The
Historical Thesis
To
see the bad fruits of power is an important connection to make with
those who have a white-knuckle grip on both the cross and the
flag.
-Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw1
-Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw1
The
second strand of the Christian Anarchist argument is historical. It
presents the early church as a counter-cultural movement with a
distinct, anti-empire identity. It relies heavily on the premise of
the Constantinian shift and presents the historical interaction of
the church with political power as a betrayal of Jesus' teachings,
always involving compromise, hypocrisy and corruption, and always
resulting in the suffering of the people. While it can be criticised
as an unsophisticated argument, its audience has not usually been the
theologically literate, but rather the many Christians who have not
considered any discrepancy between the behaviour of an apparently
Christian state and the teachings of Jesus.
Since
the 1950s the target audience for Christian Anarchist writing, and
criticism of Church-State interactions, has usually been church-going
Christians from the United States of America.2
Richard
A. Horsley's Jesus
and Empire
opens with the dictum that the USA has an 'ambiguous identity'.3
The
formation of the United States had two conflicting narratives – the
birth of a New Jerusalem, and the founding of a New Roman Republic.
Horsley concludes that throughout its history, the United States of
America has been the New Rome- 'the republic that built an empire'4
rather than the New Jerusalem – 'a just political-economic order.'5
This picture illustrates not only a North American phenomenon, but a
conflict that is inherent in the concept of any 'Christian country'.
It also summarises perfectly the crisis of Christian identity that
Christian Anarchist writers have spoken into.
The
Early Church
The
Christian Anarchists idealise the early church as a time before
corruption and compromise, when followers of Jesus had a strong
political identity6.
It is held up as a model to be emulated, and Christian Anarchist
communities are often built on what are understood to be early church
principles7.
Jonathan
Bartley indicates that, while early church communities differed
greatly on matters of doctrine, “there was far greater agreement in
their behaviour, including their approach to political authority”8.
The early church was a movement defined by its politics, far more
than anything else. This
is unsurprising, as theology and politics were not separate matters
for the first century mind. They
were one and the same for the Romans as much as for the Christians.
Caesar was a god, saviour and victor. The empire itself was divine.
So the Christians' alternative theology had political ramifications9.
The first creed “Jesus is Lord” is both a political and
theological statement – a rebellious subversion of the oath of
allegiance “Caesar is Lord”10.
Even the language used for the church - the
ekklesia11
of
Christ - deliberately challenged the political assemblies who swore
loyalty to Caesar.12
The
price for living out their new politico-theological beliefs -
specifically, refusing to burn incense and swear to the Emperor - was
persecution. The strength of the early church's political
convictions, even to death, is an attractive feature for Christian
Anarchists today, as it was for the first century witnesses who
inspired Tertullian's famous dictum: “The blood of the martyrs is
the seed of the church.”13
In martyrdom, the early Christians identified with Jesus dying at the
hands of Roman oppressors. Jonathan Bartley states: "By
following in Jesus' footsteps and dying at the hands of the state,
the early Christians too were confronting the old regime with the new
one they proclaimed.”14
The
early Christians understood themselves as having
a new citizenship and belonging to another kingdom. This is most
clearly evident in Tertullian's thinking, referring to baptism as 'an
oath of allegiance'15,
describing the new citizenship of Christians in his 'Letter to
Diognetus'16,
and describing the flag as
“hostile to Christ”.17
Christopher Rowland summarises:
Emerging
Christianity before the fourth century CE was characterised by such a
counter-cultural, even sectarian, spirit. At the heart of the
baptismal experience was the clear message of a transfer from one
dominion to another, involving the acceptance of Jesus Christ as king
of kings and lord of lords.18
While
Tertullian's apologias
to Roman officials aim to show that Christians can be good citizens,
he is clear throughout that this is not due to their allegiance to
Caesar, but their obedience towards God.19
Similarly, Clement of Alexandria: “If
you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God
your lawgiver.”20
It
is clear from early apologias
that the politics inherent in the new Christian identity led people
to leave their jobs21.
Converts were leaving military and governmental posts, feeling either
a general conflict of allegiance, or refusing to commit sin by using
violence in specific circumstances. By
215, certain occupations were disallowed
by Hippolytus:
A
military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he
must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses,
he shall be rejected. If
someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the
purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. The catechumen or
faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has
despised God.
22
It
seems that military service was a particularly controversial subject.
Maximillian of Numidia and Marcellus of Tangier are remembered for
their martyrdom following a rejection of their military oaths. Martin
of Tours is celebrated for leaving his position in the Roman
military, declaring: “I am a
soldier of Christ. I cannot fight.”
While
this seems to make a case that the early Christians were 'anarchist',
any understanding of the early church is based on material from the
Early Fathers, and Christian Anarchist writers need to make more
careful use of such sources. Claiborne and Haw rely heavily on
Eberhard Arnold's The
Early Christians in Their Own Words23
including
the following quotation from Justin's Dialogue
with Trypho.
“With
this call [God] has roused us all, and now we have left the state. We
have renounced all the things the world offers.”24
This is strong evidence for the case that the early church could be
considered anarchist, but it depends on a very unusual translation.
Thomas Falls translates that same text: “We
have abandoned our former way of life in which we used to practice
evils common to the rest of the world.”25
Likewise, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson's version reads: “We
have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our
days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other
inhabitants of the earth.”26
There is mention whatsoever of 'state' or power or politics in the
surrounding text. This is a rather exaggerated example of how these
ancient texts, taken out of context, could be slaved to any cause.
Another
popular Christian Anarchist picture is painted from the Romans' view
of the Christians:
Minucius
Felix's Octavia
reads: “The
Christians form among themselves secret societies that exist outside
the system of laws... an obscure and mysterious community founded on
revolt and the advantage that accrues from it.”27
This creates an image of the early church as a politically subversive
rebellion but the apologias
were written precisely to dispel such ideas. Far from being
agitators, efforts were made to show that Christians obeyed the laws
of the land, and could happily co-exist with the empire28.
It
is also significant that it was not only soldiers and governors who
left their professions upon conversion. Hippolytus also disallowed
teachers and actors.29
As neither of these jobs relate directly to government or politics it
seems that the Christians' objections may have been on different
grounds. Tertullian answers the question of whether, like Joseph or
Daniel, Christians may serve political masters, saying: “we can
render service even 'to magistrates and powers', after the example of
the patriarchs ant the other forefathers, who obeyed idolatrous kings
up to the confines of idolatry.”30
It seems as though religious worship was the key issue. In a society
where religion was so integrated into public life, Christians
naturally had to remove themselves from certain professions, even
teaching. Likewise, in De
corona militis,
Tertullian defends the case of a Christian soldier in the Roman army
who was arrested, not for refusing service, but for refusing to wear
the garland at a ceremony because of its pagan connotations.31
Idolatry is the issue here, not power or governance.
Tertullian
however makes an aside “as
to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself”32.
Aside from pagan ceremonies, a number of problems with military
service are identified including swearing oaths to another master
than Christ, renouncing family and using the sword against the
teaching of Matthew 26:52. “Sons of peace” should not do battle -
they won't even sue people.33
Having recognised the moral problems inherent for Christians in
military service, Tertullian ultimately takes a pragmatic approach,
advising that it be abandoned to avoid
'all kinds of quibbling'34.
On
the face of it, the early Christians seem not to object to Roman rule
per
se35,
nor do they object to participating in the system by serving
magistrates. Rather, they are avoiding those public tasks which would
cause them to contravene their new standards as Christians. The early
Christian emphasis was on the specific issues of force and idolatry.
Christian Anarchist writers shift the emphasis on to the political
system itself. To be clear, it is
significant to Christian Anarchism that early Christians refused to
work as soldiers or magistrates and that they refused to take part in
the use of 'the sword'.36
The case would be strengthened, however, if these instances were read
in context and not skewed so as to appear deliberately misleading.
There
is a question of whether the political ethics of the early church
should be considered situational or universal. How much does their
refusal to participate depend on the particular character of Roman
government, and how much on the idea of government itself? It seems
natural that the Christians eschewed power, when that power was
associated with religious veneration of the
emperor as a God, or when it depended on the shock-and-awe violence
of Roman expansion. How much can the same standards be applied to
post-war
europe's politics of welfare?
1Shane
Claiborne and Chris Haw. Jesus
for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Pg 182
2This
largely began with writings from The Catholic Worker movement in the
USA.
3Richard
A. Horsley Jesus
and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pg 1
4Richard
A. Horsley Jesus
and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pg 147
5Richard
A. Horsley Jesus
and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pg 2
6Notably,
this view is not shared by Tolstoy, who saw the early Christians as
largely ignorant of Christ's true teaching “as we see by the
Gospels and the Acts.” Leo
Tolstoy. The
Kingdom of God is Within You.
Translated by Constance Garnet. Kansas: Digireads, 2005. Pg 31-32
7For
example, in the past: the Waldensians; True Levellers; Anabaptists.
In more recent times: Dilaram; Catholic Worker hospitality houses;
the Simple Way.
8Jonathan
Bartley. Faith
and Politics after Christendom: The Church as a Movement for
Anarchy.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006. Pg 29
9Claiborne
and Haw state: “They
no longer had any faith in the state as savior of the world.”
Shane
Claiborne and Chris Haw. Jesus
for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Pg 141
10We
have seen other political titles used for Christ in the New
Testament. Another notable text for this is the Martyrdom of
Polycarp, particularly 8:2.
11Ἐκκλησία
12Some
have stated that these parallel uses of language between the church
and the empire should not be read as deliberately political. It is
simply a case of re-using the available language. (Notably, Seyoon
Kim. Christ
and Caesar.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2008.)
In
the instance of the creed however, this explanation is clearly
unsatisfactory when people risked their lives in stating that anyone
other than Caesar was Lord. Note also Origen's direct comparison of
the Christian assembly with the district council assembly in Contra
Celsus
III:30
14Jonathan
Bartley. Faith
and Politics after Christendom: The Church as a Movement for
Anarchy.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006. Pg 27 Also Gregory A. Boyd:
“Their general relationship with the kingdom of the world
replicated that of Jesus.” Gregory A. Boyd The
Myth of a Christian Nation.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005. Pg 76.
15This
is Bartley's argument, based on the fact that Tertullian is the
first writer to translate the Greek mysterion
into the Latin sacramentum.
Jonathan
Bartley. Faith
and Politics after Christendom: The Church as a Movement for
Anarchy.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006. Pg 19
16Cited
in Jonathan
Bartley. Faith
and Politics after Christendom: The Church as a Movement for
Anarchy.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2006. Pg 19
17Tertullian.
De
corona.
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-10.htm (accessed
04/09/12) Chapter
11
18Christopher
Rowland. ‘Scripture: New Testament’ in Scott, Peter and William
T. Cavanaugh, eds.
The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Oxford,
England: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. pg 23
19“In
all our prayers are ever mindful of all our emperors and kings
wheresoever we live, beseeching God for every one of them without
distinction, that He would bless them with length of days and a
quiet reign.”
Tertullian. Apologia. Chapter 92.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/reeve_apology.htm
Tertullian. Apologia. Chapter 92.
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/reeve_apology.htm
(accessed
04/09/12)
20Clement
of Alexandria. Exhortation
to the Heathen.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-exhortation.html
(accessed 05/09/12) Chapter 10
(accessed
07/09/12)
andTertullian. De idolatria.http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
andTertullian. De idolatria.http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
(accessed
04/09/12) Chapter 17
22Hippolytus
of Rome. Apostolic
Tradition.
c.215 Chapter 16:9-11http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html
(accessed 07/09/12)
(accessed 07/09/12)
23Eberhard
Arnold. The
Early Christians in Their Own Words.
Rifton, New York: The Plough Publishing House,
2011.
http://data.plough.com/ebooks/EarlyChristians.pdf (accessed 05/09/12)
http://data.plough.com/ebooks/EarlyChristians.pdf (accessed 05/09/12)
24Shane
Claiborne and Chris Haw. Jesus
for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Pg 143
25Justin.
The
Dialogue with Trypho.
Translated by Thomas Falls.http://www.bombaxo.com/trypho.html
(accessed
14/09/12)
26Justin.
The
Dialogue with Trypho.
Translated by Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html (accessed 14/09/12)
Also, Philip Sheff: “We have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth.” Justin. The Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Philip Shaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxix.html
(accessed 14/09/12)
Another unusual translation is from Apologia Chapter 21. Arnold translates “Emperors could only believe in Christ if they were not emperors – as if Christians could ever be emperors” (Claiborne and Haw Pg. 162, Arnold Pg. 16), what Reeve translates: “and the Caesars had been Christians too, could the ages have borne it, if either such Caesars had not been necessary and unavoidable in such times, or could Christians have come to be Caesars.” (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/reeve_apology.htm) As we can see, Arnold's text has almost the opposite meaning of Reeve's.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html (accessed 14/09/12)
Also, Philip Sheff: “We have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth.” Justin. The Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Philip Shaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.cxix.html
(accessed 14/09/12)
Another unusual translation is from Apologia Chapter 21. Arnold translates “Emperors could only believe in Christ if they were not emperors – as if Christians could ever be emperors” (Claiborne and Haw Pg. 162, Arnold Pg. 16), what Reeve translates: “and the Caesars had been Christians too, could the ages have borne it, if either such Caesars had not been necessary and unavoidable in such times, or could Christians have come to be Caesars.” (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/reeve_apology.htm) As we can see, Arnold's text has almost the opposite meaning of Reeve's.
27Shane
Claiborne and Chris Haw. Jesus
for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Pg 142.
(accessed
11/09/12)
also
Origen. Contra Celsus. Chapter 3
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm
(accessed 15/09/12)
also
Origen. Contra Celsus. Chapter 3
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm
(accessed 15/09/12)
29“If
someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall
cease or he shall be rejected. If someone teaches children (worldly
knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other)
trade, let
him be permitted.”
Hippolytus of Rome. Apostolic Tradition. c.215 Chapter 16:4-5http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html
(accessed 07/09/12)
him be permitted.”
Hippolytus of Rome. Apostolic Tradition. c.215 Chapter 16:4-5http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html
(accessed 07/09/12)
30Tertullian.
De
idolatria. Chapter
17
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
(accessed 04/09/12)
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
(accessed 04/09/12)
(accessed
04/09/12)
34Of
course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with
military service, their case is different, as in the instance of
those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most
faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and
the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a
man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be
either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course
with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in
order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside
of military service.
Tertullian, De corona. Chapter 11.
Tertullian, De corona. Chapter 11.
36Tertullian.
De
idolatria. Chapter
17
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
(accessed 04/09/12)
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-07.htm
(accessed 04/09/12)
No comments:
Post a Comment