This was a response to a [fairly militant and one-sided] argument over here about why the author rejects "Christian Anarchy". 

Literally this was just a fast response I typed out, so I would love feedback, suggestions, more discussion, and respectful argument.

As someone who has identified as a Christian and an Anarchist for a long time, I find that a lot of your argument holds little basis, mostly because it is based on both old testaments scripture such as Jewish Law which is clearly stricken down in the new testament, but also because you are basing arguments on a fundamentalist evangelical view of what God is, what the kingdom is, and how we are called to be children of God.

When the kingdom of God is referred to, it is referring to “Heaven”, not a supernatural place somewhere up in the clouds that we all might ascend to someday, It has to do with what’s here on Earth, all around us. As Christians we are called to act on this Earth in a way that will better the world around us. ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’ do exist but they’re all around us. Poverty, oppression, state rule, violence, all of these are creating hell here on Earth, and the polarities of these are creating a state of Heaven.

God is not a ruler in the same sense as a government or institution, because we are given a choice to follow or not. And when we choose to follow, we are not choosing a dictatorship, but we are entering into a mutual covenant where we are given a set of suggestions to live by, as were Laid out by Jesus, in order to achieve this so-called state of Heaven here on Earth.

When salvation is referred to both in the end of Pauls writings as well as in the book of Revelation, it is meant to signify the Earthly plane of Heaven and Earth, in simplified terms “if you do good, (meaning not oppressing others and causing injustice) you will achieve salvation and go to Heaven (meaning that Earth will be free from these oppressive regimes) and you will live with God (as the spiritual energy that exists in all creation, not some dude in the sky).

I think a lot of the reason that “Christian Anarchism” seems like such an oxymoron is that in the 18th and 19th century, a group has emerged who, for the first time in history, interpret the Bible literally. The whole idea of ascending into the clouds, and all the other things that go along with the most popular view of salvation including hellfire and brimstone, locusts etc are taken from an overstated misreading of the Bible and especially the book of Revelation.

Revelation clearly states that it was a dream that John recieved while “in the spirit”.Revelation was not meant to be a literal story of how God is going to punish us for our sins, but to be a utopian vision for “The New Jerusalem” or what the world would look like without the state control. (Knowing that for John, the nation was Israel and the state was Rome) Even then in itself Revelation was problematical. It uses the language and imagery of military procession in its vision of utopia. It is replacing one state with another. But I think what people often forget is that the Bible was written by humans. It was there attempt to interpret and envision Gods vision of love and justice for the world. Often this failed for a number of reasons, number one being, that even as the Bible tells us, we are human, we are imperfect, and no matter how hard we try we will never be able to understand the full scope of Gods intention. Anyone who has read the Pauline letters (pauls letters to Hebrews, Corinthians, Thessalonians etc) can see this clearly. Throughout them, Paul changes his mind not just on little things, but big things like what salvation is. He begins thinking that Jesus is literally “coming back” and its going to happen VERY soon… but by the end he recognises that its not about Jesus’s return and that in fact, we are already living in the midst of hell and heaven here on earth, its all around us. If Paul, who is the “grandfather” of evangelical thought can waver that much, how can we as 21st century Christians not waver and recognise that there is more to it than a literal harmful interpretation? But sadly, this is the view of Christian faith that permeates the media and much of american thinking.

Even the story of Jesus’s death has been watered down into a non-political love story of sorts. Through looking at a greek translation instead of an English one, the so-called “thief’s” that were hung on the crosses next to him were not thiefs at all, but most likely Zealots, a group of Jews who were radically against the state of Rome. Jesus was (most likely) lumped in with them because of his anti-authoritarian teachings. The Bible makes it clear the the Jews killed Jesus because after the “raising of Lazarus” he developed a huge number of followers, hence why there was such a crowd in attendance on “palm sunday” when he re-entered Jerusalem (where he had previously fled after being almost stoned to death). This large number of followers suddenly became an imminent threat to the Jewish leaders because they were simply co-existing under Rome, where at the time it was illegal to not pledge allegiance to the Roman ruler who was considered to be “God”, but the Romans allowed some wiggle room so to speak for Jews. Christ though, was anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and publicly taught that “thou shall have no other Gods before me” meaning, that to truly be both Jewish and/or Christian, there was no room for worship of the state. Either you were for or against it. Jesus was killed because he was seen as a direct threat to the state.

I could really go on about this forever, but in short, I think there is room for someone to both believe in a God who identifies them-self as a parental figure, not a ruler, and to also identify as an Anarchist in the truest sense of the movement

What do others think?