Christian Anarchism

[Crixus]

Having been asked to discuss my beliefs as an anarchist and a Christian, I think it most prudent to begin this topic by first establishing what anarchism is.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt. That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief. Anarchism, however, is very much a tradition of intellectuals, it's rather uncertain how the notion came to be, however most point to Bakunin as the Anarchist parallel to Marx. In the later portions of the 19th century and early 20th century anarchism was wide-spread, even so much as to build international institutions such as the anarchist black cross, an organization to support political prisoners, and the anarchist international. However, anarchists became an easy scapegoat in many instances for those wishing to discredit them, and anytime a bomb was put to ill-use, or any action was seen that might serve to undermine the word of the industrialist bosses a cry of "anarchists!" could be heard, much as communists would be later blamed for any disruption in the divine capitalist order.

It would be far to exhaustive to explain anarchism, here, in its entirety, in brief however it would be easiest to say that anarchism is a belief in community and equality amongst men and the end of hierarchical statism. Anarchy is witnessed everyday between friends, family, and neighbors. When one helps his neighbor it is not because of governmental compulsion, but his own volition. Anarchism is often wrongly portrayed as desiring no rules, which is not what anarchism is about; anarchists understand that a community has potential for bad elements and thus must be policed, but those rules would not be imposed upon the community by some patriarchal overlord or a few oligarchs in a senate building half-way across the world. Anarchism is about the people truly governing themselves.

Christian anarchism is derived from the notion that because man is fallible, and because his laws can often contradict the word of god, no government of man can be right for a Christian. While one king maybe good the next will likely not be. As I interpret the bible there is a clear message to the faithful that they should be beholden to no lord but God. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

As I said that many anarchists look to Bakunin as their progenitor he, like Marx, maintained a dogma of atheism, which is why many Christians despise anarchists and communists. However it is his contemporary Tolstoy who many Christian anarchists feel to have been a major influence in their politics. Though never using the term anarchism himself his ideas were certainly parallel, however they were inclusive of God. Many non-Christian anarchists feel his works are of great value to their cause as well. You would probably be surprised to find that the history of anarchism is actually populated with quite a few Christians.

For my part, since I understand my views, I would like to understand why any Christian would be pro-state, since this is a forum for debate, if anyone holds such views I think it would make for an enriching discourse if they would care to post about them.

[przemeknowicki]

I am surprised to find out that Christian anarchists share my view of what would be a better society in so many ways.

My opinion regarding the morality of the Bible is based on reading of the Ten Commandments. Well, I understand that the New Testament should not be equated with the Old Testament so I admit you are right.

Interestingly we are arriving to similar conclusions having started from opposing viewpoints. Mine is secular. I don't oppose the private property on the grounds of it contradicting the spiritual purpose of life. I simply observe that if one person owns something the other person's freedom is automatically restricted. People attached to their little possessions should go out and see for themselves how much better it would be to live in a society where land, air and water belong to the community. This is not a dream. This was a reality in so called "primitive" communities of ancient hunters-gatherers.

Being a realist as I am I don't advocate abolishing all private property. I accept capitalism and the free market where the logic and common sense confirm that they produce goods in more efficient way than other systems. However, capitalism never had or will have any credit for "manufacturing" the natural resources. The private property with respect to land only feeds the greed and brings destruction and injustice in society.

- Przemek

[Crixus]

My opinion regarding the morality of the Bible is based on reading of the Ten Commandments. Well, I understand that the New Testament should not be equated with the Old Testament so I admit you are right.

Well, the Old Testament does have laws for property, but in my reading of the Old Testament I find that often people are reproached for their quest of earthly possessions. As well though the Ten Commandments may object to theft, there is also the objection to coveting possessions, which implies to me that the desire for property is a manifestation of evil.

Interestingly we are arriving to similar conclusions having started from opposing viewpoints. Mine is secular. I don't oppose the private property on the grounds of it contradicting the spiritual purpose of life. I simply observe that if one person owns something the other person's freedom is automatically restricted. People attached to their little possessions should go out and see for themselves how much better it would be to live in a society where land, air and water belong to the community. This is not a dream. This was a reality in so called "primitive" communities of ancient hunters-gatherers.

I'm glad that we can agree that life would be better were basic properties not owned by private industry.

Being a realist as I am I don't advocate abolishing all private property. I accept capitalism and the free market where the logic and common sense confirm that they produce goods in more efficient way than other systems. However, capitalism never had or will have any credit for "manufacturing" the natural resources. The private property with respect to land only feeds the greed and brings destruction and injustice in society.

I have to disagree that capitalism, in any real sense, is efficient. While capitalism may certainly appear to posses a high level of quantitative efficiency, I believe that this is for the most part illusory. If, as capitalists suppose, the ultimate incentive for good work is good pay, then would it not be the greatest incentive to give equal pay for all workers? If all laborers were mutually invested in a company then the incentive to work hard to improve the product or output would be at its apex. Of course if the notion of efficiency in pay labor is proved false then certainly equal pay, or whatever means of support would replace pay, would be principally essential.

However my largest disagreement with the notion of efficiency in capitalism comes from the observation that for capitalism to operate at any acceptable level it must artificially manufacture desire and focus that desire in objects for consumption. In order to keep people working at slave rates and slave hours there must be something to produce, but since the necessities and even most of the amenities of life can be produced with relatively little labor, companies must invent demand amongst the populous to keep the level of consumption from dropping. This is efficiency of a sort, it is perfectly efficient in the accumulation of profits for the elite class, and it is thus far certainly efficient at keeping people slaving away to no real ends. However the reality is that under a capitalist system that doesn't perpetually invent consumer interest, most of the population would be unemployed, in other words there isn't a need for people to work as they do. There are only a few ways for a system to deal with such a problem; it can invent work, as we have and then conceal the fact that without the invention of seemingly useless products the system would completely deflate. A system could pay the unemployed for simply existing, which would result in the collapse of the system, because who would go to work under a capitalist system if there are not reward pellets to feed the rats at the end of the maze? Perhaps the system could let the people that have no work roam the earth homeless and destitute, however this would ruin the view for those capitalist cogs that do their service to society. A lesser option might be to apportion the work to all people equally, however this option is bad for capitalism because it would result in the masses having time on their hands to do things like, getting an education and questioning the administration of the elite. And who will do the slave's work once everyone has an education?

The truth is, at least as I perceive it, that capitalism is very inefficient, it does manage to produce large quantities of worthless junk at inconceivable rates, but I do not consider that to be a mark of efficiency. Any system that has to rely on "programmed obsolescence", that is to say the production of an object that at its creation is intended to wear out and break in a certain amount of time so that the consumer must continually purchase more, is certainly not efficient. Every time I have to replace a light bulb I curse capitalism for its dependence on perpetual consumption to stay afloat. You see just as capitalism requires the worker to be utterly dependant on their slave wages it also requires the consumer to maintain dependency upon the cycle or the system will cease to function properly. In order to force the consumer to remain completely reliant on the cycle the factories must produce low quality items for people to routinely consume, and since doing this necessitates large quantities of the consumable item, they can build large assembly lines that produce them at rates that make quality impossible.

Perhaps you have a view that is more accurate than my perception of capitalism, and I'd be interested to know why you believe capitalism is efficient.

[przemeknowicki]

First my apologies for not replying earlier. I expected notification by email and didn't bother to check if you, or anybody else replied to my post.

Capitalism proved itself more efficient than other systems simply by killing all the competing systems. Of course, it doesn't prove that capitalism is better, only more efficient.

Yes, I agree with all the critical remarks you wrote. I would add to your list the absurd amont of money the capitalists spend on funding political campaigns and advertising as more evidence about the inefficiency of the system, which not surprisingly is very generous in supporting war efforts (I mean economic and political wars).

Yet, my idea of improving the society is accepting the realities and try to advance my cause by the means that work.

As much as I long to equality and happiness the humanity enjoyed when we all were hunters and gatherers some 10,000 years ago I don't desire to turn the clock back. I value the arts and science that we developed in the "civilized" part of our history. Ironically, both arts and science suffer from neglect and disrespect in consumerist society such as we are, and the capitalist system is largely to blame.

I was born and raised in a communist state. Imagine my surprise when I found that in my daily life I enjoy much less freedom in the capitalist "land of the free" than I used to enjoy in my native country. Yet, I do not advocate going back to a communist state.

The big advantage of this country is the system that supports innovation. There are many other smaller advantages that I would like to preserve as well.

I am looking for ways how to fight for more freedom and yet preserve some aspects of the culture we live in. I admire the ways of passive resistence the Christian Anarchists practice.

I guess I reached a limit of what I am allowed to post. Talk to you later.

[przemeknowicki]

Crixus,

The topic of this debate is discussing your beliefs as a Christian and anarchist.

I would like to ask you if you have an opinion about the trend demonstrated by a few authors to "revise" the Christianity. Specifically, I am talking about books like "Conversations with God" and "The Da Vinci code", both in my opinion inspired by the New Age thinking.

I am in general sympathetic to such efforts although I disagree with many details.

You may also call me a Christian revisionist. The more I know about Christianity the more I am impressed with the political content of the Jesus Christ's teaching and less impressed with the pseudo-spirituality of the Christian churches.

Would you be interested in discussing those subjects?

- Przemek

[Crixus]

Capitalism proved itself more efficient than other systems simply by killing all the competing systems. Of course, it doesn't prove that capitalism is better, only more efficient.

It could imply greater efficiency, however it could also imply greater ruthlessness. It is my contention that capitalism is simply the more conducive to ruthless means, thereby allowing it to "kill" the other systems more efficiently.

I was born and raised in a communist state. Imagine my surprise when I found that in my daily life I enjoy much less freedom in the capitalist "land of the free" than I used to enjoy in my native country. Yet, I do not advocate going back to a communist state.

Well, I don't advocate a communist "state" so to speak, and consider myself somewhere in between communist, and syndicalist as fiscal policies go, wavering at varying degrees as I educate myself. However I believe that restructuring society in a non-hierarchical fashion is necessary for its advancement.

Out of curiosity what bent of communism was practiced in your home?

The big advantage of this country is the system that supports innovation. There are many other smaller advantages that I would like to preserve as well.

It is perhaps true that the capitalist arrangements in this society embrace some forms of progression. However, I believe that in a free society, where education was prominent and people had time to innovate, that there would be a greater quantity, as well as quality, of advancements.

I am looking for ways how to fight for more freedom and yet preserve some aspects of the culture we live in. I admire the ways of passive resistence the Christian Anarchists practice.

It is my hope that everyone is seeking ways of fighting for freedom, even though I know that not to be true. I have yet to find the means of fighting that is both to the greatest effect, and the highest morality, however I think that verbal and literary dissent are close, and so I encourage that as the most important medium of any true struggle for freedom.

The topic of this debate is discussing your beliefs as a Christian and anarchist.

I would like to ask you if you have an opinion about the trend demonstrated by a few authors to "revise" the Christianity. Specifically, I am talking about books like "Conversations with God" and "The Da Vinci code", both in my opinion inspired by the New Age thinking.

I am in general sympathetic to such efforts although I disagree with many details.

You may also call me a Christian revisionist. The more I know about Christianity the more I am impressed with the political content of the Jesus Christ's teaching and less impressed with the pseudo-spirituality of the Christian churches.

Would you be interested in discussing those subjects?

While I haven't read those books, I think I understand some of the topic which it seems you want to address, and I wouldn't shirk from such a conversation if you would start a thread on the topic.

I am however departing for 3 weeks tomorrow, and while I believe internet access will be available, I cannot be sure of how available. So it may be a few days between each of my responses for the next few weeks.

[przemeknowicki]

Hi Crixus,

Vacations? Enjoy your time off. I am leaving for a week, too. We will continue the debate after we come back.

Now, you put me in a difficult position by asking me to start a new thread. I am returning to the discussion forum after a long break and all the rules have changed. Could you start this thread on my behalf and let me know how to find it?

I certainly enjoy this discussion and want to continue. Please be advised, however, that there are some profound differences between us. You are young while I will be 60 in two months. You are a Christian while I am a very un-orthodox Christian so to speak. I just started a website where you can find more about how un-orthodox I am. www.freedomgates.net
Regards, Przemek

[przemeknowicki]

Hi Crixus,

I was born and raised in Poland where also I had an academic career in Mathematics.

In the US I work as a computer professional but in spite of making good money I feel uncomfortable with many injustices of the system.

The system I like the most is a socialist democracy in countries like Sweden. Unfortunately, these days Europe is preoccupied with the idea of how to beat America in the capitalist game. So, there is less and less for the people in Europe and more for the corporate oligarchy.

If things start getting worse I will consider emigrating to Canada.

- Przemek

[Crixus]

Now, you put me in a difficult position by asking me to start a new thread. I am returning to the discussion forum after a long break and all the rules have changed. Could you start this thread on my behalf and let me know how to find it?

I apologize for my long silence but my absence kept me further from the internet than I had anticipated. I would have not problem starting a thread but since I've not read either Conversations with God or The Da Vinci code I'm not sure exactly how to begin if you could give me some point that you want to debate then I would be happy to start that thread.

[przemeknowicki]

I apologize for my long silence but my absence kept me further from the internet than I had anticipated. I would have not problem starting a thread but since I've not read either Conversations with God or The Da Vinci code I'm not sure exactly how to begin if you could give me some point that you want to debate then I would be happy to start that thread.

Hi Crixus, I hope you had a good time away from home and the internet. I am more familiar with the forum now so I can start a new thread myself. However, let me continue with this one.

This is the first time I came across Christian Anarchists and it is really fascinating. Could you please give me a link to the website where I can read more? I know that you already the link somewhere but I couldn't find it.

As I mentioned I would like to ask you about your beliefs. Where would you place yourself in the big spectrum of Christian beliefs where on one extreme you have very rigid beliefs of fundamentalists and on the other very tolerant attitudes of the Unitarian Church, which essentially accepts that other beliefs like Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam are compatible with Christianity since they all are about one God?

Now, let me give a short overview of <i>Conversations with God</i> and <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>. Neil Walsh (Conversations) reports how his dialog with God started and where it lead him. Walsh's adventure is similar to so called automatic writing and/or personal revelations as practiced in some Mormonic fundamentalist sects. What make Walsh different is the content of his conversations. The God as painted there is very much New Age like. He (or She?) encourages people to think for themselves, rejects religious dogmas and sends the message that every person is the Master of his/her destiny and even the universe. Of course, there is much more in the book that what I said but in short it is a very contemporary picture of God where Christian elements are complemented with spiritually excited ideas from the teaching of Yoga (Yogananda is mentioned in the book) and other spiritual teachings.

Dan Brown (The Code) wrote a thriller based on authentic parchments discovered in 1975 by Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale. The parchments identified numerous members of the Priory of Sions - a European secret society founded in 1099 - including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo , and Leonardo da Vinci. The meaningful (for me) part of the book is about what the Priory of Sions was/is about. They considered themselves the guardians of the true teachings of Jesus Christ who was married to Maria Magdalena, didn't consider himself equal to God and whose teaching were very much different from the teachings of the Church. The feminine aspect of God was equal or even greater than the masculine one, sex was considered a sacred and very much appreaciated part of being a human, and in many aspects the teachings were more like the practices of neo paganism or New Age than the rigid doctrine of the Church. The fascinating part of the book was the proof that the masters of the Priory of Sions included many secrets of their faith in the paintings and architecture in unmistaken symbols. For instance, the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci clearly shows a woman sitted next to Jesus Christ and the painting is rich in symbols of the faith.

I would like to know how receptieve, if at all, could you be to messages expressed in those two books? The reason I am asking is that I am working on a book that is meant to be the continuation of those two bestsellers. In my book, Freedom Gates, I speak as a prophet revealing the political message of Jesus Christ and the political meaning of the Bible. Well, you will be surprised to find out that my teachings are in many ways quite similar to what you presented as Christian Anarchism. The main difference is that the foundation of the New Order, or the Kingdom of God, is a secular state more powerful and bigger than what we have now in the US but at the same time much more tolerant and allowing for much more freedom. The "grass root democracy" in such state is a community engaged in the very important job of land management. Of course, there is no private property of land and people in general own less. There are no taxes and the government is self supporting because the most profitable industries are nationalized. There is only one religion - you may be pleased that it is Christianity - but this religion consists of multitude of different spiritual beliefs, teachings and practices, including atheism. You might be interested to learn that I don't shy away from discussing or interpreting the Bible and here you can find an example: http://www.freedomgates.net/work/freedom-gates-3.pdf
(you need PDF reader to download this).

Regards,

Przemek

[Crixus]

This is the first time I came across Christian Anarchists and it is really fascinating. Could you please give me a link to the website where I can read more? I know that you already the link somewhere but I couldn't find it.

Well, here is an interesting site that I like Jesus Radicals of course as I've said previously anarchism and Christianity have a long history together in people like Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy, some have even pointed to the Anabaptists of the 16th century as an anarchic movement.

As I mentioned I would like to ask you about your beliefs. Where would you place yourself in the big spectrum of Christian beliefs where on one extreme you have very rigid beliefs of fundamentalists and on the other very tolerant attitudes of the Unitarian Church, which essentially accepts that other beliefs like Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam are compatible with Christianity since they all are about one God?

Well, I would probably fall closer to tolerance since I despise sectarianism amongst Christians. I have always been interested in why Christ didn't send his disciples east, and questions arise in my mind about Islam, and whether there is any legitimacy in their claims to the line of Ishmael. However it has always been my understanding that Hinduism, and Buddhism are polytheistic beliefs, holding Brahma as the head of their pantheon.

Now, let me give a short overview of Conversations with God and The Da Vinci Code. Neil Walsh (Conversations) reports how his dialog with God started and where it lead him. Walsh's adventure is similar to so called automatic writing and/or personal revelations as practiced in some Mormonic fundamentalist sects. What make Walsh different is the content of his conversations. The God as painted there is very much New Age like. He (or She?) encourages people to think for themselves, rejects religious dogmas and sends the message that every person is the Master of his/her destiny and even the universe. Of course, there is much more in the book that what I said but in short it is a very contemporary picture of God where Christian elements are complemented with spiritually excited ideas from the teaching of Yoga (Yogananda is mentioned in the book) and other spiritual teachings.

Dan Brown (The Code) wrote a thriller based on authentic parchments discovered in 1975 by Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale. The parchments identified numerous members of the Priory of Sions - a European secret society founded in 1099 - including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo , and Leonardo da Vinci. The meaningful (for me) part of the book is about what the Priory of Sions was/is about. They considered themselves the guardians of the true teachings of Jesus Christ who was married to Maria Magdalena, didn't consider himself equal to God and whose teaching were very much different from the teachings of the Church. The feminine aspect of God was equal or even greater than the masculine one, sex was considered a sacred and very much appreaciated part of being a human, and in many aspects the teachings were more like the practices of neo paganism or New Age than the rigid doctrine of the Church. The fascinating part of the book was the proof that the masters of the Priory of Sions included many secrets of their faith in the paintings and architecture in unmistaken symbols. For instance, the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci clearly shows a woman sitted next to Jesus Christ and the painting is rich in symbols of the faith.

I believe that God very much desires for us to think for ourselves, I find churches to have served many good purposes, however when beliefs are packaged as they often are in churches there is a tendency for people to trust the churches interpretation more than their own and this has lead to many bloody feuds and I think a misportrayal of what Christ intended.

I cannot say for certain whether Christ intended something entirely different than what emerged out of the early church. I do believe that the church has been usurped by imperialists for their own ends, and recognize that prior to the council of Nicea there were countless varieties of Christianity. Interestingly those beliefs that you mentioned sound similar in some senses to what the Gnostics believed, and I find very interesting the Gnostic scriptures, and the apocryphal scriptures, however, having access only to the limited scriptures which have survived, I feel that for the most part the Gnostic scriptures are far fetched and are quite contradictory of what many of the disciples seemed to have held. I can only assume that the disciples are the true carriers of Christ's message, otherwise filtering truth from fiction would become impossible.

That is not to say that I believe we have every bit of the message, I am curious to know what all scriptures the Roman church destroyed, and their purposes in doing so, and am not dismissive of people would claim a different version that what is commonly offered by modern churches. However I'd be a fool not to seek scriptural backing for any new interpretation that arises.

I would like to know how receptieve, if at all, could you be to messages expressed in those two books? The reason I am asking is that I am working on a book that is meant to be the continuation of those two bestsellers. In my book, Freedom Gates, I speak as a prophet revealing the political message of Jesus Christ and the political meaning of the Bible. Well, you will be surprised to find out that my teachings are in many ways quite similar to what you presented as Christian Anarchism. The main difference is that the foundation of the New Order, or the Kingdom of God, is a secular state more powerful and bigger than what we have now in the US but at the same time much more tolerant and allowing for much more freedom. The "grass root democracy" in such state is a community engaged in the very important job of land management. Of course, there is no private property of land and people in general own less. There are no taxes and the government is self supporting because the most profitable industries are nationalized. There is only one religion - you may be pleased that it is Christianity - but this religion consists of multitude of different spiritual beliefs, teachings and practices, including atheism. You might be interested to learn that I don't shy away from discussing or interpreting the Bible and here you can find an example:

Well I find the bible to be rife with political meaning, most choose not to see it, or they choose to interpret it through their party affiliations, but I do believe that Christ, and even the old testament have a very radical political meaning. I would love to see the people take back the bible from the imperialists, who are so often the filter through which it is fed.

I am certainly interested to see where you are headed with your interpretation of the bible as political allegory, but I would be wary of it if you are discounting the bible as spiritual truth. That is not to say I would reject your political conclusion, but I do believe that Christ was intent on the spiritual salvation of man, not only the political direction he takes.

The idea of a Christian, or semi-secular Christian state is not of course inline with my feelings that no man should be set over other men. I would be interested though to understand more of what your intentions for this secular Christian state are. I naturally agree with the socialistic interpretations of Christ's message that you seem to have arrived at, it is only the idea of a hierarchical state erected by men with which I take exception.