring true. These verses in the context of Isaiah chapter 55 are actually about Gods goodness and mercy to unrighteous and undeserving people which is kind of the opposite isn't it? They are about the prodigal son who returns home when he has wasted everything that he was given.  Men, much like the older brother in Luke 15, prefer to see retributive justice dished out (except on ourselves and those closest to us), but God prefers to see the broken restored. This is not what some would call "cheap grace". God paid the highest price for our restoration and at the highest personal cost. And we have to recognize that not all prodigals return home. Some don't run out of money, while some will remain with the pigs out of their stubbornness or others out of shame, in the end it makes no difference because they have chosen their lot. But the Father  still patiently watches and waits for them. 

Below is the proper context of "Gods ways are not our ways", note verse 7 directly before it.

Isaiah 55

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
Come to the waters;
And you who have no money,
Come, buy and eat.
Yes, come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without price.
2 Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And let your soul delight itself in abundance.
3 Incline your ear, and come to Me.
Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you—
The sure mercies of David.
4 Indeed I have given him as a witness to the people,
A leader and commander for the people.
5 Surely you shall call a nation you do not know,
And nations who do not know you shall run to you,
Because of the Lord your God,
And the Holy One of Israel;
For He has glorified you.”
6 Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

What to expect

So I have really battled to update this blog as often as I would like to and maintain any sort of momentum. But I have come up with the ingenious idea of setting aside one night every week to specifically sit down and focus on the things that I would like to say over here. So please check in every now and then at least and hopefully there will be something new to read. Some of the things that I would like to put down here in the coming weeks would be a look into specific schools or thoughts within Christianity, the positives and
the negatives and what we can take from or should avoid like the plague, the list will probably cover Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant (which to be fair I will probably have to break into bits  like left and right, Calvinism and Armenian-ism, Prosperity Gospel etc). Also the Emergent church, Casual Church, House Church and Organic Church. Maybe some of the communal expressions like the Amish and Mennonites as well. A few other interesting areas to write about will be on Open theism, Universalism and Christian anarchy and books, speakers and authors that I have enjoyed.

Apart from these I also want to add a page on bible verses often quoted out of context, there is such a plethora of them and the real context is often missed and we rob ourselves of their true meaning and beauty. I may just add those one at a time which means maybe the updates will be more regular than just once a week. Once all that is down I might have a look at some specific church doctrines and practices like communion, elders, tithing and so on. If there is anything that you yourself would maybe like to see here then please post a comment below or email me at moustachepower@gmail.com , yes it's a silly email address (initially used to separate my work and joke email hence the choosing of a silly name) and yes in South Africa we spell certain words differently, color becomes colour, honor becomes honour and mustache becomes moustache.

Ok then, be blessed and let the world know that you belong to Christ by your love for one another :)

In Search of the City

A friend of mine recently directed me to a free ebook called In Search of the City which I thoroughly enjoyed. It is an autobiography which really resonated with my own walk thus far. For me, the best kinds of testimonies are both individual and corporate. We are not just saved out of stuff, we are also saved into Christ and a living organic thing called the church. I have with Joshua's kind permission shared an excerpt below from his book. Please go check out his own blog and download the book as well at http://www.insearchofthecity.com/, it's a short, quick read with some awesome stuff in it.

Anyway, here is an excerpt from Chapter 3

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STEPHEN

Scholars have what they call the law of first mention. Basically this means that the best way to get the fundamental meaning of a particular doctrine or event in Scripture is to look at its first occurrence in the biblical story.

With that in mind, what are we to make of Stephen being the first follower of Jesus to die for his faith in Christ? Is there anything significant about that?

Think about it: Until Stephen appeared on the scene (Acts 6) most of the Jesus-followers in Jerusalem were held in high esteem. Granted, the Nazarenes adhered to a strikingly different way of life which led most of the city’s residents to remain at a safe distance, but despite the oddity of their lifestyle they were regarded mostly with favor by the people.

The religious rulers were a different matter, of course. The men who plotted the death of Jesus had little tolerance for this new, radical sect which had sprung up around his name, and they butted heads with the apostles on a number of occasions because of it.

So there had been some conflict between the Jewish authorities and leaders of the Jerusalem church prior to Stephen. The apostles had been arrested, charged, even beaten for proclaiming the message of their crucified and resurrected Rabbi. But none of them had yet been killed.

No doubt there were those on the council who wanted to kill the twelve, but up to that point some obstacle had always served to mitigate their rage, whether it was fear of the people or the wise counsel of a seasoned rabbi.

Ask yourself, then, what it was about Stephen’s testimony that effectively tipped the scale of the Sanhedrin’s rage, consequently earning him the privilege of being the first ever Christian martyr.

The answer is simple enough, if you are willing to swallow it.

THE DIFFERENCE

The twelve had preached Christ. They boldly announced his resurrection without fear, even going so far as to charge the Jewish leaders with their Rabbi’s murder.

Stephen did the same, but added an extra note.

Stephen dared to touch the temple.

“The Most High does not dwell in temples made by human hands!”(Acts 7:48)

The result of his proclamation was swift and severe, for the charges against him had been unequivocal: “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:13,14).

Of course the witnesses were false, but the essence was true nonetheless. Stephen announced a Christ whose coming brought an end to the old Jewish order. In effect he was saying, “Brothers and sisters, God has left the building, therefore so should we.”

The apostles had yet to go this far. It is debatable whether they even saw this far into the significance of Christ at the time. Surprisingly, Stephen’s position was somewhat in advance of those who had known Jesus in the flesh.

OLD VERSUS NEW

Two men stood head to head that fateful day: Stephen and Saul. One man was filled with the Spirit of God; the other was consumed with zeal for the traditions of his fathers. One man had understanding while the other was blind with hatred. And though they held different vantage points, both men clearly grasped one thing:

The new way represented by Stephen was entirely incompatible with the old order championed by Saul. There was no way in the world the two could peacefully co-exist, not for long.

And so began the trail of blood which runs all throughout church history. The heavy stones of opposition continue to be brought down on anyone who would dare venture outside the camp of the conflicting religious, economic, and political systems of this world in search of a better way.

Read the book of Hebrews with this thought in mind. Or ignore the implications and pray that you never clearly see just how deep the rabbit trail runs. But whatever you do, brothers and sisters, never touch the temple.

Not unless you’re willing to pay the price.