A few notes on the historical background of contemporary Christian Anarchism
Note: the following post is the first of a planned series on
Christian anarchism titled 'The Kingdom of God is Anarchy: Anarchy
as a Christian Practice of Faith'. The below is the first part of the
introduction.
The links between Christian theology and practice on the one hand, and a radical, anti-authoritarian rejection of all kinds of dominance on the other, are far from being novel. Throughout most of Church history, Christian thinkers have frequently returned to Jesus’ original criticism of all forms of political and religious oppression, and his proclamation of the kingdom of God, where power is replaced by love and authority by freedom. Paul – even if his thinking is often regarded as somewhat authoritarian – made it clear, that Jesus will eventually destroy “all rule, and all authority and power”, and that Christians fight against the principialities, powers and rulers of “this dark world”. For Christians this meant not to practice any kind of violence or domination. The best way to fight the power was to not engage in power. The first Christians refused to participate in the imperial cult and serve as soldiers. Tatian wrote: “I do not wish to be a king, I have no interest in being rich, I reject military service.” It is forbidden for Christians under all circumstances to take anyones life, argued Origen, who explained that Christians could not contribute in defending and protecting society by means of power.1
The Christian rejection of Pagan religion was seen as detrimental to society, which seems to have been a main reason why it was fatal to identify as Christian. Christians were persecuted and killed, some were thrown to the lions and some were burned alive. The first Christians were not persecuted for proclaiming, that you could go to heaven when you died, but for confessing that “Jesus is Lord” in a society where Cæsar claimed to be lord (Zahnd). When Christians refused to honor the emperor as a god, they were, in the eyes of the authorities, complicit in breaking down societal order. Christians were accused of being atheists, and if the term had existed then, I think it likely, that they would also have been accused of being ‘anarchists’.
All this gradually changed, of course. In the fourth century – when Christianity in spite of persecutions, had gained ground in the Roman empire – the Church went from being a persecuted minority to being a close ally of the powers.2 From having been an illegal religion, Christianity went to becoming the only religion allowed in 380 A.D. Many attempts have been made at explaing how the Church could now suddenly support the authorities. Some of it may have to do with what happens, when the marginalized is included in power. The official recognition of Christianity might be described as an example of what Herbert Marcuse called ‘represseive tolerance’ – by embracing and tolerating opposition, critics of society are made part of the establishment, whereby criticism is finally subdued. At any rate, the Church became more friendly in its approach to the powers and authorities. This did not mean, however, that there was no longer any Christian criticism of power. On the contrary. The ‘christianization’ of society may even have made it possible to critizice power in a new way: When people claimed to be Christian, it now made sense to criticize people for not living in accordance with their professed beliefs.
At least we see quite a few examples of how power is criticized from the fourth century and onwards. During the middle ages, radical movements appear – such as the lollards – that in different measures raise criticism of the alliance between church and state, and who often fundamentally reject violence, authority and property. In the 16th century there appears a clear theological critique of power appears in the radical wing of the reformation, e.g. the anabaptists, and again with the ‘diggers’ in 17th century England. More recently there have explicit examples of Christian anarchism – the perhaps best known examples being Dorothy Day (1897-1980) and her Catholic Workers movement in the American context, and, in the European context, the french lawyer and reformed theologian Jacques Ellul (1912-1994), whose small book with the English title Anarchy and Christianity, has gained the status of a neo-classic in some Church circles.
Today, drawing on these traditions, a great varierty of theologians, churches and lay people are active in working out a common ground between Christian theology and practice on the one hand, and Anarhcist philosophy and practice on the other.
The links between Christian theology and practice on the one hand, and a radical, anti-authoritarian rejection of all kinds of dominance on the other, are far from being novel. Throughout most of Church history, Christian thinkers have frequently returned to Jesus’ original criticism of all forms of political and religious oppression, and his proclamation of the kingdom of God, where power is replaced by love and authority by freedom. Paul – even if his thinking is often regarded as somewhat authoritarian – made it clear, that Jesus will eventually destroy “all rule, and all authority and power”, and that Christians fight against the principialities, powers and rulers of “this dark world”. For Christians this meant not to practice any kind of violence or domination. The best way to fight the power was to not engage in power. The first Christians refused to participate in the imperial cult and serve as soldiers. Tatian wrote: “I do not wish to be a king, I have no interest in being rich, I reject military service.” It is forbidden for Christians under all circumstances to take anyones life, argued Origen, who explained that Christians could not contribute in defending and protecting society by means of power.1
The Christian rejection of Pagan religion was seen as detrimental to society, which seems to have been a main reason why it was fatal to identify as Christian. Christians were persecuted and killed, some were thrown to the lions and some were burned alive. The first Christians were not persecuted for proclaiming, that you could go to heaven when you died, but for confessing that “Jesus is Lord” in a society where Cæsar claimed to be lord (Zahnd). When Christians refused to honor the emperor as a god, they were, in the eyes of the authorities, complicit in breaking down societal order. Christians were accused of being atheists, and if the term had existed then, I think it likely, that they would also have been accused of being ‘anarchists’.
All this gradually changed, of course. In the fourth century – when Christianity in spite of persecutions, had gained ground in the Roman empire – the Church went from being a persecuted minority to being a close ally of the powers.2 From having been an illegal religion, Christianity went to becoming the only religion allowed in 380 A.D. Many attempts have been made at explaing how the Church could now suddenly support the authorities. Some of it may have to do with what happens, when the marginalized is included in power. The official recognition of Christianity might be described as an example of what Herbert Marcuse called ‘represseive tolerance’ – by embracing and tolerating opposition, critics of society are made part of the establishment, whereby criticism is finally subdued. At any rate, the Church became more friendly in its approach to the powers and authorities. This did not mean, however, that there was no longer any Christian criticism of power. On the contrary. The ‘christianization’ of society may even have made it possible to critizice power in a new way: When people claimed to be Christian, it now made sense to criticize people for not living in accordance with their professed beliefs.
At least we see quite a few examples of how power is criticized from the fourth century and onwards. During the middle ages, radical movements appear – such as the lollards – that in different measures raise criticism of the alliance between church and state, and who often fundamentally reject violence, authority and property. In the 16th century there appears a clear theological critique of power appears in the radical wing of the reformation, e.g. the anabaptists, and again with the ‘diggers’ in 17th century England. More recently there have explicit examples of Christian anarchism – the perhaps best known examples being Dorothy Day (1897-1980) and her Catholic Workers movement in the American context, and, in the European context, the french lawyer and reformed theologian Jacques Ellul (1912-1994), whose small book with the English title Anarchy and Christianity, has gained the status of a neo-classic in some Church circles.
Today, drawing on these traditions, a great varierty of theologians, churches and lay people are active in working out a common ground between Christian theology and practice on the one hand, and Anarhcist philosophy and practice on the other.
1Origen,
Contra Celsum III,7.
2According
to Lactantius, the emperor Constantine in a dream saw the “chi-rho”,
which was then the symbol of Christianity, while a voice told him,
that “in this sign you will conquer”. After winning the battle,
Constantine permitted Christianity. This “constantinian turn”
was, according to many Church historians, a main reason why the
Church went from being a persecuted minority to being a part of the
powers.
