There is a blog called "Godwords." I'll link to it below.
The blog proprietor poses as an expert in theology and answers questions from readers.
One reader asked this question about five years ago:
Is it possible for a Christian; a follower of Jesus Christ to be a pacifist and an anarchist, who simply rejects all forms of violence and all worldly systems of government and business…?
The blog proprietor basically said "No."
I read the readers' comments that had been posted over the previous five years, and then I posted this:
I think we should go back to the top and look at Tony’s original question. He asked if a follower of Jesus can be an “anarchist” *AND* a pacifist. This seems to be to be an exact description of a Christian. Jesus told His disciples that “the kings of the gentiles” love to be “archists,” but Christians are NOT to be so (Mark 10:42-45). That doesn’t mean Christians assassinate archists, because Christians are also pacifists who do not “resist evil” (Matthew 5:39). Jesus said that when archists invade your land, and want to enslave you for a mile of labor, give them two miles of labor (Matthew 5:41). This does not mean that imperialist invasions are condoned by God. God will judge archists. Taxation is the moral equivalent of theft, but Jesus says “give to him who asks.” Isaiah 33:22 says that God is our King, our Lawgiver, and our Judge. That’s all three branches of government in the U.S. America would be a better place if, after we had violated Romans 13 by killing Christians from Britain and abolishing government by Red Coats, we did not replace George III with George Washington. If we will beat our swords into plowshares, we could live safely under our own vine and fig tree. But if God “ordains” the Assyrians or the Romans to invade us and tax us and enslave us and taze us and lock us in cages and kill us, we submit as pacifists, but as anarchists we continue to deny that there is any legitimate Archist but Jesus. No King but Christ. The desire for an earthly, visible, physical king is the rejection of God as King (1 Samuel 8).
In subsequent comments, the proprietor and I went back and forth, with neither of us persuading the other.
He objected repeatedly to my new word, "archist." The word "anarchist" means "not an archist." It comes from the Greek word "archein" in Mark 10:42. More.
I tried to show why Christ commanded His followers to reject the temptation to rule over others, and why Christ commanded His followers to be subject to those who embrace the archist temptation. A half dozen times he told me, "You are simply wrong." As if he expected me to say, "Oh, I'm sorry," and then begin believing something I didn't believe. As if I'm simply obligated to empty my mind and bow before his authority.
I may be wrong, but I'm not "simply wrong."
I think that's the main reason I'm posting this. Opponents of anarchists are archists. They are authoritarian. They do not teach by empowering and encouraging us to "search the Scriptures" like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). They simply tell us what to believe, and expect us to believe it.
This claim comes as a surprise to many people: A consistent pacifist is an anarchist. "Everybody knows" that a pacifist opposes violence. But "everybody knows" that "anarchy" = "disorder" and even "violence." Check your favorite dictionary: "anarchy" always includes the definition of "chaos" or "disorder," but the definition of "anarchism" usually does not. People who advocate "anarchism" believe in an orderly society -- but without "order" being violently imposed by government coercion.
Here is my most recent (and probably final) reply. I knew that it would not be published in full, but I thought at least the proprietor would read it. (I was probably wrong about that.)
I'd like to re-examine the original question without using the "A"-word at all, and then show how Mark 10:42-45 is the precise answer to the original question, especially as modified. (Also I'll respond to a couple of your arguments that I haven't commented on yet.)
Here's the original question posed at the top of this page:
Is it possible for a Christian; a follower of Jesus Christ to be a pacifist and an anarchist, who simply rejects all forms of violence and all worldly systems of government
I'd like to think that you've learned a little bit about "Christian anarcho-pacifism" as a result of this question, and as a result of the comments that have been made, almost exclusively (it appears to me) by people who are generally supportive of "Christian anarcho-pacifism."
I suspect that when the question was first posed (over five years ago?), you had a lot of negative emotional baggage attached to the word "anarchist." This is because of the brainwashing we all receive from archists who want us to think "anarchists" are all lawless, violent revolutionaries who transform an orderly and peaceful society into chaotic violence. Perhaps you're beginning to see that there is a more scholarly use of the word which understands "anarchism" to be a political philosophy which opposes the institutionalized violence of "The State."
Let's leave out the "A"-word and rephrase the question (and I'm confident the fellow who posed the question would not object to this):
Is it possible for a Christian; a follower of Jesus Christ to be a pacifist..., who simply rejects all forms of violence and all worldly systems of government
You seem to have less negative emotional reaction to the word "pacifist." In answer to the question, you said above:
It’s certainly possible for a follower of Christ to be a pacifist. There have been plenty throughout history. While I don’t believe that being a Christian equals being a pacifist, they’re certainly compatible.
Mark 10:42-43 says:
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over [archein] the Gentiles exercise lordship over [katakurieuo] them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But it shall not be so among you:
In order to interpret a text properly, one must understand the historical context. I'll provide some of that context.
Charles Spurgeon was called "The Prince of Preachers." Perhaps in Greek this is translated "The Archon of Preachers." Clearly Spurgeon was not a "prince" in a "worldly system of Government" (cp Matthew 20:25, αρχοντες των εθνων, "princes of the Gentiles," KJV).
It may be the case that a Christian can "rule over" others in purely "spiritual" way in a church or charity, but "ruling over" others in "worldly system of government" is a completely different kind of "rule."
This is because, by definition, a "ruler" in a "worldly system of government" exercises a monopoly of physical violence over others. Those who might be said to "rule" in a church do not wield a sword. Demanding money and threatening violence if the money isn't surrendered would be called "extortion" if you or I did it, but it's called "taxation" when it's done by those who "rule over" others in a "worldly system of government," and "tribute" in Jesus' day. Those who "rule over" others in a "worldly system of government" order people to do certain things, like pay tribute, by threatening to do violence -- to harm them physically -- if they don't comply. This was certainly true in Jesus' day, and is no less true in theory today (though in practice, the benevolent effects of Christianity have been felt even in some "worldly systems of government," like that of the United States).
A consistent pacifist cannot "rule over others" in a "worldly system of government" because the pacifist opposes the violence inherent in "political
authority."
http://amzn.com/1137281650
As I said in a previous comment, every single professor of political science in every university on the face of the earth agrees that the fundamental nature of "the State" or "the government" or any "worldly system of government" is a monopoly of violence. (See, for example, the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-monopoly-on-violence )
In Mark 10:42, Jesus doesn't question this universally-accepted definition of "political authority" as a monopoly of violence.
You said: "There’s nothing sinister about being KATAKYRIEUO. That’s simply someone in a position of authority."
But when Jesus speaks about "the kings of the gentiles," He is not speaking about "authority" exercised in a church, synagogue, or some voluntary association. He's talking about "exercising lordship" [katakurieuo] over subjects in a "worldly system of government."
You said, "Jesus didn’t say to avoid being in a position of authority, but to avoid misusing that authority."
There's nothing in the text that says "the kings of the Gentiles" were "misusing" or "abusing" their monopoly of violence. All they were doing was exercising normal political authority over others in a "worldly system of government," for example, by demanding tribute under threats of violence. All kings (Luke 22:25), princes (Matthew 20:25), and those who rule over (archein) others (Mark 10:42) in a "worldly system of government" engage in this kind of legalized extortion, by definition. If they don't engage in legalized extortion, they are not "kings," princes," or "rulers" in a "worldly system of government." By definition.
No violence = no "political authority" (archein) = No "State"
Nowhere in Mark 10:42-45 is this universally-accepted definition of "rule" in a "worldly system of government" altered or called into question. Rather, accepting this definition, Jesus goes on to say that His followers should reject the violence of "rule" over others and reject participation in "worldly systems of government."
"But it shall not be so among you" (Mark 10:43).
This has been the position of Christian pacifists -- like the Anabaptists -- for hundreds of years, going back to the early church.
The early church (the first 300 years) was strongly [but not unanimously] pacifist. Origen said that Christians "do not go forth as soldiers". Tertullian wrote "only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword." Clement of Alexandria wrote "...he who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God."This changed rapidly in the time of Constantine - the Council of Arles in 314 said that to forbid "the state the right to go to war was to condemn it to extinction", and shortly after that Christian philosophers began to formulate the doctrine of the Just War.
For many centuries Christians believed that it was right and proper to use violence (and thus war) to spread the faith and deal with its opponents. They did not regard violence as an inherently bad thing: whether it was bad or not depended on what it was being used for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/war.shtml
But violence is a violation of the 6th commandment, according to pacifists. And funding that violence by extortion is also a sin, adding a violation of the 8th Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal") according to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 142
Luke 18:11
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, EXTORTIONERS, unjust, adulterers, or even as this TAX COLLECTOR.1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor EXTORTIONERS will inherit the kingdom of God.1 Corinthians 5:9-11
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or EXTORTIONERS, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an EXTORTIONER — not even to eat with such a person.
This is called "excommunication." The Church says to a watching world, "We have dis-fellowshiped this man because he is not a Christian because he is an unrepentant sinner."
Matthew 18:15ff shows how a purported Christian is identified as an unrepentant sinner:
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ [Deuteronomy 19:15] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a TAX COLLECTOR.
An unrepentant "heathen" cannot be a Christian.
An unrepentant "tax collector" cannot be a Christian.
You cited Luke 3:12ff to show that being a tax collector is an ethical vocation.
12 Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to John the Baptist, “Teacher, what shall we do?”
13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.”
A "tax collector" in ancient Rome is known today as a "tax farmer." They did not receive a salary from Rome for collecting taxes. Their profit came from
taking more money from taxpayers than Rome required in taxes. This is why tax collectors were doubly despised in Jesus' day. They were backed up by Roman soldiers, who threatened
physical violence against non-payers. An historian discusses "tax farming" here:
https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnma/chapter21.htm
Why would any sane Christian volunteer (without pay) to take money from people without their consent, and to have his demands backed up by violent, pagan soldiers? Well, no pacifist would.
Soldiers also came to John the Baptist:
14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?”
And he said unto them, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."
Generally speaking, if a soldier doesn't do "violence," what does a soldier do? Walk little old ladies across the street? Most soldiers in ancient Rome were not "content with their wages." They used violence to obtain more than they were paid by the Empire.
The Baptizer did not tell the soldiers to go AWOL, because that brought the death penalty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_military_decorations_and_punishments#Punishments
Committing suicide is never Godly counsel.
Some soldiers were not directly involved in violence.
Life is complicated when you've been invaded by a violent, pagan nation.
Life is complicated if you enlist in a violent, pagan army and swear a solemn oath to serve a term of years.
I said above, "An unrepentant tax collector cannot be a Christian."
But a repentant soldier can certainly be in a pickle.
Like Matthew, the repentant tax collector should "leave his post" (Luke 5:28)
The world before Christ was a world of violence that would horrify us. Jesus is the savior of the world, especially those who believe, and even unbelievers feel the beneficial effects of ameliorated violence which the Prince of Peace has been bringing for the last 2,000 years. Believers in Jesus' day could not have imagined the liberty we enjoy today.
Jesus did not come to establish or co-opt or "take back" a "worldly system of government" on planet earth, and His followers are forbidden to do so as well.
Ordering people to do things under threats of violence is the very essence of "ruling" in a "worldly system of government." It's not that Jesus is telling His followers not to "abuse" a legal monopoly of violence, extortion, and vengeance which a pagan ruler imposes on a conquered people. Every political ruler does this. He's saying Christians should be pacifists and not be a part of a "worldly system of government" and "rule over" others at all. Vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19 - 13:4).
If a person only gives wise advice, and does not threaten violence against those who do not comply with his advice, that person has been demoted from a "king," "prince," or "ruler" in a "worldly system of government" to "Dear Abby." Maybe it would be said that he "rules" in a church, but he does not rule over others with a sword in a "worldly system of government" like "the kings of the gentiles" do, because he does not threaten violence to those over whom he rules if they fail to comply with his orders. It's more like The Rotary Club than a "worldly system of government."
This is the difference between "capitalism" and "socialism."
Pure, 100% laissez-faire capitalism depends on peaceful persuasion, while socialism depends on coercion (through threats of government violence).
So Mark 10:42-45 is the precise answer to the original question at the top of the page:
Is it POSSIBLE for a Christian; a follower of Jesus Christ to be a pacifist..., who simply rejects ... all worldly systems of government
And the answer is YES.
As you yourself said,
It’s certainly POSSIBLE for a follower of Christ to be a pacifist. There have been plenty throughout history. While I don’t believe that being a Christian equals being a pacifist, they’re certainly compatible.
A pacifist follower of Christ believes in rendering unto Caesar (Mark 12:17), being "subject" to principalities and powers (Titus 3:1), obeying those who rule over others in "worldly systems of government" (1 Peter 2:13ff), and not resisting the evil of political authority (Romans 12:14,21 - 13:7), but even going beyond what is commanded by the violent, conquering "worldly systems of government" (Matthew 5:41). Some might use the "A"-word to describe a pacifist who takes pacifism to its logical conclusion and rejects all "worldly systems of government." And the correct term for such a person is a "Christian anarcho-pacifist." But while Jesus commands us to "render unto Caesar" and repudiate violent revolution against "worldly systems of government," in Mark 10:42-45 He commands His followers not to participate in or to imitate Caesar's violent, extortionate, and sinful methods of fundraising and "rule" (archein).
Your readers might also be interested in the following:
"Christian Anarcho-Pacifism"
mentioned in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/#ReliAnar
See also Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-pacifism
Also the Journal Critical Studies on Security
an international, peer-reviewed journal published by York University in Toronto, Canada
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/cAn8UJAJSNgxKH7M9Nqb/full
100% Pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism (0% socialism or 0% "worldly systems of government") is called "Anarcho-Capitalism"
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
In Luke's account of the conversation recorded in Mark 10:42-45 (Luke 22:25ff), we read:
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them [ κυριευουσιν ]; and they that exercise authority upon them [ εξουσιαζοντες ] are called benefactors. [ ευεργεται lit., "good-deed doers" ]
Thayer's Definition of euergétes is
a title of honour, conferred on such as had done their country service, and upon princes, equivalent to Soter, Pater Patriae.
Soter is the Greek word for "savior." In most of the occurrences in the Bible, "save," "savior," and "salvation" are social/political in meaning. Isaiah 33:22 says that God is our King and Judge and He will save us. In this context, "save" means "deliver from foreign archists." Nehemiah 9:27 says
Therefore Thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies that vexed them: yet in the time of their affliction, when they cried unto Thee, Thou heardest them from the heaven, and through Thy great mercies Thou gavest them saviors, who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries (cp. Luke 1:71,74).
Throughout their history, Israel looked to false gods for salvation. Israel looked to pagan archists for peace and security. The #1 form of
"idolatry" in the Bible is faith in "worldly systems of government." "Molech," for example, simply means "king." "King worship."
http://JesusisTheChrist.today/archist.htm#yasha
This is why all earthly governments eventually ban the Bible -- even the once-Christian United States of America has done this. "Worldly systems of government"
eventually conclude (correctly) that "the Bible is an anarchist manifesto."
http://AnarchistManifesto.com
Or more specifically, an anarcho-pacifist manifesto.
Christians repudiate violence, and therefore do not put their faith in "worldly systems of government," which are a monopoly of violence.
Jesus did not criticize "the kings of the Gentiles" for misusing their "office."
Jesus did not criticize prostitutes for misusing their "office."
A prostitute is a false wife.
A worldly king is a false god.
Only Jesus is God and King.
Jesus is the True Benefactor (Savior) of the world.
You said I should enroll in a reputable seminary. I'm just a janitor and don't have that kind of money. I thought I might ask one reputable scholar if I could buy one hour of his time to get an education on how to interpret one verse of Scripture. I thought I'd ask you which commentator on the verse you thought was most reputable. You say that's a silly question. That's certainly not the answer I was expecting.
In September of 2020, a couple of new posts were added to the conversation. Here's my most recent post, which was not approved (surprise!):
Kevin Craig says: Your
comment is awaiting moderation.The “and” in Tony’s question is this:
Can a Christian believe that everyone who threatens or commits acts of violence violates God’s Law (sins)
in the “private sector”
AND
in the “public sector.”
Every logically consistent pacifist is an anarchist.
Anyone who opposes acts of violence in the “private sector”
should logically oppose acts of violence committed by those in “the public sector.”
The Christian pacifist follows the command of Christ to not resist evil in “the public sector,” to “be subject” to the demonic “powers,” and to “obey” them when they threaten violence (limited by Acts 5:29, of course). The anarchist says people who threaten violence or commit acts of violence are morally obligated to repent of these acts of violence and to abdicate their position in “the public sector.” Nothing in the Bible suggests that God will not condemn those who commit acts of violence, even if they have a badge, a uniform, an “electoral mandate” or a “divine right” to be king.
God gave Pilate the authority to murder Jesus the sinless Son of God (John 19:11), but Pilate was morally obligated to eschew this power, not murder Jesus, and tell the Jews to worship their Messiah.
As I showed above, “government” is a monopoly of violence. It is a sin to form a “government” (1 Samuel 8).
People in “government” have a moral obligation to repent of the acts of violence which pacifists agree we have a moral obligation to “be subject” to.
If I have misrepresented you, please copy and paste the sentence and tell me how I should re-state it.
I would point out that my words "not resist evil" are a reference to Matthew 5:39-41, the words "be subject" and "powers" are a reference to Romans 13, and "obey" refers to 1 Peter 2 and Titus 3. These passages of Scripture do not deny that "the State" is evil, and do not affirm that a "monopoly of violence" ["the State"] is necessary in human society; the texts simply command us to respond to evil as "pacifists," not as revolutionaries. No human being anywhere on planet earth today can walk up to you and say, "I am your government; give me your money or I will do physical violence to you" and justify this act of extortion ("taxation!") using those verses (or any other verses) of Scripture.
This seems obvious to me today, but I admit that when I was an anti-anarchist, I just couldn't see this.
Feb 20, 2022 New comment:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.Tony,
As a pacifist, I agree with every single sentence in your reply to Josh.
Every
single
sentence.
As an anarchist, I’m particularly enthusiastic about your admission that the Roman Empire (which, as pacifists, we are to submit to) was “ungodly,” as is the United States.
As an anarcho-pacifist, I would say every government is ungodly, by definition. As I said a few months ago, every professor of political science in every university on planet earth
will agree that the essential nature of “the State” is a “monopoly of violence.” That is, a monopoly of ungodliness. “The State” is characterized by doing ungodly
things that the rest of us know are sinful. The best way we can support and honor a tax collector or an Emperor is to kindly and respectfully exhort them to repent of their
ungodliness; their extortion and violence.
Every single human being who carried a sword for the Assyrian army or the Roman Empire or the United States is morally obligated to repent of their evil and beat their “swords into plowshares” (Micah 4:3), even if — because these “powers” were “ordained” by God to commit these evil acts (Isaiah 10, Romans 13) — they won’t.
The desire or willingness to worship and serve a creature as “emperor,” “king” or “christ” is a rejection of God the Creator as King (1 Samuel 8; Romans 1:25). The Biblical goal is for all creatures to repent of their desire to “be as gods” and for Christ to reign over the earth.
Here's the complete discussion: Can I be a Christian and an Anarchist? | GodWords: Theology and Other Good Stuff