Anarchy

Message / Question

Haha funny question about the "stooge for the government" thing. Dr Dave, what would you say to a Christian anarchist, who say Jesus was a revolutionary who got killed for being revolutionary? What would you say to people who say the Bible upholds Rahab who was a liar as a woman of faith?

Response

Thanks for the “heads-up” on the page error – it should be fixed now!

Christians certainly hold a wide range of views on an equally large range of issues and sometimes the opinion carries with it its own definitions. So when someone refers to a “Christian anarchist”, I have to guess at what meaning the person has for the term “anarchist”. The most straightforward and linguistically correct definition of “anarchy” is “to have no rulers” or more simply, “no rule”. In my thinking, that makes the term Christian anarchy an oxymoron. It is hard to see Christianity without the concept of the Kingdom, and, given that a kingdom, by definition, is based on the rule of a monarch, Christianity is based on a person’s submission to rule and a ruler. “Christian Anarchism” has to base its belief system on a refusal to accept that a divine ruler is just as much a ruler as a human one. Thus they would need to believe that by obeying God and living under the rulership of the Kingdom of God, they live in anarchy. It surely doesn’t matter in this context whether the ideology binding him or the authority ruling him is divine or human, the person is still living under “rule” or “government” and cannot be described as an anarchist. So the Christian anarchist must simply be one who seeks to choose which laws they will obey and which laws they will break. So, for example, does the “Christian anarchist” believe that murder is acceptable? The answer must be yes, unless the “anarchist” accepts that there is a law, a rule, that says otherwise and they choose to live under and accept that particular law.

If the Christian anarchist says that they accept God’s rulership and law, then they cannot pick and choose which parts of God’s instructions or “rules” they accept or reject.

In Romans 13, God instructs us to submit to human government and tells us that a failure to do so is actually rebellion against God. Some argue that this passage applies only to benevolent government, however in 1 Peter 2, slaves are told to accept the rulership of and obey their masters – and it is hard to argue that that a master/slave relationship is built on benevolence!

My answer on “obeying the law” (http://www.drdaves.website/#!Obeying-the-Law/c193z/574240950cf2d0f13ceca5aa ) deals with this issue of submission to human government and deals with the principle of “higher law” i.e. when the law of a human government would require us to break God’s law, then we must “obey God rather than man”. It is this area alone where we can “rebel” against civil authority.

The Bible speaks a lot about various forms of rulership / government. Clearly the law of the land and the law of God are two such examples, however one must not forget the instructions to children to obey (i.e. accept the government of) parents – would a “Christian anarchist” accept such rule? We are told to be submissive to church leaders, would a “Christian anarchist” submit to such rule? I consider that there is a significant flaw in the concept of “Christian anarchy” – if it means to disobey civil law that opposes God’s law, then every Christian should be an anarchist, but if it means to reject all law, then no Christian can legitimately be an anarchist. I think that, by definition of the word “anarchy”, there is little room for middle ground.

Was Jesus killed because He was a “revolutionary”? I would never want to understate what Jesus’ death was all about. It was actually more about undoing a revolution than creating one! Jesus came for one prime purpose – to seek and save those who were lost and to offer His life as a ransom for many. The Jews wanted Him dead because He revealed their hypocrisy – pretending to obey God’s law, but in fact being overtly dismissive of much of it. The Romans crucified Him for political expediency – certainly Pilate would have released Him if it had not been for the political pressure of the Jews. But having said all of that, He died because it was all part of God’s plan for the redemption of mankind – so He died, not because He rebelled against man’s law, but because He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on the cross. And I, for one, am eternally grateful that He was an obedient servant rather than a rebel.

I will treat your “Rahab” question as a separate question.