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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment