Reactionary
Movements
The
conversion of Constantine corresponds with the rise of Christian
monasticism. Between the third and fourth centuries the eremitic life
grew in popularity, with 'desert theology' following in the biblical
tradition of wilderness wanderings and 'calling out'. The Christian
Anarchist case sees the rise of monasticism as a reaction against the
legalisation and popularisation of Christianity: “People joined the
church in droves, but Christian disciples were hard to come by.”
This certainly seems to fit the historical pattern -when religious
ethics are compromised in any way, reactionary movements arise. From
the Essenes moving into the desert in reaction to the politics of the
second temple to the True Levellers or the anabaptists forming
communities that expressed faith in ways no longer visible in the
mainstream churches of their day.
We
find this view prevalent in Bonhoeffer's Cost
of Discipleship:
The
expansion of Christianity and the increasing secularization of the
church caused the awareness of costly grace to be gradually lost…
Here, on the boundary of the church, was the place where the
awareness that grace is costly and that grace includes discipleship
was preserved... Monastic life thus became a living protest against
the secularization of Christianity, against the cheapening of grace.
While
the view of early monasticism as a protest movement seems to fit the
pattern, there is no evidence from the time to suggest this was the
case. The eremitic lifestyle was growing in popularity long before
Constantine's conversion. Anthony is recorded as moving into the
desert between 270 and 271,
forty one years before Constantine's alleged conversion at the Battle
of Milvan Bridge, and 110 years before the Edict of Thessalonica made
Christianity the de
facto
state religion. As with the quotes from early fathers, more solid
scholarship is required to back up a case which relies mainly on
secondary sources.
Complicity
In
the Christian Anarchist view, the remaining history of Christianity
is “a history of cruelty.”
The radical followers of Jesus who had loved their enemies and left
jobs that depended on violent coercion had all but disappeared.
Augustine condoned violent coercion used against the Donatists.
Soldiers and rulers were expected to be Christians.
The blurring of the lines between the church and the state reached
its height in the era of the prince bishops.
Christianity was now firmly a part of a socio-political identity
quite different from the understanding of the early Christians.
While
Tertullian had considered baptism a ceremony of allegiance into a
different kind of kingdom,
it was now a prerequisite for membership of 'Christian countries'. By
developing 'just war' theory, Christian theologians became apologists
for violence and expansionist empires.
The
Carolingians waged the first 'Christian' wars.
Just as the Christians had been persecuted for refusing to burn
incense to Caesar, Christian rulers persecuted those who refused to
be baptised. “Charlemagne, drunk on this power, instructed his
Christian soldiers in their conquest of the Saxons: 'If there is
anyone of the Saxon people lurking among them unbaptised, and if he
scorns to come to baptism... and stay a pagan, let him die.'”
The
Christian Anarchist version of history focusses on these extremes –
the crusades, the inquisition, witch-hunts and the apparent indolence
of the state churches in 1930s Germany or 1990s Rwanda.
These
stark examples are often used in juxtaposition with a saying of Jesus
in order to highlight the incongruity between 'Christian' behaviour
and the historical behaviour of the church: “In the name of the one
who taught us to love our enemies, the church burned its enemies
alive.”
There
is little attempt to give a balanced appraisal of the positive ways
that Christians have used political power. The effectiveness of
William Wilberforce, for example, owed much to the positions held by
the Clapham sect. A Christian community, meeting in houses around
Clapham common, acting together, caused a seismic shift in public
morality. This suggests that Christian Anarchism today may be
something of a 'first world' phenomenon. In countries where there is
poor infrastructure, or corrupt government, compassion would lead
Christians to exert as much influence as possible. Eschewing
political power would seem irresponsible in this instance.
Christian
involvement in the military is one of the main areas of concern for
Christian Anarchists. It was the
role of the clergy in military conscription in Tsarist Russia that
drew Tolstoy's attention to the apparent hypocrisy of the church, and
he consequently accuses them of “the revolting sin of using the
name and authority of Christ to sanction what he most condemned.”
Tolstoy argued that there
were five main arguments that had been used historically to obfuscate
the discrepancy between militarism and the
non-violent teaching of Christ. The first is that the use of force is
“enjoined by Old and New Testaments”.
This
view depends on a very selective reading of scripture. The second is
John Crysostom’s view that Jesus' teaching to turn the other cheek
was a moral ideal, not intended to be taken literally. The third
argument is that Jesus' command relates to violence against one's own
person. If another is attacked, one is morally required to defend
them. This, Tolstoy rejects citing Jesus' interaction with Peter in
Gethsemane.
The fourth argument is that Jesus' command of non-resistance to evil
by force should not be given special priority over other moral
commands – one can sin, and yet still be a Christian. Tolstoy
considered this argument a deliberate deceit - “a particularly
skillful device”
- which equated a casual or accidental breach of God's law with a
deliberate and calculated denial of a command. Finally, Tolstoy
suggested that a major method for ignoring the discrepancy of
Christians serving in the military was to suggest that any tension
had been debated and settled by thinkers in the past. This argument
has the added strength of the status
quo.
If other Christians serve in the military, then it must be
acceptable.
Claiborne
and Haw's section on militarism shows that a cumulative argument of
the above, and a sense of God's endorsement of the USA, is key in
silencing soldiers' potential objections.
In the United States, they see a 'Christian' country that has moved
as far from true Christianity as possible:
How
ironic is it to see a bumper sticker that says 'Jesus is the answer'
next to a bumper sticker supporting the war in Iraq? ...It
is hard to imagine a gospel that is more of an antithesis of Jesus'
gospel and the Beatitudes than what we hear today in the church:
'Blessed are the rich'; 'Blessed are the troops'; 'We will have no
mercy on evildoers'.
The
Christian Anarchist historical thesis is a weak case. This selective
reading depends on an antagonistic hermeneutic and single-mindedness.
To strengthen the case, Christian Anarchist writers should critique
some of the positive roles the church's relationship with power has
played. Ultimately, the Christian Anarchist sets out to shock – to
alert the reader to the inherent tensions between Christianity and
power that they may not have considered before. In this task, the
historical thesis succeeds, and issues a significant challenge.
