The Divine Right of Kings

On 2^nd June 2020 news sources in the USA reported that a peaceful protest outside the White House was dispersed with tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets. The President walked across Lafayette park to stand outside St. John’s Episcopal church where he held aloft a Bible. “It’s a Bible” he can be heard telling one journalist.

People are responding with various shades of bafflement but church leaders in the US seem united in denouncing the action. The Bishop responsible for the diocese “was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.” She said: “We align ourselves with those seeking justice for the death of George Floyd and countless others. And I just can’t believe what my eyes have seen.”

The USA has always had a complicated relationship with Christian religion. While many of the earliest settlers understood themselves as inhabiting the “new Jerusalem” of scripture, the founding fathers saw themselves as the architects of a “new Rome”. You don’t have to flick too far in the New Testament to find out why this dual inheritance might be a recipe for confusion. The political subversion of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is that those in power are not there because they are favoured by the gods. The God of Scripture hears the cry of the oppressed. God rescues a slave race from under the boot of supremacy. Empires, be it Rome or Babylon, are presented as hideous mutant beasts - human societies created by God for good, but twisted beyond recognition. Jerusalem and Babylon become symbols for two ways of being – God’s way or our way. But the grand drama that unfolds is not as a simple as a battle between goodies and baddies - God’s people and other people. In the middle of the story of Jerusalem’s glory days comes this statement of cold fact: This is the account of the forced labour which King Solomon levied to build the house of the Lord. (1 Kings 9:15). It’s a nauseating indicator of how far God’s people have come. From being set free from slavery to live as a radical new human society, to begging for a king to be “like the other nations”, to now being slave owners themselves – indeed, using slave labour to build a temple to God. It’s a reminder that any nation, any system, no matter its founding principles, no matter its outward religious piety, can become a beast.

So what are we to make of the President’s Bible-toting photo-op? Just like in Northern Ireland a hopeful political candidate in the US can garner huge support by even hinting at a personal faith or church connection. Is the president simply reminding an electoral base that he belongs to their tribe? The tribe who like both the Bible and guns? Is he aiming to paint those protesting the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, as the enemies of the foundational values of the USA? Or is it a deliberately ambiguous act of propaganda – a sort of visual word salad? Whatever it was and whatever it was meant to achieve, church leaders of all colours were quick to condemn it. Father James Martin, a Jesuit Priest, tweeted: “This is revolting. The Bible is not a prop. A church is not a photo op. Religion is not a political tool. God is not your plaything.” No one is particularly too surprised that this president would use the symbols of Christian Religion so callously, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too angry either. As I was once reminded at a night of blasphemy-based comedy from Stewart Lee – “If a symbol goes out into the world, into places where it’s perhaps not understood or wanted or valued, you shouldn’t be too upset if it then takes on a shape you don’t recognise as your own.” Though Church leaders should definitely be speaking out a corrective message about what Christianity stands for the fact is our symbols are free to be used and abused. You can decide which of those has happened here.

“Nobody reads the Bible more than me” this president once claimed. Just as, within moments of the rubber bullets, he described himself as “an ally of all peaceful protesters”. We can hope and pray that both these things become true.

Jürgen Moltmann

Jürgen Moltmann's contributions to contemporary theology are extensive. Known as the theologian of hope, his early 'trilogy' moved theology beyond the existential trend, reinvigorated pneumatology and presented a theology of a dynamic trinitarian God. These achievements aside, his implicit influences on 20^th and 21^st Century theology are incalculable.

This paper will argue that Moltmann's single most significant contribution to contemporary theology is in his strident rejection of the God of metaphysical theism. His post-metaphysical theology has set academics and believers free from the speculative theology of Greek inheritance and placed Christ and biblical revelation at the centre of Christian theology.

Theology of Hope

Moltmann's first major work Theologie der Hoffnung appeared in 1965, conceived as a theological parallel to Ernst Bloch's 1954-1959 work Das Prinzip Hoffnung.¹ Moltmann saw in Bloch's work a potential antidote to stagnation in theology and the church.

A Church that feared change clung to the God who is unchanging and arrived at a state of inertia. Moltmann saw that Christian theology did not need to reject the confident progressionism that the Marxists and the Capitalists had in common. In fact, to say that 'the greatest reality lies in the future', is to make profoundly Christian statement.² Richard Bauckham states that Theology of Hope “Rehabilitate[d] future eschatology”³, as Moltmann reimagined the Church as the most radical agent of social change, not crippled by a “reactionary traditionalism”⁴. It is an unchristian perspective that seeks to turn the status-quo of human society (with all its goods and evils) into a 'continuing city'⁵. Christian eschatology is the hope that the world will be different. Moltmann writes: “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present”⁶

It is in this future eschatology that Moltmann finds his social ethic. An ethic not based on merit or on pity , but on hope, on the continued realisation of the coming Kingdom of God, on the transformation of the world. He writes: “This hope makes... the Church the source of continual new impulses towards the realization of righteousness, freedom and humanity here in the light of the promised future that is to come.”⁷

The received perspective of metaphysical theism presented a God that was immutable, infinite and transcendent. While not denying these classical attributes of God, Moltmann challenged the secure immobility that it led to. He restored a theological momentum, presenting a 'futurist' God, actively involved in history, apparently changing along with the creation, pressing his people towards change. In the final chapter of Theology of Hope, Moltmann concludes:“The gods of metaphysics are dead”⁸

The Death of Metaphysics

With Der gekreuzigte Gott, Moltmann levels a more direct assault at “this concept of God from philosophical theology”⁹, specifically the doctrine of divine impassibility. Post-holocaust theodicy necessitated a fundamental shift in Christian thinking about God. Like Bonhoeffer, following imprisonment, and in the aftermath of Auschwitz, Moltmann too was of a mind that “only the suffering God can help.” ¹⁰ Yet there is no place in metaphysical theism for a God who suffers. “By definition God cannot suffer and die,”¹¹ Moltmann writes. “God cannot suffer, God cannot die, says theism... God suffered... God died... says the Christian faith.”¹² Moltmann appealed for a deliberate move away from the Greek philosophical criteria from which the divine attributes had come and the reinstitution of a theology derived from the study of scripture and the contemplation of Christ. He writes: “It is considered old-fashioned to put him [Christ] in the centre of Christian faith and of theology.”¹³ Interestingly, Moltmann noted that it was the decline of institutional religion in the west, and the Nietzschean 'death of God' that would allow this radical shift to occur.¹⁴

In The Crucified God Moltmann takes time to deconstruct the philosophical approach to knowledge of God, levelling a Hegelian critique at Aquinas' classical 'proofs'. Such logical inferences are dependant on the reality of experience and perception, and on that reality having some correspondence to God. Moltmann tacitly supports Luther's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:21, not that one cannot know God through the natural world, but at least that God is not best known through the natural world.¹⁵

Abraham Heschel's theology of the divine pathos was a significant influence.¹⁶ He too highlighted the discontinuity between a biblical conception of God and the apathetic God of philosophy that had been adopted by Maimonides, Spinoza and others.¹⁷ The God of the Hebrew scriptures is as alien to the God of theism as the Christian God. “If one starts from the pathos of God,” Moltmann writes, “one does not think of God in his absoluteness and freedom, but understands his passion and his interest”¹⁸. Throughout Moltmann's 'trilogy' focus is drawn repeatedly to the 'starting point' of theology. Any understanding of God must begin, not with the philosophical process, but with God's revelation of God's self.

Crucicentrism

For Moltmann, it is essential to Christian theology, not only that the figure of Jesus be central, but that Jesus' death on the cross be central.¹⁹ Christian theology is, uniquely, the story of a “love which suffers in solidarity with those who suffer.”²⁰ Further still, the crucifixion is not just the central event in the life of the world, it is also the central event in the life of the Trinity. Jesus, who suffers alongside humanity, who dies and is resurrected, is not simply a comforting condolence offered by an otherwise unaffected trinity. It is fundamentally who God is. The death of Christ takes place within God. Moltmann, following Rahner, rejects the division between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity. As Bauckham puts it: “There is no immanent Trinity supra-temporally behind God's temporal, worldly history.”²¹ Who God is and what God does are effectively indivisible. For Moltmann, the suffering of Jesus on the cross loses its significance if, to satisfy some presupposition, the suffering is limited to Christ's human nature. It is precisely because God need not suffer, that God's suffering is significant. It is in God's choosing to suffer with humanity and for humanity that God's love is best witnessed. In Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes Moltmann summarises his manifesto:

We must drop the philosophical axioms about the nature of God. God is not unchangeable, if to be unchangeable means that he could not in the freedom of his love open himself to the changeable history of his creation. God is not incapable of suffering if this means that in the freedom of his love he would not be receptive to suffering over the contradictions of man and the self-destruction of his creation. God is not invulnerable if this means he could not open himself to the pain of the cross. God is not perfect if this means that he did not in the desire of his love want his creation to be necessary to his perfection.²²

Criticisms

The final statement of this oft-quoted proposition, with its apparent claim of interdependence between creator and creation goes further against the widely accepted view of God than any other of Moltmann's statements. It contravenes the doctrines of divine aseity, immutability, infinity, transcendence, and the arguably more biblically-founded doctrine of sovereignty, seeming to make God an incomplete being. Moltmann addresses this criticism briefly, stating “A God who is only omnipotent in in himself an incomplete being”²³ Once again Moltmann shows that the classical 'attributes' fall down on their own terms. The starting point of Christian theology must be God's self-revelation, not metaphysical presuppositions. If metaphysics is to be redeemed it would be as an after-the-facts task²⁴

It could be argued that Moltmann's critique of metaphysical theism constitutes a straw-man argument relying, as it seems to, on a rather overblown understanding of divine impassibility. Current-day critics such as Daniel Castelo suggest that Moltmann's understanding of the doctrine was based on 'rushed historical judgements'²⁵, and yet The Crucified God evidences a thorough and authentic engagement with both his predecessors and his contemporaries. Moltmann is a contextual theologian, and so if he does aim his critique at a misunderstanding of divine impassibility, then it is a misunderstanding that his contemporaries shared.

Continuing Significance

“The controversy between Christian theology and the philosophical concept of God”²⁶ is by no means a historical debate. The attributes of God, and the methodology of metaphysics inherited from Plato continue to permeate Christian thinking in both academic circles and within faith communities. There are many voices from within the growing hyper-reformed and neo-Calvinist schools, and also some more centrist perspectives, that are quick to cry heresy at theology which challenges traditional presuppositions. This is reminiscent of the environment into which Moltmann wrote Theology of Hope: A church fearing the changing worldview, clinging to a God that offers the certainty and stability of tradition and narrow 'orthodoxy'. Clark H. Pinnock's book Most Moved Mover²⁷ seeks to make a thoughtful and biblically-based case for open-theism to an American evangelical audience made hostile by the apparent virtue of unerring loyalty to the classical attributes of God. One critic of an earlier work charges the open theists with denying the infinity of God, calling it “one of the saddest intellectual and spiritual retrogressions I have ever seen outside openly heterodox thinking”.²⁸

A hostile reaction also met Rob Bell's Love Wins which sought to explore the doctrine of hell and make a case for a broad orthodoxy. Like Moltmann, Bell was questioning the starting point of traditional theology, suggesting that we come to certain biblical texts with presuppositions about 'hell' informed by cultural elements apart from scripture. It is perhaps telling that the detractors use of scripture is as proof-texting for established dogma. Even those who begin with the intention to “leave what is familiar for what is true”²⁹ move from scripture into the logical inference of theism. Contemporary theology needs the resources of Moltmann's work to ask questions of its epistemology and its treatment of scripture.

The concept of adopting a 'hebraic' mode of thinking and overcoming our “pagan inheritance”³⁰ in order to better understand scripture is widespread in popular theology³¹. This is likely a direct result of Moltmann's use of Heschel and his openness to Jewish scholarship.

Peter Rollins follows Moltmann in challenging the comfortable inertia of the metaphysical God. Beginning, interestingly, from a philosophical starting point, Rollins argues that authentic Christianity must abandon the certainty of theism to partake in the kenosis of Christ. 'Belief in God' in the sense of religion which seeks an existential sense well-being is “idolatry”³² Note the distinct similarities between Moltmann's theology of the crucified God, and Rollins' deconstructionism. Moltman writes:

To know God in the cross of Christ is a crucifying form of knowledge, because it shatters everything to which a man can hold and on which he can build, both his works and his knowledge of reality, and precisely in so doing sets him free.³³

Rollins states:

The crucifixion signals an experience in which all that grounds us and gives us meaning collapses... To participate in the Crucifixion is to experience the breaking apart of the various mythologies we use to construct and make sense of our world. The Crucifixion experience is nothing less than the taking place of the Real.³⁴

It is significant that, Rollins very rarely quotes Moltmann directly, yet seems to have imbibed his ideas through Moltmann's influence on other works.

Moltmann's influence is also visible in Rollins' challenge to the New Atheism, and it is likely that Moltmann's chapter on 'The Death of God as the origin of Christian Theology'³⁵ will become increasingly important as the debate continues.³⁶

Conclusion

Moltmann drew together theology and philosophy and showed the desperate need to abandon philosophical prepositions about the divine nature if scripture is to be read properly, and a truly Christian theology developed. The theological inertia he wrote into is repeated, or perhaps remains, today and the careful systematic approach of his trilogy continues to provide a helpful spur. His deconstruction of the philosophical axioms set theology free to talk about a God that suffers. A theology of the cross demands “A revolution in the concept of God”³⁷ and that has been Moltmann's greatest legacy.

Bibliography

Primary:

Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope. James W. Leitch (translator). London, SCM Press, 1967.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. Margaret Kohl (translator). London, SCM Press, 1981.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Way of Jesus Christ. Margaret Kohl (translator). London, SCM Press, 1990.

Moltmann, Jürgen. 'The Cross as Military Symbol for Sacrifice' in Trelstad, Mari (ed.) Cross Examinations: Readings on the Meaning of the Cross Today, Fortress Press, 2006.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=OAdnhiX2jK0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed 1/1/14)

Secondary

Bell, Rob. Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. Hammersmith, HarperCollins, 2011.

Chan, Francis and Sprinkle, Preston. Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity and the things we've made up. Colorado, David C Cook, 2011.

Bauckham, Richard. 'The Trinitarian History of God in Moltmann' in Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making. Basingstoke, Marshall Pickering, 1987.

Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. London, T & T Clark, 1995.

Bloch, Ernst. 'Introduction' in The Principle of Hope.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bloch/hope/introduction.htm

(accessed 1/1/14)

Castello, Daniel (2008).' Moltmann's dismissal of divine impassibility: Warranted?.' Scottish Journal of Theology, 61, November 2008. Pg. 396-407.

Chesterton, Gilbert K. Heretics. Pennsylvania State University, 2005.

Chesterton, Gilbert K. Orthodoxy. Pennsylvania State University, 2005.

Clutterbuck, Richard. 'Jürgen Moltmann as a Doctrinal Theologian: The Nature of Doctrine and The Possibilities for its Development.' Scottish Journal of Theology, 48, November 1995. Pg 489-506.

Pinnock, Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Cumbria, Paternoster Press, 2001.

Rollins, Peter. Insurrection:To believe is human; to doubt divine. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2011.

Rollins, Peter. The Idolatry of God. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2012.

Rossi-Keen, Daniel E. 'Jurgen Moltmann's doctrine of God: The Trinity beyond metaphysics' in Studies in Religion/ Sciences Religieuses September 1, 2008 37: 447-463

1 Richard Bauckham. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. London, T & T Clark, 1995.

2 Blochs' 'Not-yet-conscious' is reminiscent of the 'Now and Not Yet' tension in Pauline writings.

3 Richard Bauckham. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. London, T & T Clark, 1995.

4 Richard Bauckham. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. London, T & T Clark, 1995.

5 Hebrews 13:14 cited in Jürgen Moltmann. Theology of Hope. James W. Leitch (translator). London, SCM Press, 1967. Pg. 22.

6 Jürgen moltmann. Theology of Hope. James W. Leitch (translator). London, SCM Press, 1967. Pg 16.

7 Jürgen Moltmann. Theology of Hope. James W. Leitch (translator). London, SCM Press, 1967. Pg. 22.

8 Jürgen Moltmann. Theology of Hope. James W. Leitch (translator). London, SCM Press, 1967. Pg. 312.

9 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 214

10Cited in Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 47

11 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 214.

12 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 216.

13 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 1.

14 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 35, 215.

15 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 212.

16 Another significant contribution to contemporary theology was Moltmann's openness to ideas from outside the Christian tradition, just as he had assimilated Bloch. He insisted that Christian theology be formed in the context of inter-ecumenical conversation.

17 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 270.

18 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 271.

19 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 204.

20 Richard Bauckham. The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann. London, T & T Clark, 1995.

21 Richard Bauckham. 'The Trinitarian History of God in Moltmann' in Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making. Basingstoke, Marshall Pickering, 1987.

22 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. cited in Richard Bauckham. 'The Trinitarian History of God in Moltmann' in Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making. Basingstoke, Marshall Pickering, 1987.

23 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 223.

24Somewhat contradicting his dictum, Moltmann states “Christian theology is not the 'end of metaphysics'. Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 218.

25 Castello, Daniel (2008).' Moltmann's dismissal of divine impassibility: Warranted?.' Scottish Journal of Theology, 61, November 2008. Pg 397.

26 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 215.

27 Cumbria, Paternoster Press, 2001.

28 Clark H. Pinnock Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Cumbria, Paternoster Press, 2001. Pg. 10.

29Chan, Francis and Sprinkle, Preston. Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity and the things we've made up. Colorado, David C Cook, 2011.Pg. 16.

30 Pinnock, Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Cumbria, Paternoster Press, 2001. Pg 65.

31See Rob Bell, Ray Vander Laan et al.

32 Peter Rollins. The Idolatry of God. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2012.

33 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg. 212

34 Peter Rollins. Insurrection:To believe is human; to doubt divine. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2011.

35 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg 200-207

36 Rollins follows Chesterton and draws the same conclusions as Moltmann, that the cry of abandonment on the cross expresses a deep existential atheism which takes place within the heart of God and overcomes both theism and atheism.

Peter Rollins. Insurrection:To believe is human; to doubt divine. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 2011.

37 Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (translators). London, SCM Press, 1973. Pg 152.

Christian Anarchism: Conclusions

Conclusions

Christian Anarchism has developed from literalist interpretations of the teachings of Jesus in regards to non-violence and political power. From early isolationist groups like the Waldensians and the Amish, the practice of non-violence and political withdrawal was formed into a coherent political theology in the 19^th Century, culminating in Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. In the middle of the 20^th Century, Christian Anarchism found its most visible practitioners in the Catholic Worker movement. In the late 20^th and early 21^st Century, Christian Anarchist ideas began to appear in popular Christian literature with a wide readership, allowing unprecedented dissemination. How this will affect the political theology of the church in general, or individual Christians in particular will depend on a willingness to engage with ideas that are outside of Christian cultural norms.

We have seen that the Christian Anarchist rests on two thesis, and that the Biblical case is much stronger than the historical one. The historical thesis rests on a one-sided and highly simplistic reading of church history. It does serve to redress a balance in the minds of those who may have assumed that throughout history the church had acted as an entirely positive force. To strengthen the historical case, Christian Anarchists should offer an appraisal of church-state interactions that have been positive, for example the Clapham sect and the abolition of slavery, or the creation of education systems.

The Biblical thesis could be developed with increased focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and whole-bible theologies. We have seen that reliance on secondary sources has led to a degree of misinterpretation which weakens the case. A more scholarly version of Claiborne and Haw's Jesus for President would be an important contribution. A scholarly engagement with other political theologies – particularly liberation theology - would lead to mutual enrichment.

Christian Anarchism offers a challenge to mainstream churches with its critique of historical collusion between the church and earthly power, and its insistence on a particular Christian politics. There is a choice for Christian Anarchist groups to withdraw or remain within the mainstream church. Remaining can suggest compromise or collusion, but withdrawal limits effectiveness.

Ultimately, the strong claims of Christian Anarchism offer the church, and the individual disciple, an opportunity to question their own political position. Are they the persecuted minority of the 1^st and 2^nd Centuries? Are they the state-supporting (or compromised) church of the Christian Roman Empire? Are they reactionary protesters, indignant at the official church's indolence or collusion? The challenge is to allow personal morality, job choice, voting behaviour, financial arrangements, relationship with neighbours and enemies – indeed, all thought and activity – to be obedient to the peculiar politics of Jesus.

Christian Anarchism: The Challenge

Response

The interaction of mainstream Christianity with Christian Anarchism could take a number of forms. Firstly, it may be ignored. This seems unlikely because of the strength of its claims. The idea that the church is committing idolatry with the state has a shock value that demands to be rejected, or investigated. Secondly, it may be acknowledged and rejected as aberrant. Christian Anarchist views are far enough from the norm to be seen as a form of extremism and dismissed on those grounds. However, fully refuting Christian Anarchism's claims requires an engagement with its ideas at an academic level. Thirdly, it may be treated as an unrealistic ideal. Other radical political theologies such as Liberation theology are respected from a safe distance, or regarded as quaint and peculiar like the Amish. Church teaching may acknowledge the truth of the claims, but not be affected by them. Fourthly, Christian Anarchist ideas may be seen as valuable, and incorporated to varying degrees.

If Christian Anarchism is to be accepted as legitimate by some groups, there is the question of their position in relation to the rest of the church. Small protest movements tend to be isolationist, and thus limit their ability to affect change. Many Christian Anarchists predict an exclusivist future, stating that the death of Christendom will allow the church to reclaim its political identity as a radical minority: "Growing smaller and smaller until we take over the world."¹ The end of nominalism means that the remaining Christians will take their faith more seriously. Within Christian Anarchism, however, there is precedent for anarchist groups existing within the sphere of mainstream churches. One of the most influential and prolific Christian Anarchist groups in the Catholic Worker movement, which has its existence within a major denomination. Any emerging Christian Anarchist groups are faced with the choice between the path of the Waldensians and the path of the Franciscans. Leave the mainstream church or remain within it. Will they take the Donatist view, rejecting the mainstream church as irredeemably corrupt traditors, or will they recognise themselves as one part of a broad diversity of belief and practice?

Obedience

When Christian morality purports to inform political practice, the pragmatic question must be addressed: Will it be effective? In Christian political writing we find three distinct approaches. In God's Politics, Jim Wallis writes: “If nonviolence is to be credible, it must answer the questions that violence purports to answer, but in a better way²”. Tolstoy disagrees stating that, since no-one has ever truly lived according to Christ's teaching, the practicalities cannot be known: “An explorer going to and unknown country might as well ask for a detailed map of the country before he would start”³. Shane Claiborne similarly admits that the practical outworkings of Christian morality in every situation are unknowable. Rather than responding with theory, Claiborne responds with obedience. Recounting a story of being attacked and his non-violent response, Claiborne concludes:

Honestly, I wasn't sure what Jesus would have done if he were in our place, but there are two things I know Jesus would not have done. He would not have fought. And he would not have run... Jesus might have thought of something else, or he might have done something weird to throw them off, as he often seemed to do... but I thought that Jesus was happy with how we acted... we refused to hate.⁴

In this perspective, predicting the outcome of practising Christian non-violence is relatively unimportant. What is important is for the disciple to be obedient to the teachings of Christ – to trust that the way of Jesus is good. The question from militarism remains – what would happen if we refused to fight? The answer is unknowable apart from putting it into practise. In Yoder's three models of church – the activist church, the conversionist church, and the confessing church – it is the confessing church is the preferred model. Its focus is neither on changing the world, nor 'winning souls'. Its hallmark is obedience.

For Christian Anarchists, obedience to Jesus means that disciples do not automatically assume the role of protestors, nor of rulers. It also stands in contrast to a more vague Christian morality of 'being good' (Yoder summarises the view of Charles Sheldon: “Do what Jesus would do’ for Sheldon simply means ‘do the right at all costs’; but what is the right thing to do is knowable for Sheldon apart from Jesus.”⁵ ) Instead, Jesus teaches a specific morality and a specific politics, and gives examples of specific situational ethics in Matthew 5:38-42. The biggest challenge that Christian Anarchism issues to any church or any individual is that they be obedient to the teachings of Jesus above all other allegiances.

1Shane Claiborne. The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006. Chapter 12

2Jim Wallis. God's Politics. Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2005. pg 47.

3Leo Tolstoy. The Kingdom of God is Within You. Translated by Constance Garnet. Kansas: Digireads, 2005. pg 138.

4Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008. Pg 266

5John Howard Yoder. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2005. pg 15.