Christian Anarchism and The Salvation Army (Essay)

Estimated reading time: 0 minutes

This post makes no claims about whether the reader should adopt Christian Anarchism as a political philosophy, nor does it argue that The Salvation Army should be organised around its principles. Rather, this article seeks to set out what Christian Anarchism is, its biblical roots, and its relationship to The Salvation Army today.

The basic assumption of Christian Anarchism is that humanity should have no king (or president, or ruler of any kind) except for Jesus.

That doesn’t mean a theocracy where priests and holy people are in charge. Rather, everyone should be able to work together for the sake of love under the rulership of God.

Starting Point – the Biblical Critique of Kingship

The Bible offers a strong critique of Kingship that is equally true for everyone in a position of power, whatever kind of power they hold.

In 1 Samuel 8, God tells the Israelites they should have no king but God. However, they want their own king because they want to be like everyone else. Then, hundreds of years later, John 19:15 records the high priest saying, “We have no king but Caesar,” a foreign ruler who pretends to claim divinity and saving power.

There is a running theme throughout the Bible about the inability of rulers to be faithful to God or to their people.

The people want a king because they are scared of chaos

A key aspect of the people’s desire for a king in 1 Samuel is their experience during the time of the Judges.

Throughout the book of Judges, the phrase “there was no king in Israel” is repeated four times, with the added corollary that the people did what was right in their own eyes. The writer would prefer that people do what is right in the eyes of God and attributes the conflicts and chaos of the period of the judges to the lack of obedience to the Law.

But another reason given by the people for wanting a king in 1 Samuel 8 is that Samuel’s children will not be able to lead Israel as Samuel has, because they have fallen short of his example.

Rather than risk the chaos of the Judges, they want stability from a king. But the rest of the Bible demonstrates that having a king did not make the Israelites do what God wanted or provide stability and security.

In fact, quite the opposite occurred.

Israel Never Had A Good King

They were meant to have no king but God. When they got a human king to be like the other nations, they also received all the things that go along with human rulers. This should not have been unexpected by the people of Israel.

The biblical King

God has already given them a warning in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, which gives an outline of what a king for Israel, if Israel ever wanted a king, should look like:

¹⁴ When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me’, ¹⁵ you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. 

¹⁶ Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’ ¹⁷ And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. 

¹⁸ When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the Levitical priests. ¹⁹ It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, ²⁰ neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.

There are not many kings, rulers, presidents, or prime ministers who meet those standards. Which really should tell you something.

The purpose of the king

The king was to be an overseer to bring peace and stability under the Law of God. The king was subject to the Law of God just as the rest of the community was, and so the king was not to exalt himself above other members of the community.

It is likely that this statement is made in recognition of what other kings in surrounding nations are like, is also influenced by the excesses of Israel’s own kings, and is a retroactive critique of those kings for failing to follow God’s commands.

The writer is saying this is what a king should be like, and the readers/hearers of that passage are going, “Our king is nothing like this!”

The Bible teaches the reality of rulers

The harshest critique of kingship comes in 1 Samuel chapter 8. The people of Israel reject Samuel the prophet as he grows older, and his sons have not followed in his ways. They want a king to rule them once Samuel dies, just like other nations do (1 Samuel 8: 4,5) and God tells Samuel that the people have rejected God as their king (1 Samuel 8:6).

It was God who was meant to be their king, not another person who was equally subject to God’s laws as the rest of the people, but God alone.

What Should a Godly Ruler Look Like?

However, God tells Samuel to listen to the people but to give them a warning about how kings will behave:

¹⁰ So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. ¹¹ He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; ¹² and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plough his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 

¹⁴ He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. ¹⁵ He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. ¹⁶ He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. ¹⁷ He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. ¹⁸ And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’

Rulers are going to act like Rulers

Note the difference between what a Godly ruler should look like, and the kind of ruler God is warning the people that they will have. Even amongst the community that has received the Law and has prophets to tell them God’s word, they can still expect nothing from their ruler but hardship.

The word most frequently repeated during that section is the word ‘take’. The king takes from the people for his own good and the good of his supporters, not the good of the people.

With this critique of kingship, it might be surprising that Christian Anarchism is not strictly speaking anti-hierarchical but is rather anti-ruler.

The Wider History and Context of Anarchism

Anarchism is made up of two Greek words: ‘An‘ means without and ‘Arkhos‘ means ruler. Anarchism is the critique and rejection of coercive and violent power.

Anarchy just means “no ruler,” specifically the absence of someone exercising governance, control, or sovereignty over another person or persons.

Anarchism, Hierarchy, and Social Structures

The reason why we shouldn’t read hierarchy into this is that hierarchies do not necessarily imply a ruler.

There is a social hierarchy when a group of people come to make decisions. Some people have more authority than others. The authority of knowledge, of experience, of expertise, and of charisma.

That is not coercive authority, nor is it a controlling hierarchy. Christian Anarchism is the principle that, united under Christ, people may gather to organise themselves without a ruler or the use of coercive authority or violent power.

Anarchism as a social structure is a decentralised, self-regulating society composed of a federation of voluntary associations of free and equal individuals. People who come together to work together and make decisions together for the benefit of everyone else.

Anarchism as a reaction to the development of the Nation State

Anarchism, more generally, is an Enlightenment response to an Enlightenment problem – the nation-state.

The Early Modern period sees the rise and development of distinct political units, which later evolved into the nation-states in which most political bodies operate today. There is a distinction between country, nation, and state, which I’m not going to go into too deeply today. But the emphasis is on the ‘state’ element.

The state is the collective political entity of laws, treaties, and structures which governs a set geographical area. A country is a defined geographical area, which is often the same as a state, but not always. A nation is a socio-ethnic group that shares an historical narrative, common customs and culture, and to which people have a sense of belonging.

Early Anarchist Development

In Britain, William Godwin (1756-1836) gave the first clear statement of anarchist principles by rejecting rulers and the abuses of the people. The German philosopher Max Stirner (1806-1856) rejected both government and state as entities which should exist. The Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhorn (1809-1865) was the first writer to call himself an anarchist and proclaimed that “property is theft“.

Further development of those early principles was undertaken by the Russians Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). The American Benjamin R Tucker (1854-1939) then unsurprisingly moved the economic theories of Proudhorn to an extreme individualistic position and created libertarian anarchism.

In the 20th century, Emma Goldman (1869-1940) provided an important feminist perspective to Anarchism, while Murray Bookchin (1921-2006) introduced an environmental element, and Terry J. Stokes introduced black anarchist theology.

Beginnings of Christian Anarchism

The father of Christian anarchism is generally accepted to be the writer, Leo Tolstoy.

Leo Tolstoy and Christian Anarchism

Tolstoy made a strong argument that the idea of a ‘Christian state or nation’ is a contradiction in terms.

Christian anarchism challenges the assumption that the powerful, rather than the kingdom of God, is the Christian mode of salvation. God does not bring salvation to the world through acts of power or through mighty men, but through the torture and death of an innocent man.

Tolstoy rejects all forms of nationalism, as the kingdom of God transcends temporal modes of belonging. The Kingdom is for all people in all places, so how can one nation claim a particular blessing over another?

Christian Anarchism Develops

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) is also a significant figure in Christian anarchism and is best known for his sociological work.

Although he does not think that a true anarchist society is possible at this time, he maintains that the anarchist position is the only acceptable position to hold in the modern world when confronted with the behaviour of modern nation states.

There is an eschatological tension in Ellul between what the Kingdom of God will look like and the reality of fallen humanity in the present where pockets of promise show what will one day exist.

Merton and the Revolution

What is needed for Christian Anarchism to be possible here and now is a complete revolution in human behaviour.

Thomas Merton wrote: “A revolution is supposed to be a change that turns everything completely around. But the ideology of political revolution will never change anything except appearances. . . . The only influence that can really upset the injustice and iniquity of men is the power that breathes in Christian tradition,” in New Seeds of Contemplation.

What is needed is the revolution which comes through salvation and sanctification.

The Catholic Workers Movement, which was founded in 1933, consistently describes itself as anarchist because of its decentralised structure.

One of its most well-known members, Dorothy Day (1897-1980), was described by the director of the FBI as a threat to USA national security because of what she taught and how she acted by serving the most oppressed and impoverished members of society.

More recently, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos published Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel (2011).

Christian Anarchism Existed Before It Was Called Christian Anarchism

However, Christian Anarchism was really only so termed by Jacques Ellul, the French theologian and sociologist. The ideas have been around for a lot longer than that, but the explicit language of Christian Anarchism is relatively modern.

Yet despite the modern language and the recent development of the theory, Christian anarchism draws its influence not only from theology, sociology and politics, but also from scripture itself.

Ellul argues that the thinking displayed in the Bible should lead the reader straight to anarchism. He writes: “The only Christian political position consistent with revelation is the negation of power: the radical total refusal of its existence, a fundamental questioning of it, no matter what form it may take.”

Positions of power inevitably become destructive, coercive, and violent. They cannot rule as God does but only by force. The state is inherently violent, including toward its own people. The bible critiques the assumption of power and the way that it leads rulers to behave.  

Christian Anarchism – No Ruler but Christ

As has already been said, there is only room for one ruler: Christ.

God reveals the claims of human rulers to ultimacy to be lies. The rulership of Christ is fundamentally different from the ways in which rulers and states must act to exercise their power.

Christ does not exert coercive, violent, or destructive power over us. Jesus is the perfect example of a loving and self-sacrificing king who gives himself for others. We are all disciples, followers of Jesus and are made siblings in that shared relationship. Subject only to Christ and to the needs of each other.

Christian Anarchism is not about our relationship with God but with other humans. It does not reject all rulers, only the claims of human ones.

There is a horizontal element to Christian anarchism which rejects the atheist assumptions of other forms of anarchism, which rejects gods and religions as well as states and rulers.

Christian Anarchism and the Bible

The Sermon on the Mount is a Political Battleground

Of particular influence to Christian anarchists is Matthew 5 and the Sermon on the Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount is often viewed as central to the underpinning theology of Christian Anarchism. Christian anarchists will generally see the Sermon on the Mount as something to actually try and live by here and now.

Martin Luther’s Role

Historically, Martin Luther drew a distinction between following the Sermon on the Mount as an individual and not having to follow it when acting as a State official. The person might well be holy in their own right, but was able to act outside the rules of God when they had to fulfil their duties to the state.

This is why a soldier can kill, or a magistrate can take a person’s land away. But Tolstoy writes: “Government is violence, Christianity is meekness, non-resistance, love. And, therefore, government cannot be Christian, and a man who wishes to be a Christian must not serve government.”

The requirements of government, and the necessity of force which underpins the power and authority of the state, do not allow a Christian to have anything to do with it if they are to follow the commands of Christ.

One of the key restrictions on a state is the inability to love an enemy. The priority of the state is the preservation of the state against anything which would harm it or destroy it.

A state cannot forgive its enemies

The state treats foreigners differently from citizens; it relies on patriotism and goes to war, it emphasises the love of what is similar, and that which is dissimilar becomes the enemy or a threat.

In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says not to swear or take an oath. This is problematic when many government services, serving in the military or police forces, and holding political office all require taking an oath. Whether that is the oaths sworn by members of parliament or, for example, the pledge of allegiance in the USA.

John 18, Pilate, and Jesus Explaining His Kingdom

John 18 is another key example of how Christians should relate to the powers and authority of the state.

When Pilate confronts Jesus before his execution, Pilate challenges Jesus about being a king. But Jesus replies that his kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world.

The Greek does not mean that the Kingdom of God belongs somewhere else. Rather, it means that the Kingdom of God is not like other kingdoms in this world. To illustrate the difference, Jesus says that if his kingdom were like the kingdoms of the world, his disciples would fight to protect him.

But the kingdom of God is not like Caesar’s because it is one based not on power and violence but on love and mercy.

The Acts 2 and 4 church was an Anarchist community of solidarity and mutual aid

In Acts 2 & 4, we see one of the clearer examples of the way in which a community of Christian anarchists could operate.

All the disciples and followers of Jesus sold what they had to make sure no one went without, they held everything in common, they took care of the widows and orphans, they shared meals together, and they worshipped together.

They held their life together in common, being subject to one another, not holding personal needs above the needs of the other. There was no need for laws to make them do this because they did so out of love for one another, because the Holy Spirit had entered their lives.

Perhaps these points point to one way we might speak about the possibility of Christian anarchy in this world: through sanctification.

What does it actually mean to render unto Caesar?

Mark 12 and the corresponding verses in other Gospels are often taken as a challenge to Christian anarchism because of the perceived recognition they give to the authority of the state.

Jesus says to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but this does not necessarily mean what it has often been assumed to mean. Normally, people read this text as saying that there is a divide between divine authority and civil authority which does not cross over.

What Does Jesus Say?

But Jesus is actually saying something else.

Jacques Ellul writes: “Render unto Caesar…in no way divides the exercise of authority into two realms….They were said in response to another matter: the payment of taxes, and the coin. The mark on the coin is that of Caesar; it is the mark of his property. Therefore give Caesar this money; it is his. It is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. That’s all. Let us not forget that money, for Jesus, is the domain of Mammon, a satanic domain!”

For Ellul, Jesus is saying that giving the tax to Caesar is only giving back to Caesar what is his, something that is ultimately empty and destructive and which operates a lustful power over people.

Further, I think it is key to remember the context of the Roman coins.

Whose Image is This?

It bears the head and inscriptions of the Roman emperor. Claims to divine sonship, to be a king of kings and bringer of peace, to be a saviour of the world. These are all false. The image is idolatrous, as on the opposite side of the imperial face would be a picture of a Roman god.

What is Caesar’s? Nothing at all, just shadows and dust.

What belongs to God? Everything!

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, which is ultimately the things of no value, which only destroy and are lies, and give to Jesus all of creation, which is already his.

This is not a matter of paying taxes or the separation of church and state. It is the sublimation and critique of any claim to power and authority by rulers beyond that which God allows.

Christian Anarchism and Romans 13

This brings us to Romans 13, often perceived as the great stumbling block for Christian anarchism. However, once again, the test can be interpreted and understood in a way which may not be the one you are used to.

Paul is a frequent and hostile critic of the Roman Empire, as is much of the New Testament. The language of the New Testament regularly subverts Roman Imperial claims.

Dr Lloyd Pietersen writes: “Paul’s exhortation to show solidarity with the oppressed resonates well with anarchist protest against corrupt and disempowering practices by those in power.”

Understanding Romans

The Letter to the Romans begins by establishing that the whole world owes allegiance to Christ (Rom 1:3-5) because he is the Son of God who brings good news and justice. These are claims and titles made by Augustus Caesar and every emperor after him.

Paul is subverting Imperial power by claiming the reality of those titles and status for Jesus and not for Caesar. To proclaim Jesus as the Son of God deliberately denied Caesar the highest title he claimed; to announce the good news that Jesus is Lord is treason against the Emperor.

Today, to say that Jesus is Lord is still to say that other claims to lordship and power in this world are always subordinate and lesser than the Lordship of Christ. A Christian cannot have an unnuanced or unnegotiated allegiance to any state or nation.

True patriotism is impossible because there will always be limits to obedience to the state that a Christian cannot cross. The only ultimate authority is Christ; all else is negotiable.

Paul was writing during a period of the Empire when there were significant questions about direct and indirect taxation.

Roman Civil Unrest

The Roman historian Tacitus describes the unrest in AD58 that reached such a degree that Nero considered abolishing all indirect taxation, but was prevented from doing so when his advisors warned that such a move would prompt calls for the abolition of direct taxation.

We should remember that the implementation of taxes in Judea in AD6 led to a dramatic rise in insurrection by the Jewish people as well. Previously, under Emperor Claudius, all Jews had been exiled from Rome during a period when foreigners in Rome had been forced to pay a tribute tax to Caesar.

When they returned, the issue of taxation for people living in Rome remained, but now there were Gentile Christians who had been paying the tax and Jewish Christians who had returned to Rome and had not had to pay it.

If Christians started to make a fuss about obedience to the demands of Rome, specifically the taxes required for the running of the state, then it was likely that they would be expelled again, or further unrest and riots could occur.

Making Sense of Romans 13

However, the imperative in Romans 13 to obey the rulers has often been taken to be universal for all peoples and all times. But early Christians did not see it that way.

The martyr Polycarp, during his trial, said: “We have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm.”

Submission to authorities does not always mean obedience, and it definitely doesn’t mean acceptance or respect. It can mean simply not to resist the excesses of the state but to suffer the state to carry on existing and, unless it harms the person, to go along with what is necessary to avoid chaos.

To overcome evil with good (Rom 12:18-21) and to show solidarity with the oppressed (Rom 12: 16) are the ways in which a Christian submits to the state without being obedient to the state.

The vocation of rulership is to limit sin

States, governments, and rulers exist to limit sin when they perform their roles according to God, Luther, and the ministry, etc. But when they fail to perform their duty, they no longer have any authority over us.

Do the powers and governments include every government and ruler? Paul writes that the governing authorities allowed by God are those that are not a terror to those who are good, but only to the evil. Does this imply that any state which is a terror to the good ceases to be accepted as legitimate by God?

Reading the passage in the same way that turns the other cheek does not give moral authority to the one who is hitting you, but only shows how a Christian should respond. Romans 13 does not give moral authority to the governing authorities except that which is recognised by their work and behaviour; it indicates how a Christian should respond to them.

Submission to the authority of rulers is therefore never without question and always in a negotiated sense because their power is not absolute. Righteous Disobedience is always a distinct possibility.

Righteous disobedience: Peter before the Sanhedrin

Here is an example of disobedience from the Bible:

In Acts 4 & 5, we see Peter and John arrested for preaching the Gospel, sent to prison, and released with a command not to preach anymore.

Works of power take place, and many people sell their property to ensure the needy are looked after. In the early Church, when the Holy Spirit came, people sold all they had to feed the hungry and take care of the poor.

Then God tells Peter and John to preach again, and when they are called before the Sanhedrin, Peter says they must obey God rather than human authorities. There is a limit to what a human ruler can demand of a person.

Obedience to the Gospel is more important than obedience to a ruler in whatever form that ruler takes.

This provides context for Paul’s letter. Context: which would be vital for the martyrs under the Emperor Domitian, who said they would otherwise be good citizens but could not sacrifice to idols or worship the emperor.

Examples of Christian Anarchism and Supportive Theology in History

The question of the authority of rulers in a world where Jesus is Lord and King has affected the Church from its earliest period. The Gospel was always in conflict with Rome, and for some Christians, there could be no compromise. An example is the Martyr Speratus, who was martyred along with other Christians. When requested that he swear by the emperor, Speratus, spokesperson of the Scillitan Martyrs, said in 180CE:

“I recognise not the empire of this world … because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.”

There was not even a question of divided allegiance or negotiated loyalty, only a flat denial of recognition for any empire in the world. There was only one King who was Christ, only one emperor and Lord, and he died on a Roman cross.

The Growth of Early Monasticism

A similar trend can be seen in the movement which became Early Monasticism. Men and women went into the desert and lived together in community, subject to a rule of obedience and service to one another, not to the self. They had no rulers, and their leaders were only those recognised for their spiritual excellence and the authority that they gave. They were a family bound by love, formed by people from very different backgrounds.

In his introduction to a translation of the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’, Thomas Merton describes the early monastics as: “Truly in a certain sense ‘anarchists’, and it will do no harm to think of them as such.” They had a structured way of living together; they made decisions as a community, enacted discipline for the sake of the community, but all was done out of love for one another and with the consent of all involved.

The monastics were a push-back against Roman society and an increasingly Romanised Christianity. They demonstrated that the Sermon on the Mount was not an ideal always out of reach, but something which could be lived out here and now. Their way of life was a prophetic witness to the rulers of that time, including bishops, that the kingdom of Christ does not look like the kingdoms of this world.

The Wonderful Gratian

In the 12th century, Gratian, one of the first canon lawyers to emerge from Bologna University after the rediscovery of the tablets of Roman Law, began compiling all the decrees, bulls, and judgments issued by popes and bishops. This Decretum served as the foundation of Canon Law until 1917. He based the principles of Canon Law on the love of one’s neighbour.

The bible said that loving God and loving the neighbour was the whole of the Law. So the same must be true for Church law. It should be based on love of neighbour, which implies certain obligations.

By 1250, this implicit obligation was used in a case of a peasant stealing food from their lord. The peasant was starving and close to death. But stealing from the lord was punishable by death. Cannon Law was invoked, and it was argued that the Lord actually had an obligation to give alms and support to the poor, which he had not done, so the peasant was only taking what was rightfully his. The lord was fined for failing to give alms, and the peasant was set free.

Whilst Gratian does not have a distinctively anarchist theology, the principles which he uses to underpin Canon Law, and the way they were used at least for a short time, highlight some of the theology that would be drawn upon by the first Christian Anarchist thinkers. The rest of the law was subject to the principle of loving one’s neighbour.

The English Peasant’s Revolt

The English Peasant’s Revolt is an interesting example of how anarchist sympathies emerge from social protest. The peasants revolted against the barons and the king over the way they were being treated, particularly over enclosures of common land and the loss of grazing rights. But amongst the protests were radical preachers such as the priest John Ball (1338-1381), who, inspired by the teachings of Wycliffe, preached against the corruption of the church and that humanity, by nature, was all equal.

He preached that Adam and Eve are the lord and lady in a world which is governed by love for one another. He called people to work for the sake of each other and not because they were commanded to do so, and criticised the lords for abusing their servants. His radical preaching called for a society with no lords, no kings, no rulers, but a community of people labouring for one another, where everyone would be equal under God and united in love for one another.

Unsurprisingly, he was imprisoned multiple times, was excommunicated on at least one occasion, and was finally executed on 15th July 1381 by being hanged, drawn and quartered in front of King Richard II. At his trial, he challenged the authority of the court and of the king and preached the Gospel of freedom and equality for all people.

Can Aquinas Help?

Aquinas might not have been the first person whose thoughts would come to mind when contemplating Christian Anarchism, but his theology provides a strong critique of rulers, especially tyrants. He develops Christian theology by placing limits on rulers in accordance with what God expects of them. Aquinas draws a distinction between rightful rulers and what he calls tyrants.

A tyrant robs, murders and enslaves his subjects. He despoils everyone, tramples on the liberties of all, and takes life at a mere whim. This is done perpetually under his rule. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant by tyranny.

Aquinas on Tyranny

The person who seizes power unjustly and rules as a tyrant is not a true ruler without the consent of their subjects. There is no obligation of obedience to an authority which is not true, or to a ruler who is not a true ruler. In these cases, sedition, or the overthrowing of the unjust ruler, is a legitimate course of action. It is considered praiseworthy to deliver people from tyrannical rule. Including through Tyrannicide when necessary.

A tyrannical government is tyrannical because it is directed not to the common good but to the private good of the ruler. Disturbing this rule is not sedition but is a right and virtuous action unless such an action would cause greater harm and suffering. It is, in fact, the tyrant who is guilty of sedition since they encourage discord and chaos so that they may rule over them more securely. As such, any authority for their rule is void, and they cease to be a legitimate leader, and any obligation held to them by a Christian is equally voided.

de las Casas and the critique of slavery

Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1556) is not a natural choice to explore Christian anarchism, but his writings on the morality of slavery and colonisation demonstrate how Christian theology can counter oppressive narratives and provide an alternative position. He was one of the first Spanish colonists in the West Indies, specifically what was then called Hispaniola, and utilised native slaves on his estates.

However, he came to be repulsed by the settlers’ abuses against the natives, and in 1515, he let his workers go, writing to King Charles V on their behalf. Although he then advocates for African slaves instead. He would later recant this position as well. In 1522, he tried to pursue a peaceful settlement on the coast of Venezuela, but it failed, and he returned to join the Dominicans as a friar. He served as a missionary in Central America before returning to Spain, then again in the Caribbean as Bishop of Chiapas.

Then he campaigned for an end to all slavery, abuses, and vicious punishments. He wrote that every human was made in the image of God, and there was therefore a limit to what the powers of the state of the monarch could enforce upon a person, with slavery being very much outside of that limit. The local governor ordered him back to Spain because of what he was teaching and preaching, where he remained a member of the Spanish court, advocating for the rights of natives and slaves.

Only One Humanity

He wrote: “All the people’s of the world are humans, and there is only one definition of all humans and of each one, that is that they are rational.” He called it Derechos humanos – human rights. Every person deserved value and dignity inherent to being human, and to deny that was blasphemy.

His writings were suppressed after he died and then again during the Fascist regime in the 20th century. Seeing all humans as made in the image of God, with a specific dignity inherent to that image, has significant consequences for the limits any power or authority can impose on any person or group.

The Taborites and Hussites

The Taborites were a Hussite faction in medieval Bohemia. Inspired by postmillennial eschatology (as the early Salvation Army was as well!), these religious reformers came together to create a model town based on the principles of the Gospel. Lords, knights, merchants, and peasants all helped to build the town.

All were considered equal; there would be no social or economic inequality. The community called each other brother and sister and believed they were the first fruits of the coming millennium of Christ. There would be no more taxation, all land would be held in common, and there would be no lord or masters. Everyone would work for the common good out of love for each other. Everyone would love each other.

The Taborites demonstrated the kind of community that Christian Anarchists seek to develop. However, it eventually collapsed, compromising with the local bishop and lords in the hope of securing longer-lasting changes, only to ultimately lead to the destruction of the community.

The Levellers and Diggers

The Diggers are another example of an attempt at Christian community and show many aspects of Christian Anarchism. Gerrard Winstanley was central to this group, and between  1649 and 1650, the Diggers squatted on stretches of common land in southern England and attempted to set up communities based on work on the land and the sharing of goods.

The communities failed following a crackdown by the English authorities, but a series of pamphlets by Winstanley survived, of which ‘The New Law of Righteousness’ (1649) was the most important. These communities were examples of people living together in a shared, consensual hierarchy of expertise and experience rather than in a coercive power structure. Everything was to be held in common for the benefit of all, and private provision was to take away from those in need. They were seen as seditious because of this.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther was absolutely not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination. He supported the bloody suppression of the German peasants’ revolt, which had been inspired by his writings. Which is part of the point. Luther developed a radical new way of looking at the world and at human freedom, then backed away from its implications.

Luther wrote: “A Christian man is a perfectly free lord of all, and subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” This is the foundation of Christian Anarchist theology. The person is subject to no one by right but subjects themselves to one another out of love to be a servant to the needs of the other. Radical freedom exists in the mutual commitment to put the needs of the other first so that loving the neighbour shall be the whole of the Law.

Luther’s writings point towards a way of seeing human interactions that prioritises how we see and support each other rather than ourselves. He does not take this to its ultimate conclusion, as the violence of his time pushes him back to saying that the role of the state and the ruler is to constrain sin, which remains in human nature. If the state stepped beyond this remit, then it failed in its role.

Leo Tolstoy

In 1894, Leo Tolstoy wrote a book titled “The Contradiction between our life and our Christian conscience.” In it, he argues that wars are destructive to a nation’s capacity to take care of its poor, but he also points out that warfare between nations puts Christians in a bad position. Especially in the case of mass conscription. How is a Christian to obey the commands of Jesus to turn the other cheek, to forgive and bless the enemy rather than persecute them, when they are being ordered to kill an enemy and will go to prison if they don’t?

Leo Tolstoy: “Christianity, with it’s doctrine of humility, of forgiveness, of love, is incompatible with the State with it’s haughtiness, it’s violence, it’s punishment, it’s wars.” Tolstoy also rejected hierarchical Christianity and said that the credes should be rejected and only the sermon on the mount should be used.

He was also critical of priests and bishops exercising power. The Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated him in 1901 because of his views. Tolstoy’s views would inform Gandhi through their letters and inspire some of Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence and the setting up of small self-governing communities.

Christian Anarchism in The Modern Period

Tolkien

J. R. R. Tolkien in a letter to his son serving in the RAF in 1943: “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) – or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate!

If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to ‘King George’s council, Winston and his gang’, it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is.”

C. S. Lewis

Another establishment figure whose writings contain surprising elements of Christian anarchism is C. S. Lewis. He wrote: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny excised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Less of an anarchist statement and more of a warning against the ways in which tyrannies hide behind supposed benevolence. But it is also a warning against all powers and rulers. Rulers almost always claim that what they are doing is for your benefit, whether you like it or not. They will make the hard choices. But such things ultimately fail to hide what is actually going on.

When holy scripture speaks of following Jesus, it proclaims that people are free from all human rules. ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer. End of good and evil, only command being to love the neighbour. All other forms of law are rendered obsolete. Who is the neighbour? The one in need.

Dorothy Day

The Catholic Workers Movement, founded in 1933 by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, is a modern example of Christian Anarchism. They advocated for mutual aid and cooperative economics. The Catholic Workers commonly describe themselves as anarchic because their communities are autonomous – there is no central organising committee, national association, or organisation under a bishop or congregation, unlike other Roman Catholic lay movements. They mobilised together for each other’s benefit and operated through mutual consent. In the 1950s, Ammon Hennacy wrote:

The dictionary definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ; kind, kindly, Christ-like. Anarchism is voluntary cooperation for good, with the right of secession. A Christian anarchist is therefore one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world.

Again, that implication of a one-person revolution points towards sanctification as the possibility of a realised Christian Anarchism which overcomes the inherent problems or fallen humanity. However, the pragmatism needed to effect change now, the concrete needs of the neighbour here and now and not just as an abstract problem to be wrestled with, sometimes demands compromise.

The Catholic Workers

In 1949, Ludlow wrote in the Catholic Worker that the need to achieve goals now leads the Christian to working with the state on things like social welfare, poverty, and housing, but that the Christian should not forget that their role is to end the coercive rule of the state so that the Kingdom of God can thrive. The state takes the position of God as the absolute, and this must be rejected. Including participating in any marks of allegiance to that state. Dorothy Day wrote:

“This teaching, the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, involves today the issue of unions (where men call each other brothers); it involves the racial question; it involves cooperatives, credit unions, crafts; it involves Houses of Hospitality and Farming Communes. It is with all these means that we can live as though we believed indeed that we are all members one of another, knowing that when “the health of one member suffers, the health of the whole body is lowered.”

Her theology was built on the understanding of the mystical union where the body of Christ was unified with humanity, and Christ took form in humanity and humanity was conformed into Christ. When each person shares in union with Christ, then every other human is their sibling and should be treated as such. We all share in each other’s lives.

Social Order and Hospitality

Peter Maurin’s vision to transform the social order consisted of establishing urban houses of hospitality to care for the destitute, rural farming communities to teach city dwellers agrarianism and encourage a movement back to the land, and roundtable discussions in community centres to clarify thought and initiate action.

This is very similar to the In Darkest England scheme of the early Salvation Army, which provided homes for the homeless and destitute in the city, moved people onto farm colonies to learn how to work the land and work in industries, then shipped them around the British Empire to overseas colonies.

Terry Stokes and George Floyd

Terry J. Stokes, a black American pastor,  in the light of the murder of George Floyd and the rise of community welfare groups during the pandemic, rethought his theology. He moved from a generally conservative form of evangelicalism to an anarchist Christian theology. His trust in the state’s authority to bring about good had been broken, and he sought an answer in Christian Anarchist theology.

Specifically from the black context of a group of people who face systematic oppression, injustice, and racism. For whom the powers of the state and of rulers have not empowered or liberated them, but which are so deeply embedded in those structures of racism and discrimination and oppressive power that they are fundamentally unable to liberate.

The Impact of Feminist and Black Theology

Christian Anarchism owes a great deal of its theological bite to feminist and black theology, from people who have and are going through violent oppression rather than from the perspective of white middle-class theorists. Without the ‘view from below’ Christian Anarchism would be one political theory amongst others.

When seen from the perspective of those who are still impacted by fallen and oppressive structures, Christian Anarchism is liberating. Not being liberated by someone else, but the liberation which comes when a group of people collectively cast off their shackles and their obedience to false rulers.

This is a key element for The Salvation Army to reflect on. As an implicitly imperial and colonial organisation, which has transplanted Victorian London’s culture around the world, it is important to remember how rarely the ‘view from below’ is heard within the Army.

The View From Below in The Salvation Army

An example is the extreme lack of racial and economic diversity amongst officers in the UK compared to the communities which the Army serves. It is not representative in its membership and, as a result, inevitably acts from a position of privilege and power when serving the needs of others. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.

Stokes points towards violence prevention programmes and restorative justice projects as a form of anarchism that rejects traditional coercive modes of law and order in favour of community-based interventions. When communities self-organise based on love and share well-being, the need for power-based politics of control and violence is destroyed.

In general, Christian Anarchism is a form of spiritual reality taking shape in the here and now. It can be understood as the inauguration of the eschatological promise of the new creation and the kingdom of God.

The Dangers of Christian Anarchism

But there is also a danger that anarchism can devolve into a kind of rugged individualism rather than loving care and attention for the neighbour. It easily becomes everyone for themselves, no rulers and no gods, but everyone doing what they desire as long as it doesn’t harm another. Without being subject to one another, anarchism fails to be Christian and fails to be transformative.

Christianity poses a challenge to anarchism’s belief in positive and eventual progress. The hope of Christianity is based on the contingent event of Christ. There is doubt about the capacity of humanity to bring about a totalising revolution on its own. It is undertaken in via, always on the way.

Christian Anarchy is a prophecy, a counter-cultural voice of hope, stating that it is the action of God and humans fully realising their God-given potential that will fundamentally change society.

Christian Anarchism and Christian Anarchist communities can only be achieved by what Saint Benedict called conversatio morum. The complete conversion of life. For Luther, it was the opening of the inward-turned heart; for Bonhoeffer, it was the move from the phraseological to the real; and for The Salvation Army, it was to be found in the radical blessing of total sanctification.

Christian Anarchism and The Salvation Army

Once again, The Salvation Army may not seem a natural fit for Christian Anarchism. It is a deeply hierarchical and militaristic organisation with both an imperialist and a colonial legacy. But within the Army, there are the kindlings of Christian Anarchism.

Internationalism

First. The Salvation Army has always had a sense of negotiated belonging to any country and state. In the early years of the Army, it often broke the law to spread the Gospel message. It saw obedience to God to be more important than obedience to human laws, to the extent that many of its members around the world went to prison.

During the First World War, Bramwell Booth commented that all lands were his Fatherland because all lands were his Father’s. The internationalism of the Army calls for allegiance to the Army, and the kingdom of God, above all allegiance to any one country or state.

The Salvationist cannot be a do or die, patriot because they belong to God and the Army above their belonging to any one country. The Salvationist recognises that all countries and all people belong to God, and so no one country can be unduly privileged when the Army is called in service to the entire world.

Eschatology

Second. The eschatology of the early Army, its Postmillennialism, is a key link to Christian Anarchist theology. There are historical examples of communities that formed proto-Christian-Anarchist communities because they believed they were acting in anticipation of the coming millennial reign of Christ, when all would be put right, and everyone would be equal. A strong sense of eschatology heightened the need to inaugurate the kingdom of God here and now.

Whilst the Army no longer holds to Postmillennialism, its songs and its commitment to evangelising the world, and to seeking to make the world a better place through social provision, all stem from that early tradition. The Army has the strong conviction that the way things are now will not always be the way they are. But, more importantly, that we can start to live according to that figure reality now.

Sacramental Living

The Army’s theology of sacramental living is central for this. Each individual lives as a sacrament, mediating grace to one another through the way they show love in mutual service and care. A community based on such values is halfway to the kind of community that Christian Anarchism seeks to create and promote. The Army’s social theology aligns well with Christian Anarchism. Everyone is a sibling to each other in Christ.

Third. The Army’s hierarchy need not be a hindrance. As stated at the beginning of the post, anarchism is not anti-hierarchical but anti-ruler. The key thing for any hierarchy is what kind of hierarchy it is. Is it a hierarchy based on coercive control and power-based dynamics, or is it one of consenting engagement based on the authority of experience and excellence?

The Salvation Army and Hierarchy

This is a challenge to the Army to reflect on how it approaches hierarchy and the relationships within it. The hierarchy must be practical, organisational, based on mutual consent, and rooted in experience and excellence rather than power and control. It must also reject a spiritualisation of that hierarchy. A person may have organisational authority, but that does not confer spiritual authority.

Fourth. The Army’s theology of holiness, particularly that of total sanctification, is the only thing that makes Christian Anarchist communities possible in this life.

Fallen Humanity

Humanity, in its fallen and sinful state, is unable to effectively create and manage communities of trust and mutual care. Human nature eventually takes over. People will turn against the weak, will promote the strong, and will take advantage of each other. But when that nature is either removed or robbed of its power, when the perfect love of Christ is at work transforming the heart of the believer, the possibility of a free and loving community emerges.

This brings together the rest of the Army’s connections to Christian Anarchism. A hierarchy, internationalism, commitment to serving the needs of others, and the primacy of love all come together with an eschatological point in sanctification.

If the world were to be sanctified, then the world would be full of love. There would be no lords, no masters, no countries and kingdoms and no need for coercive or violent power. Instead, everyone would work for the sake of each other, would act out of love for one another, and would submit to each other.

Summary

I don’t know if Christian Anarchism is viable or feasible. It is definitely only possible if the individual undergoes a conversion of the heart from selfishness to selflessness. It is only possible through a radical commitment to love and truth. There is a long history of the principles of Christian Anarchism in scripture and in the history of the church up to the present day.

The Salvation Army is surprisingly close to the theology and ideas of Christian Anarchism and may pose a way forward for developing Christian Anarchist communities, which are able to pragmatically work with the state for the moment but which do not recognise any ruler apart from Christ.

Perhaps it is only an eschatological promise and hope for the future. But if nothing else, it points to a better way for people to live together. Maybe even implementing a few of the principles of Christian Anarchism will start to make a difference now in anticipation of the day when all shall be equal, and justice shall be done.

If you want to keep up to date, sign up for My Theology Corner Newsletter for a weekly bite-sized theology hit. Get a short-form reflection on the main blog article from that week, read the latest news about The Salvation Army from around the world, and get a doctrine portion straight to your email.