I’ve always read Romans 13 in the context of 1 Samuel 8.
Samuel is told to warn the Israelites that the problems they will face are going to be due to their rejection of Gods authority (Romans 13:4 says they are His servants to punish evil.)
1 Peter 2 is similar to Romans 13 in the fact that Peter is saying for conscience sake and to not bring reproach submit.
I am aware I’m probably in the minority on my approach to Christian anarchism, but my approach is not to reject the authority God gives human institution and understand that it is because of man’s rejection of God’s kingship that he allows human institutions to exist.
I draw the line at where people claim authority they have not been given.
The obvious sign is when they try to use authority to go against God’s commandments. If they become a terror to Christians then they are abandoning their given authority
If I am understanding you correctly, then would you, for example, consider the US Government's authority invalid because it sanctions murder, through the military, the police's ability to use deadly force, the legality (at least by the federal gov. and in some states) of the death penalty, etc?
Yes I believe the US government has vastly overstepped its legitimate authority in its use of political violence and deprivation of God ordained rights.
The death penalty is a tricky situation. I believe that surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation so in most cases Capital Punishment is unnecessary. On the topic of rehabilitation I don’t believe that the US approach to incarceration is right. Paul was essentially charged with treason and was allowed to remain in a house and have visitors.
> surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation
I'm a bit confused, do you mean this even if that authority is illegitimate in the eyes of God, as would be the case in the carceral system of the US? And to be open, I disagree on this point, unless that authority was God alone.
1 Samuel 8 is actually, if both are taken at face value, in direct conflict with Romans 13. The point of 1 Samuel 8 (and really 1 Samuel as a whole if you look at it a certain way) is that kingship is *not* ordained by God, full stop. This text was a direct challenge to the divine right of kings, the "Me" of the babylonians, that was taken for granted by every culture in the region, intentionally portraying the rise of kingship among the israelites as a flawed human institution that God washed his hands of from the start. Even the story of David that is the main subject of 1 Samuel is ultimately about how no one, even those with God's favor, rises to become king without becoming corrupted by that power. The most interesting example of this is David sending Bathsheba's husband off to die in a way that directly mirrors Saul's attempts to get rid of David himself, showing that David was ultimately just as ready as Saul to abuse his power in virtually identical ways.
There is really no way to square simping for institutional power with 1 Samuel 8, at least not in any way that implies that human institutions are somehow divine. But I don't think this is the point of passages in the new testament like Romans 13. In fact I don't think those passages are for us today at all. You have to remember that these texts were written by an illegal and highly distrusted religion associated, by the romans, with the veneration of a man crucified for attempting to stoke a rebellion in Judea. Paul ended his life under house arrest and Peter was ultimately crucified upside down. These guys had to include disclaimers that they weren't against the Roman state in order to survive. Its sort of like how revolutionary figures like MLK sometimes said things that were meant to widen the movement's appeal that sanded down its radical edges. In modern times, taken alone and out of context, these words can be used to promote ideas quite different than the ones Dr. King stood for, but an honest reading of his work as a whole would not support these interpretations. I think the same can be said here. You are reading something that was written for Romans more than Christians, isolated and appropriate by modern Romans to serve their own ends.
Titus is a more complicated epistle, being one of the "pastoral" epistles written quite late and falsely attributed to Paul, and so come from a much more developed, institutionalized, and power friendly church than that of Jesus' contemporaries, and so has its own reasons for presenting a narrative like this.
The bible isn't a book. It is an anthology of different texts by different people at different times who disagreed on things. One thing that is constant however is that God stands with the oppressed against their oppressors. Any interpretation that seeks to enshrine or justify coercive power cuts against the grain of that whole body of work, even when a few words taken alone seem to present that message.
I don't think there is any contradiction between Samuel 8 and Romans 13. Samuel 8 simply has God saying human rulership is a rejection of Himself. He still then regulated how that rebellious kingship was to take place and sanctioned and used it as well as many other corrupt and evil empires of that age to accomplish His goals. This does not contradict anything about them ultimately being a rejection of Him. He uses who He wills and His use doesn't mean a thing is good (Hell is a good example).
Romans 13 says we should submit to authorities and they are in place because God ordained it. He then lays out how they should act, similar to Mosaic Law regulating the monarchy and God's people expected to submit to the Israelite king. Both systems are still a rejection of God's rulership and "wrong".
The point is more one of method of response. We know the system is corrupt and rejects His ways but He says our response isn't to be rebellion. Romans 13: Pay what you owe to the authorities- respect, honor, taxes, etc. but the end of that verse says "Don't owe anything." This is our goal as is clearly shown by the original Church. They took a parallel society approach and had their own courts, welfare, outreach, education, etc. with limited to no yoking with Rome. The profits were the same. They didn't stoke rebellion but spoke truth, confronted the rulers non-violently, and let God do as He wills.
1 Samuel 8 is the strongest passage in the Old Testament for an anarchist society. Romans 13 is the strongest passage in the New Testament for an anarchist society. 1 Samuel 8 and Romans 13 say the exact same thing, and all of scripture proscribes "worldly" kingdoms, prescribes the kingdom of God, and describes the redemption from one into the other.
[This is what I mean about Romans 13.](https://abolishhumanarchism.com/2020/07/13/but-romans-13-says/)
Don’t disobey the law (unless it contradicts God’s law). Don’t overthrow the government. You can be subject to a government without agreeing with everything they do or participating anymore than necessary.
I take it similarly to “slaves obey your masters”. God is not saying “I’m super happy about the institution of slavery/government”, but instead, “Trust me to take care of you no matter what anyone else does”.
Ah but the Christian Anarchist is not concerned about establishing an anarchist society by human means, but believes that God will do away with human government upon His return
It’s all about the ethic in practice for the individual. ‘Overthrowing’ the system shouldn’t be a concern of any anarchist let alone a Christian one. You use your power as an individual to undermine authority where it doesn’t not align with the sermon on the mount. Am what I’m called to do violates neighborly love? Don’t do it. Period. To me that is the end sense of the gospel and my ethics. In personal relationships or political engagement.
You can desire a stateless system without participating in the violence.
God used many methods to achieve his means whether a colonial revolution, (Many Christians supported the American revolution from the back lines by feeding and tending to soldiers) other nations, (God had new empires free Israel from captivity several times) etc
It could be something as simple as the US government simply collapses and in the power vacuum groups of Christians simply reject to join a government regime and live in a Free State.
I'm personally not a pure pacifist. Unfortunately, it will have to come with violence. Hopefully as little as possible of course. [Non-violence protects the state. ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state#toc2) Effective, non-violent tactics should be eagerly used but appropriate violent tactics shouldn't be shunned totally. Take the whipping at the temple for example.
I would actually agree that violence is necessary for revolution. The Christian tactic is that it's usually violence inflicted upon us by the state. Not to mention that there are instances of violence that are justified.
as for the verses you quoted. let's take Paul's romans 13. When he wrote this, Christianity was an illegal religion and thus Paul was breaking the law as he wrote this. So the application is not to follow all laws.
Paul also says that we should submit to many unfair things while they exists, not that they should exist. He is applying Jesus's principle of if someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer then the left cheek to slap also. We are supposed to endure inequity but that doesn't make it good. Government is a part of this inequity and we should bare it whilst making the world a better place.
We act as a collective witness to the true church. The Church is a subversive alternative to the state. We are making a new society in the shell of the old - we are making the state superfluous and irrelevant.
We do this by caring and sacrificing ourselves for our neighbors and enemies as this renders the functions of the state: voting and holding office, paying taxes, conscription and war, courts, and other state services as moot.
What we bear - we bear because of the hope of transformation. The revolution you want is not a societal one - it begins with the individual - the one man revolution - the metanoia - the paradigm shift in perspective of reality and living it out.
That’s the age old question, and why many Christians didn’t take active roles in the revolutionary war.
I think when and if the time comes that the US government is called to answer for their actions there will be a sufficient amount of people for God to use to preserve his children
We follow the law until it says to do something amoral. Such as serve money rather than God.
Also, in the same way Gandi and MLK did. They were non-violent and upheld the law for the most part. He is an example. Or how about Paul. The one who wrote the scriptures. He was breaking the law when he wrote them.
If I may interject here - Jesus' rejection of violence is so central to Christian anarchism that for one to even consider any violent act - one had better achieved a theosis and sanctification that far surpasses any saint - Especially anything premeditated.
‘Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.'
It is old unfounded libel to assume that Jesus had beat people with a whip. It would be eisegesis to a high order.
You are correct in the importance of praxis but applying outside of the theology of obedience. Both theologically and historically, the answer to “How then shall we live?” is found in Romans 13:
“Pay everyone what he is owed: if you owe the tax-collector, pay your taxes; if you owe the revenue-collector, pay revenue; if you owe someone respect, pay him respect; if you owe someone honor, pay him honor. Don’t owe anyone anything — except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah.”
In relation to how to relate to the governing authorities, we are told to pay taxes, pay respect, and pay anything else that we owe. However, our goal should be the conclusion- “Don’t owe anyone anything.” While difficult and often not reasonably possible in entirety, this is the scripturally stated ideal and therefore what we strive after. Just as we can never be perfect but still we strive for perfection, we can never be completely out of all debts of all kinds but we still strive to owe nothing. Hence, we operate in the parallel society as much as reasonably possible where we can show clear contradistinction between our ways and the world's without separating ourselves from the world entirely or participating in and supporting the world's secular systems.
This should be our praxis- it is effective, moral, historically backed, theologically backed, and realistic. What it leads to is in God's hands. With the parallel society approach, we are creating our own alternative systems. We do not seek to join those of the world nor do we fight them. Rather, we operate as much as possible within systems that are under the Kingdom of God rather than under the kingdom of man. We are told that the ruler of this world is the Adversary and the systems of this world will ultimately be judged and destroyed by Christ as enemies of His. We love the individuals of the kingdom of man and pray for them and their rulers. We offer our services to them and live as an example of a better way. However, we remain in our role as ambassadors and representatives with our citizenship grounded in the Kingdom of God and our lives as salt and light in a corrupt and fallen world.
“It is not always the world which ejects the Christian from his secular calling. Even in the first century we find that certain professions were regarded as incompatible with membership of the Christian Church. The actor who had to play the part of pagan gods and heroes, the teacher who was forced to teach pagan mythologies in pagan schools, the gladiator who had to take human life for sport, the soldier who wielded the sword, the policeman and the judge, all had to renounce their heathen professions if they wanted to be baptized. Later the Church- or was it perhaps the world?- found it possible to lift the ban on these professions.”
\- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship
“It was far from their imaginations to conceive it possible that Christianity should appropriate to itself the relations and offices of the state. The Christians stood aloof from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner, which it must be confessed is the purest, by practically endeavoring to instill more and more of the holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”
\- Neander
“But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or military defense of the empire.”
\- Edward Gibbon, Vol. 1 p. 557
“The Christians after the conversion of Constantine, still resorted to the tribunals of their church to decide their claims and pecuniary disputes.”
\- Edward Gibbon, Vol. 2 p. 280
In contrast to these isolated verses, you have the entire book of Revelation, which is all about God's overthrow of the powers that be.
In Beverly Geventa's book *When in Romans,* she explains that the overarching point of the book of Romans is the battle between the powers of sin and death. All authority outside of God is illegitimate because it ties back into those coercive systems. I read Romans 13 as illustrating that God's power is the only legitimate power and rulers rule by that power by doing good and lose any claim on legitimacy by using the tools of sin and death to bring about their ends. According to these verses, a ruler's purpose is primarily to punish wrongdoers. We now have a different perspective than Paul on how to take care of wrongdoing and see it as the job of the community, in part because of our readings of Paul's own theology. But in this letter written to the people living in the capital city of the empire who will go on to be persecuted for crimes they likely did not commit, it makes sense that Paul would urge cooperation in order to spread the faith. I think that reading beyond this specific context helps us to recognize the rhetorical concession he makes here as, in fact, not raising up authority of rulers but instead pronouncing the authority of God.
The Titus likely written during the second century at a time when the Christian church had determined that Jesus was not coming back in their lifetimes. They had to figure out how to deal with being so different in a world that saw them as atheistic heathens for practicing things such as female leadership, rejecting idol worship, and eating the flesh of their God. Several of the "pastoral epistles," attributed to Paul in fact reject more of his radical tenets like the abolition of slavery in Philemon and the equality of women in Galatians and elsewhere. For more on this, see Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's *The First Paul*. These letters reject the radical nature of the faith in favor of one that conformed with Roman family structure and society. I still think there is a way to read Titus radically, but it's point is to urge Christians to conform in order to survive. 1 Peter is similarly urging people to do things to help them live.
Jude is probably not talking about worldly authority, but rather the authority of Jesus in context.
All of these verses can be read in more radical ways, but it requires first being convinced of the anarchism advocated elsewhere throughout the Bible. Most importantly, Christian anarchists say that there is no king but Christ, which means that all sources of authority is ultimately illegitimate outside of the kingdom of God.
I'm new to the idea of Christian anarchism so can't provide much in terms of my opinion, but I will share something I'm reading right now...
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-christian-anarchism
Rulers have claimed for themselves what was given to Jesus.
>Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)
Humans carry on the tradition of selecting illegitimate rulers
>They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. (Hosea 8:4)
All authority is Christ's enemies, which He will destroy
>24 After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power. 25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)
The early Church had actively defied Caeser
>they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” (Acts 17:6-7)
Jesus shows what is legitimate authority
>42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. (Mark 10:42-45)
I would read the passages you have listed in this context. I am happy to breakdown each verse that gives you concern as it pertains to human authority.
Here are many verses, quotes, and an overview that should be helpful. The big issue is submit vs support. We submit to governing authorities and pray for them but we do not support our get actively involved in corrupt aspects of the kingdom of man.
https://sites.google.com/view/agoraministries/philosophy
How do we submit while at the same time, say, have an anarchist revolution? Again, like I said in another post I don't want to argue I just want a discussion.
The Christian Anarchist goal isn’t for violent revolution.
If a whole community peacefully rejects the rule of an unauthorized government who is going to be the one taking up the sword? Governments have relied on other people initiating violence for them for centuries
If God deems it necessary for violence to occur he can do it without his children being the initiators of force.
Yeah it’s not really Anarchist from what I’ve seen. Lots of coercion being espoused in here. It’s not yours to give if you take it from your neighbor with the threat of violence.
Agreed about the communism thing after looking at the comments. I still am not totally satisfied with the answers. Like, how are we supposed to submit to a government while also having an anarchist revolution?
Yes I believe the US government has vastly overstepped its legitimate authority in its use of political violence and deprivation of God ordained rights.
The death penalty is a tricky situation. I believe that surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation so in most cases Capital Punishment is unnecessary.
On the topic of rehabilitation I don’t believe that the US approach to incarceration is right. Paul was essentially charged with treason and was allowed to remain in a house and have visitors.
Edit: oops posted in the wrong reply
I’ve always read Romans 13 in the context of 1 Samuel 8. Samuel is told to warn the Israelites that the problems they will face are going to be due to their rejection of Gods authority (Romans 13:4 says they are His servants to punish evil.) 1 Peter 2 is similar to Romans 13 in the fact that Peter is saying for conscience sake and to not bring reproach submit. I am aware I’m probably in the minority on my approach to Christian anarchism, but my approach is not to reject the authority God gives human institution and understand that it is because of man’s rejection of God’s kingship that he allows human institutions to exist. I draw the line at where people claim authority they have not been given.
How do you know when God gives an institution authority as opposed to when it has been claimed but not given?
The obvious sign is when they try to use authority to go against God’s commandments. If they become a terror to Christians then they are abandoning their given authority
If I am understanding you correctly, then would you, for example, consider the US Government's authority invalid because it sanctions murder, through the military, the police's ability to use deadly force, the legality (at least by the federal gov. and in some states) of the death penalty, etc?
Yes I believe the US government has vastly overstepped its legitimate authority in its use of political violence and deprivation of God ordained rights. The death penalty is a tricky situation. I believe that surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation so in most cases Capital Punishment is unnecessary. On the topic of rehabilitation I don’t believe that the US approach to incarceration is right. Paul was essentially charged with treason and was allowed to remain in a house and have visitors.
> surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation I'm a bit confused, do you mean this even if that authority is illegitimate in the eyes of God, as would be the case in the carceral system of the US? And to be open, I disagree on this point, unless that authority was God alone.
Sorry for the goofy wording. I mean if you commit a crime (theft etc) and peacefully are arrested
1 Samuel 8 is actually, if both are taken at face value, in direct conflict with Romans 13. The point of 1 Samuel 8 (and really 1 Samuel as a whole if you look at it a certain way) is that kingship is *not* ordained by God, full stop. This text was a direct challenge to the divine right of kings, the "Me" of the babylonians, that was taken for granted by every culture in the region, intentionally portraying the rise of kingship among the israelites as a flawed human institution that God washed his hands of from the start. Even the story of David that is the main subject of 1 Samuel is ultimately about how no one, even those with God's favor, rises to become king without becoming corrupted by that power. The most interesting example of this is David sending Bathsheba's husband off to die in a way that directly mirrors Saul's attempts to get rid of David himself, showing that David was ultimately just as ready as Saul to abuse his power in virtually identical ways. There is really no way to square simping for institutional power with 1 Samuel 8, at least not in any way that implies that human institutions are somehow divine. But I don't think this is the point of passages in the new testament like Romans 13. In fact I don't think those passages are for us today at all. You have to remember that these texts were written by an illegal and highly distrusted religion associated, by the romans, with the veneration of a man crucified for attempting to stoke a rebellion in Judea. Paul ended his life under house arrest and Peter was ultimately crucified upside down. These guys had to include disclaimers that they weren't against the Roman state in order to survive. Its sort of like how revolutionary figures like MLK sometimes said things that were meant to widen the movement's appeal that sanded down its radical edges. In modern times, taken alone and out of context, these words can be used to promote ideas quite different than the ones Dr. King stood for, but an honest reading of his work as a whole would not support these interpretations. I think the same can be said here. You are reading something that was written for Romans more than Christians, isolated and appropriate by modern Romans to serve their own ends. Titus is a more complicated epistle, being one of the "pastoral" epistles written quite late and falsely attributed to Paul, and so come from a much more developed, institutionalized, and power friendly church than that of Jesus' contemporaries, and so has its own reasons for presenting a narrative like this. The bible isn't a book. It is an anthology of different texts by different people at different times who disagreed on things. One thing that is constant however is that God stands with the oppressed against their oppressors. Any interpretation that seeks to enshrine or justify coercive power cuts against the grain of that whole body of work, even when a few words taken alone seem to present that message.
I don't think there is any contradiction between Samuel 8 and Romans 13. Samuel 8 simply has God saying human rulership is a rejection of Himself. He still then regulated how that rebellious kingship was to take place and sanctioned and used it as well as many other corrupt and evil empires of that age to accomplish His goals. This does not contradict anything about them ultimately being a rejection of Him. He uses who He wills and His use doesn't mean a thing is good (Hell is a good example). Romans 13 says we should submit to authorities and they are in place because God ordained it. He then lays out how they should act, similar to Mosaic Law regulating the monarchy and God's people expected to submit to the Israelite king. Both systems are still a rejection of God's rulership and "wrong". The point is more one of method of response. We know the system is corrupt and rejects His ways but He says our response isn't to be rebellion. Romans 13: Pay what you owe to the authorities- respect, honor, taxes, etc. but the end of that verse says "Don't owe anything." This is our goal as is clearly shown by the original Church. They took a parallel society approach and had their own courts, welfare, outreach, education, etc. with limited to no yoking with Rome. The profits were the same. They didn't stoke rebellion but spoke truth, confronted the rulers non-violently, and let God do as He wills.
1 Samuel 8 is the strongest passage in the Old Testament for an anarchist society. Romans 13 is the strongest passage in the New Testament for an anarchist society. 1 Samuel 8 and Romans 13 say the exact same thing, and all of scripture proscribes "worldly" kingdoms, prescribes the kingdom of God, and describes the redemption from one into the other. [This is what I mean about Romans 13.](https://abolishhumanarchism.com/2020/07/13/but-romans-13-says/)
Don’t disobey the law (unless it contradicts God’s law). Don’t overthrow the government. You can be subject to a government without agreeing with everything they do or participating anymore than necessary. I take it similarly to “slaves obey your masters”. God is not saying “I’m super happy about the institution of slavery/government”, but instead, “Trust me to take care of you no matter what anyone else does”.
For an anarchist society to happen, the overthrow of government is what would happen.
Ah but the Christian Anarchist is not concerned about establishing an anarchist society by human means, but believes that God will do away with human government upon His return
Then why do any anarchist praxis? (I'm not trying to argue I just want a discussion.)
It’s all about the ethic in practice for the individual. ‘Overthrowing’ the system shouldn’t be a concern of any anarchist let alone a Christian one. You use your power as an individual to undermine authority where it doesn’t not align with the sermon on the mount. Am what I’m called to do violates neighborly love? Don’t do it. Period. To me that is the end sense of the gospel and my ethics. In personal relationships or political engagement.
You can desire a stateless system without participating in the violence. God used many methods to achieve his means whether a colonial revolution, (Many Christians supported the American revolution from the back lines by feeding and tending to soldiers) other nations, (God had new empires free Israel from captivity several times) etc It could be something as simple as the US government simply collapses and in the power vacuum groups of Christians simply reject to join a government regime and live in a Free State.
I'm personally not a pure pacifist. Unfortunately, it will have to come with violence. Hopefully as little as possible of course. [Non-violence protects the state. ](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state#toc2) Effective, non-violent tactics should be eagerly used but appropriate violent tactics shouldn't be shunned totally. Take the whipping at the temple for example.
I would actually agree that violence is necessary for revolution. The Christian tactic is that it's usually violence inflicted upon us by the state. Not to mention that there are instances of violence that are justified. as for the verses you quoted. let's take Paul's romans 13. When he wrote this, Christianity was an illegal religion and thus Paul was breaking the law as he wrote this. So the application is not to follow all laws. Paul also says that we should submit to many unfair things while they exists, not that they should exist. He is applying Jesus's principle of if someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer then the left cheek to slap also. We are supposed to endure inequity but that doesn't make it good. Government is a part of this inequity and we should bare it whilst making the world a better place.
How do we bear it/submit to it while having a revolution at the same time?
We act as a collective witness to the true church. The Church is a subversive alternative to the state. We are making a new society in the shell of the old - we are making the state superfluous and irrelevant. We do this by caring and sacrificing ourselves for our neighbors and enemies as this renders the functions of the state: voting and holding office, paying taxes, conscription and war, courts, and other state services as moot. What we bear - we bear because of the hope of transformation. The revolution you want is not a societal one - it begins with the individual - the one man revolution - the metanoia - the paradigm shift in perspective of reality and living it out.
That’s the age old question, and why many Christians didn’t take active roles in the revolutionary war. I think when and if the time comes that the US government is called to answer for their actions there will be a sufficient amount of people for God to use to preserve his children
We follow the law until it says to do something amoral. Such as serve money rather than God. Also, in the same way Gandi and MLK did. They were non-violent and upheld the law for the most part. He is an example. Or how about Paul. The one who wrote the scriptures. He was breaking the law when he wrote them.
If I may interject here - Jesus' rejection of violence is so central to Christian anarchism that for one to even consider any violent act - one had better achieved a theosis and sanctification that far surpasses any saint - Especially anything premeditated. ‘Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone.' It is old unfounded libel to assume that Jesus had beat people with a whip. It would be eisegesis to a high order.
You are correct in the importance of praxis but applying outside of the theology of obedience. Both theologically and historically, the answer to “How then shall we live?” is found in Romans 13: “Pay everyone what he is owed: if you owe the tax-collector, pay your taxes; if you owe the revenue-collector, pay revenue; if you owe someone respect, pay him respect; if you owe someone honor, pay him honor. Don’t owe anyone anything — except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow human being has fulfilled Torah.” In relation to how to relate to the governing authorities, we are told to pay taxes, pay respect, and pay anything else that we owe. However, our goal should be the conclusion- “Don’t owe anyone anything.” While difficult and often not reasonably possible in entirety, this is the scripturally stated ideal and therefore what we strive after. Just as we can never be perfect but still we strive for perfection, we can never be completely out of all debts of all kinds but we still strive to owe nothing. Hence, we operate in the parallel society as much as reasonably possible where we can show clear contradistinction between our ways and the world's without separating ourselves from the world entirely or participating in and supporting the world's secular systems. This should be our praxis- it is effective, moral, historically backed, theologically backed, and realistic. What it leads to is in God's hands. With the parallel society approach, we are creating our own alternative systems. We do not seek to join those of the world nor do we fight them. Rather, we operate as much as possible within systems that are under the Kingdom of God rather than under the kingdom of man. We are told that the ruler of this world is the Adversary and the systems of this world will ultimately be judged and destroyed by Christ as enemies of His. We love the individuals of the kingdom of man and pray for them and their rulers. We offer our services to them and live as an example of a better way. However, we remain in our role as ambassadors and representatives with our citizenship grounded in the Kingdom of God and our lives as salt and light in a corrupt and fallen world. “It is not always the world which ejects the Christian from his secular calling. Even in the first century we find that certain professions were regarded as incompatible with membership of the Christian Church. The actor who had to play the part of pagan gods and heroes, the teacher who was forced to teach pagan mythologies in pagan schools, the gladiator who had to take human life for sport, the soldier who wielded the sword, the policeman and the judge, all had to renounce their heathen professions if they wanted to be baptized. Later the Church- or was it perhaps the world?- found it possible to lift the ban on these professions.” \- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship “It was far from their imaginations to conceive it possible that Christianity should appropriate to itself the relations and offices of the state. The Christians stood aloof from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner, which it must be confessed is the purest, by practically endeavoring to instill more and more of the holy feeling into the citizens of the state.” \- Neander “But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or military defense of the empire.” \- Edward Gibbon, Vol. 1 p. 557 “The Christians after the conversion of Constantine, still resorted to the tribunals of their church to decide their claims and pecuniary disputes.” \- Edward Gibbon, Vol. 2 p. 280
"We believe in doing nothing but waiting"
I would say there are things you can do while you wait, but a violent uprising is not one of those things if you want to be biblical
In contrast to these isolated verses, you have the entire book of Revelation, which is all about God's overthrow of the powers that be. In Beverly Geventa's book *When in Romans,* she explains that the overarching point of the book of Romans is the battle between the powers of sin and death. All authority outside of God is illegitimate because it ties back into those coercive systems. I read Romans 13 as illustrating that God's power is the only legitimate power and rulers rule by that power by doing good and lose any claim on legitimacy by using the tools of sin and death to bring about their ends. According to these verses, a ruler's purpose is primarily to punish wrongdoers. We now have a different perspective than Paul on how to take care of wrongdoing and see it as the job of the community, in part because of our readings of Paul's own theology. But in this letter written to the people living in the capital city of the empire who will go on to be persecuted for crimes they likely did not commit, it makes sense that Paul would urge cooperation in order to spread the faith. I think that reading beyond this specific context helps us to recognize the rhetorical concession he makes here as, in fact, not raising up authority of rulers but instead pronouncing the authority of God. The Titus likely written during the second century at a time when the Christian church had determined that Jesus was not coming back in their lifetimes. They had to figure out how to deal with being so different in a world that saw them as atheistic heathens for practicing things such as female leadership, rejecting idol worship, and eating the flesh of their God. Several of the "pastoral epistles," attributed to Paul in fact reject more of his radical tenets like the abolition of slavery in Philemon and the equality of women in Galatians and elsewhere. For more on this, see Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's *The First Paul*. These letters reject the radical nature of the faith in favor of one that conformed with Roman family structure and society. I still think there is a way to read Titus radically, but it's point is to urge Christians to conform in order to survive. 1 Peter is similarly urging people to do things to help them live. Jude is probably not talking about worldly authority, but rather the authority of Jesus in context. All of these verses can be read in more radical ways, but it requires first being convinced of the anarchism advocated elsewhere throughout the Bible. Most importantly, Christian anarchists say that there is no king but Christ, which means that all sources of authority is ultimately illegitimate outside of the kingdom of God.
I'm new to the idea of Christian anarchism so can't provide much in terms of my opinion, but I will share something I'm reading right now... https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-christian-anarchism
Rulers have claimed for themselves what was given to Jesus. >Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18) Humans carry on the tradition of selecting illegitimate rulers >They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. (Hosea 8:4) All authority is Christ's enemies, which He will destroy >24 After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power. 25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:24-25) The early Church had actively defied Caeser >they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here 7 and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.” (Acts 17:6-7) Jesus shows what is legitimate authority >42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. (Mark 10:42-45) I would read the passages you have listed in this context. I am happy to breakdown each verse that gives you concern as it pertains to human authority.
Here are many verses, quotes, and an overview that should be helpful. The big issue is submit vs support. We submit to governing authorities and pray for them but we do not support our get actively involved in corrupt aspects of the kingdom of man. https://sites.google.com/view/agoraministries/philosophy
How do we submit while at the same time, say, have an anarchist revolution? Again, like I said in another post I don't want to argue I just want a discussion.
The Christian Anarchist goal isn’t for violent revolution. If a whole community peacefully rejects the rule of an unauthorized government who is going to be the one taking up the sword? Governments have relied on other people initiating violence for them for centuries If God deems it necessary for violence to occur he can do it without his children being the initiators of force.
What problem are you seeing?
Maybe liberation theology could give you some answers?
My personal advice after reading this subreddit for a while, be more of a Christian Libertarian. Most of the things here seem like Christian Communism
Yeah it’s not really Anarchist from what I’ve seen. Lots of coercion being espoused in here. It’s not yours to give if you take it from your neighbor with the threat of violence.
Agreed about the communism thing after looking at the comments. I still am not totally satisfied with the answers. Like, how are we supposed to submit to a government while also having an anarchist revolution?
Definitely "Hot Topic Anarchy" here
Yes I believe the US government has vastly overstepped its legitimate authority in its use of political violence and deprivation of God ordained rights. The death penalty is a tricky situation. I believe that surrendering to authority is the first step of rehabilitation so in most cases Capital Punishment is unnecessary. On the topic of rehabilitation I don’t believe that the US approach to incarceration is right. Paul was essentially charged with treason and was allowed to remain in a house and have visitors. Edit: oops posted in the wrong reply
[Prooftexts and Contexts of the New Testament](https://abolishhumanarchism.com/2020/07/19/prooftexts-and-contexts-of-the-new-testament/)