I may not be the first to ever use that term, but I've never personally seen it used before. Christian anarchism is not a new thing, but its manifestation today looks somewhat different from what it's been in the past. Formerly, Christian anarchism, as well as anarchism in general, was of a socialist bent, at least to the extent that inviolable private property rights were not always regarded as a crucial aspect of peaceful social life in this world (the great writer and Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy comes to mind). In a post-Rothbard era, however, and the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, modern Christian anarchism has taken on a decidedly different flavor.
Rothbardian anarchism advocates ethical norms within human society, but does not claim to put forth an entire moral code for man. A person can adhere to almost any religion, or no religion at all, and consider oneself an anarchist. I wish to suggest, however, that Christian beliefs coincide particularly well with anarchism and further, that anarchism is the most consistent philosophical position for the Christian in his conception of this finite world and earthly society.
The Non-Aggression Principle is like a film negative of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule tells us to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us", whereas the NAP says "don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." One is a prescription for action, the other is a restriction of action. Taken together, a consistent person would realize, then, that while he has chosen to abide by the Golden Rule himself, to force others to abide by it would be a violation of the NAP. So the least requirement for peaceful human society is the rejection of the initiation of force; beyond that, positive prescription for ones conduct must be voluntarily adhered to on an individual basis. This attitude upholds the Christian belief in man's God-given free will; one must freely choose to obey God's will and follow his Son, otherwise the choice is meaningless. The NAP forms the basis for peaceful coexistence in this earthly realm. The Golden Rule forms the basis upon which we become citizens of the heavenly kingdom, the world to come.
Recognizing the implications of the NAP, the Christian must conclude that earthly rulers are under the same rules and obligations as all men, and that, in their pursuance of lordship by force, they are necessarily committing injustice toward their fellow man; they are not doing unto others as they would have done unto them. If "thou shall not steal", then taxation, which is theft, is illegitimate. If "thou shalt not kill", then war, which is simply mass murder, is wrong. When these Commandments were given to us, it was not with the caveat that "These Commandments do not apply to those who call themselves your rulers."
What about the "monarchism" at the end of our term? At first glance, "anarcho" and "monarchism" may seem to be contradictory terms. But here they are not being applied to the same thing, in the same way. A Christian can quite consistently be an anarchist with regard to his fellow mortal man. But the very name "Christian" means "one who follows Christ." The Christ is The Anointed One. He is called Lord and King. So the Christian is, in this way, a monarchist. He recognizes the Son of God as legitimate King. This is compatible with anarchism, however, as it is a voluntary relationship. Christ Jesus calls us to follow him of our own free will, and to go out into the world to tell others the good news: that there is a King who is good and just, who is trustworthy. But if, instead, we go out and force others to bend their knee to Him against their will, not only do we fail in that very act (it must be a free conversion of the heart, not merely an outward appearance of begrudging submission), but we disobey the King we claim to follow, in not following the Golden Rule. Christianity is a voluntary monarchy. It is consistent with the NAP.
Anarchism is a philosophy about earthly man, taken as he is, and his relationship to other people in this world. It is not a religion, and its claims are not claims of utopia. Rather, it is the consistent application of conscience (though often supported by knowledge of economics and causal realism) that is written on our hearts. It does not venture into the realm of metaphysics. But metaphysical truths lie beneath. Many anarchists believe in natural law. Christians believe in the source of natural law; the natural law giver. The very existence of right and wrong must be taken as a given for the normative values of anarchism to make sense. The essential questions of "How do we know what we know," and "Are there objective truths" have lurked under the surface of philosophical thought for millennia. I would posit that the answers to these questions are to be found within the answer to the question of existence itself: namely, in God. I mean not only to suggest, then, that the Christian should be an anarchist, but also that the anarchist should be a Christian. This flip side of the coin I will expand upon in a future post.
Whenever this line of argument is put forth, questions arise from both anarchists and Christians as to particulars ("What about Romans 13?", etc). These require sufficient space for explanation on their own, so I must save those for later. For now, my purpose was to adequately define my own personal strand of anarchism, so as to lay the groundwork for future discussion. If you're interested in hearing more about this topic, please let me know in the comments.
I think that a religious cult like Christianity, which has a firm hierarchy, isn't really compatible with true anarchy. Eliminating the power of a state, but keeping the power of a religion still makes you a slave to a master, or higher power.
And so I don't think Christianity is compatible with true freedom. The idea that you have "the freedom to sin (or else)" or something, isn't very logical, so at its heart, if you're a Christian, you need to follow the rules (or else), which means you need to follow a lot more than the NAP or golden rule.
This defeats the purpose of trying to be free.
Heretickitten: You are defining Christianity by the people who attend state corporations commonly called churches. Easy mistake to make. You are also assuming that the state religion started by Rome represents Christianity...and that was their game plan. But the first Christians were called atheists precisely because they had a welfare network that functioned outside of the elohim/gods/rulers of the centralized state.
In fact, Christians were accused of robbing the temple of Diana at Ephesus which was the central bank for at least 127 countries. How would they do that? By being exempt from paying into the centralized social welfare system because they had their own system that operated in parallel.
One must first be clear about what religion is. James 1:27 provides that: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
That word "world" is translated from the word "kosmos" which simply means "an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government."
In other words, the official religion of every US Citizen is the US Government because that is the system by which the needy cared for. So-called "atheists" are worshiping the same elohim (rulers/judges) as churchians...because both groups are using the same mystical definitions brainwashed into them by government indoctrination camps called "schools" and state corporations called "churches" lead by state-licensed agents called "ministers."
Dare to take a look at the bible with fresh eyes and you might find it is one of the best textbooks ever written for anarchy. Bastard's Summary of the Bible
That's a very interesting perspective. The Bible is definitely full of anarchist ideas. I plan to write a future post on that subject, particularly the organizational structure of the Israelites in the time of the judges and God's warning to the Israelites through Samuel when they asked for a king. If 1 Samuel 8 isn't a warning against statism I don't know what is.
Thank you for commenting. First of all, the power of the state is not comparable to the power of a religion. The state uses force or the threat thereof to impose its will on people. The Christian religion is a voluntary organization, and people are free to leave. The reason why we oppose the state is because it violates the NAP by its very nature. The same cannot be said of religion. The anarchist, or at least the anarcho-capitalist, is not opposed to hierarchy per se. He is opposed to the use of force. Legitimate authority does exist, such as an authority in the field of mathematics or physics. People can recognize legitimate authority and choose, voluntary, to recognize it. Illegitimate authority is imposed by force. A legitimate hierarchy is similar; authority is earned and voluntarily recognized.
As to your second point, it comes down to whether or not Christianity is true. If it isn't, then having the "freedom to sin" does not result in any consequences in an afterlife and is indeed freedom in the sense that I believe you mean. If it is true, however, then the "freedom to sin" is the same as the freedom to jump off a cliff. Anarchists in particular, as opposed to socialists, believe that we are free to act but we are not free from the consequences of our actions. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If Christianity is true, then I am no more free of the consequence of sin than I am the consequence of jumping off a cliff. It is a fact of the world as presented to us to grapple with.
But again, if Christianity is not true, it simply means that those consequences don't exist. The institution of religion, in so far as it does not use force against you, is not a violation of freedom. The truth or falsehood of its claims, however, have bearing on how we exercise our freedom in the world with discretion. Neither point is a violation of freedom.
Christianity would also violate the NAP.
You compared sin to choosing to jump off a cliff, right?
The power of a state is comparable to the power of a religion, because both use some type of force to compel people to obey. For you, your compulsion to obey is because you think that not obeying is "choosing to jump off a cliff". This is completely absurd, and I'm not sure why you can't see the massive logical error there. Until we deal with that, we can't move on.
If there's a leader at the top of a religion, be it a god or a priest, then that creates an "archy", not an "anarchy", and if that leader says "if you do something I say is wrong, it's like you jump off a cliff" then that violates the NAP. Pushing someone off a cliff and saying they jumped is dishonest.
It's like a police officer saying "You choose to go to jail when you choose to smoke weed". When the reality is that in a just world, you could smoke weed without going to jail, if only the police officer wouldn't arrest you.
Here's the difference: The priest does not decide what rules you must follow, and he does not send you to hell, nor does he propose to. In a stateless society, a natural law, private-property-based common law would emerge in a decentralized manner. Private arbitrators, voluntarily hired for the purpose of decision-making on a case-by-case basis, would use their knowledge of precedent and legal theory to make wise and informed decisions. The customers can choose to abide by the decision or not. This is the difference between law in a state of anarchy and law under a monopolist State. Similarly, in a church structure, the priest is merely imparting his knowledge of God's law to his fellow man. They are free to believe him or not, and to act on his advice or not. The priest does not follow you to your house, point a gun to your head, and make you say Grace before every meal.
But again, I have to point out: If you don't believe the claims of Christianity are true, then in your opinion there is no God to pass judgement on you. If that's the case, then what's the problem? All you have is some people over here who believe something (falsely, in your opinion), and they're not forcing you to do anything. The only reason you might have a problem with it would be because you believe that it IS true, and you don't agree with the situation you're in. The reason I liken it to the forces of gravity is because if God exists, and He created everything, then the laws he put in place, both natural (like gravity) or moral (don't steal, don't kill) must be taken as facts of the reality that He created, and we must grapple with the facts of nature and consequence in this world. The moral law is simply the path to God. If you don't wish to choose that, then you're free to do so. You'll get exactly what you chose. Hell is not a punishment in the sense that most people think. It's the absence of God. You're free to choose it. You just might not like it, though. But if you want to move toward something good in the afterlife, then there are steps to take and steps to avoid. I am free to smoke, drink, and eat junk food. But if I get fat and cancerous and diabetic, it would be ridiculous to say "You mean if I want to be healthy, I can't do these things? That wasn't much of a choice. That's not freedom."
Once more, to be perfectly clear, it is not the religion itself that is doing something to you, or restricting you. It is your belief about the nature of existence that restricts your actions. And if you don't believe God exists, why would you feel restricted in this way? And why would others' belief in the existence of a God you don't believe in restrict your freedom in any way?
One more thing: I think it's important to clarify here who you believe is violating the NAP. An ideology cannot violate the NAP. Only people can. So a person or group who claim to hold a particular ideology, a religion, say, can violate the NAP. Humans are fallible, and yes, that would be wrong. But it's not the ideology acting independently from man. So are Christians violating your right to not be aggressed against? If not, is it then God who is violating the NAP? If God does not exist, then He cannot violate the NAP. Is my supposedly erroneous belief in God a violation of the NAP? If so, then who am I violating? Am I violating myself, in believing something that is, in your opinion, false? That seems like a stretch. If I choose to believe something and act in accordance with it, am I not exercising self-rule? Please indicate where the violation lies.