Punk rock applies to politics

Post Reply New Topic

How is this an anarchist statement? It merely acknowledges God as the highest authority (higher than earthly authority), not as the only authority.

Well, Christian anarchists are a unique variant by most standards. Basically, how they see the issue is that God is meant to be obeyed, and government is usually meant to be respected to some extent.

They will usually pay taxes, and to them, this is really more a matter of respect and a lack of concern for ruling authorities. I mean, the Christarchist would take this verse in the context of Matt 17:25-27, where the governments of the world are shown to be unjust but are still respected for the sake of offending nobody.

Matthew 17:25-27 He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" (26) And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. (27) However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

The Christarchist view, thus recognizes the state as something to not directly fight, but it also recognizes the state as being rather negative.

Luke 4:5-7 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."

As can be seen in Luke 4, these governments, while existent and things to be respected as seen in prior passages, are also seen as servants of evil.

A Christarchist would accept the priesthood based upon the validity of that priesthood. For one part, they recognize that nobody is to be called rabbis or instructors but rather that all are equal before Christ, and thus would likely be more opposed to highly hierarchical priesthoods.

Matthew 23:8-11 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. (9) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (10) Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. (11) The greatest among you shall be your servant.

As for God, that is in the name. Christarchist reflects that the view that the only true authority is God, and that others have no necessary meaning. Now, that latter may seem questionable, but it is ultimately true upon reflection. If a Christian lived in Nazi Germany, would he consider such a government proper? No, of course not, and because of that, the pro-government verses are likely already being improperly interpreted, for their original background was in a situation with a government somewhere along the lines of being as evil as Nazi Germany.(Nero killed some of the authors of the Bible) Ergo, authority dies down to polite respect, and a lack of outward belligerence, but not loyalty/obedience, and more akin to a desire for this authority to fall before God's authority.

Well, the issue is that God's authority would not mesh perfectly with any earthly authority. Thus, a Christarchist will respect government, but recognize that God's authority will always be there and always in tension with any Earthly authority, and this latter aspect can be recognized with how many good acts, even in today's society, can be taken as illegal, and such tensions are often taught in a number of business courses.

This ^ is pretty much how I feel about heavenly authority vs. earthly authority, yet I don't feel the need to call myself a Christarchist. Go figure.

Well, I did present it in a rather moderate way. The major difference between you and a Christarchist would probably be that Christarchists will see bigger tensions than you do, and believe that governments are bad. The view of Christarchism is not necessarily completely foreign to mainstream Christian thought, but it can go about as far as the theocrats go with their own views, and many theological movements can go far beyond Biblical support.

None of the above: It applies to politics and while most of it I'm not as annoyed by as RATM, its just a bunch of teen angst attempted to be applied to politics without reality deemed necessary. Its not about the political message - its about getting f'd up and getting laid, usually that takes having a rather romanticized view of politics.

I don't think there is anything that cannot be made politically relevant. From punk rock to pea soup, anything and everything is potentially political. The Boston Tea Party made tea into something political that might not have otherwise been political.

How about this: good ideas.

I'm curious to know what are christarchists' views about congregation and church, given the anarchist philosophy, would they be against the obligation or necessity claimed from christian denominations to congregate and participate in church activities, and, the tithe for example, I suppose I don't need to say that very likely they reject the Vatican and the Pope as a christian authority or being delegated by God and would think of it as something evil.

Well, to be honest, there is no christarchist orthodoxy, however, Greg Boyd, a relatively prominent modern theologian is also the pastor of a church, so I would seem to think that he sees congregation and participation in certain activities to be desired. I would really think that the perception would be more of a focus of bottom-up actions rather than top-down actions within the church, and a rejection of hierarchy. So, tithing would be a free choice to maintain a cause you agreed with, etc. I dunno about the pope to be honest, I know that there are Christarchist Catholic groups, but I don't know much about them as a body, as I mostly know about Jacque Ellul(but not his major work on this matter), Greg Boyd(the aforementioned pastor), Leo Tolstoy(who was very untrusting of religious groups), and I think there are strains of it that are related to the emergent church and new monasticism, and I think there are strains that take some things from some Mennonite ideas.

How can Christian Anarchy have an organizationaly structur if no one's willing to take orders? It can't possibly be as highbrow as it seems.

Umm... few theological views must be highbrow, and this one does not have to be high brow, I mostly pulled out credentials simply because you wanted to reject the notion off-hand, but the scriptural argument I used for the biblical basis of it is not incredibly high-brow. In any case, Christarchists aren't focused upon hierarchical organization structures for the most part. So, the notion of "taking orders" is likely less essential to a Christarchist view of organization, and the notion of love and submission likely more essential.

Anarchy and organization ... like oil & water. You can't have an anarchist organization. It is an oxymoron. It is silly, stupid, ridiculous, foolish. And I'm insulted by your attempts to foist it on me. Insulted as a person and as a Christian.

Umm... yes you can. There are plenty of anarchist organizations that currently exist, the big issues in anarchy tend to be the issues of hierarchy or control. slowmutant, if you are insulted by that, then I think you deserve to be insulted anyway, and insulted in a much much different way than you perceive.

So that at least rules out Catholic anarchy, the rest - no idea.

How does an anarchist organization maintain order within itself?