It seems interesting if you categorize the implications of anarchy—at least the points you’ve got listed above. Basically, those modes of interacting with the state where kingdom people give of their own volition to those in the other kingdom—this is acceptable. Yet those things which the state gives to kingdom people—kingdom people reject. Generally, on an interpersonal level, this is simple arrogance.
espiritu_paz
· 2 years ago
It seems interesting if you categorize the implications of anarchy—at least the points you’ve got listed above. Basically, those modes of interacting with the state where kingdom people give of their own volition to those in the other kingdom—this is acceptable. Yet those things which the state gives to kingdom people—kingdom people reject. Generally, on an interpersonal level, this is simple arrogance.
Aric Clark
· 2 years ago
I think it's interesting you say we should pay taxes. Personally, on the basis that it is clearly giving my energy and production to things which are not Kingdom oriented (indeed directly opposed to the Kingdom given our military spending) I think this would be forbidden. Our energy, production and possessions, having come from God, ought to be given back to God. The 'render unto caesar' command is ironic, because everything belongs to God and not Caesar.
This being said. I pay my taxes, which I suppose makes me a hypocrite.
Aric Clark
· 2 years ago
I think it's interesting you say we should pay taxes. Personally, on the basis that it is clearly giving my energy and production to things which are not Kingdom oriented (indeed directly opposed to the Kingdom given our military spending) I think this would be forbidden. Our energy, production and possessions, having come from God, ought to be given back to God. The 'render unto caesar' command is ironic, because everything belongs to God and not Caesar.
This being said. I pay my taxes, which I suppose makes me a hypocrite.
Anna
· 2 years ago
On paying taxes:
An easy way to not pay income taxes is to be poor. We got all the money back we payed plus some extra, I think. Yeah, its a little like "free-loading" except we do not use any welfare type services. We just work hard in an economically depressed area and earn the typical wage offered.
Just a thought.
Anna
· 2 years ago
On paying taxes:
An easy way to not pay income taxes is to be poor. We got all the money back we payed plus some extra, I think. Yeah, its a little like "free-loading" except we do not use any welfare type services. We just work hard in an economically depressed area and earn the typical wage offered.
Just a thought.
markvans
· 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand where the arrogance is. Could you clarify? I don't see the distinction you're making. In my mind, it isn't a question of arrogance, but a matter of identity/affiliation/allegiance.
markvans
· 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand where the arrogance is. Could you clarify? I don't see the distinction you're making. In my mind, it isn't a question of arrogance, but a matter of identity/affiliation/allegiance.
Jonas Lundström
· 2 years ago
I think your series on the topic of christian anarchism is brilliant and I totally (I think) agree. I would, though, like you to spell out more clearly how you think power should be used in the (local) assembly of christians. Most of your material in this series has focus about the relationship to the state, but I think the use of power in church should be a top-of-the-list-topic. To me , the christian anarchy of the New Testament seams to favour decision-making through consensus (no majority rule), avoidance of priviliged titles (as in Matt 23), an ever-present openess to the free sharing of every member of the messiahs body (1 Kor 14:26-), public discussion of the dominant speakers (1 Kor 14:26- again), abolition of "private property" along the lines of Acts and church-controlled delegation of specific obligations within the church as in the so called pastoral letters. How do you practise and think about these matters?
Jonas Lundström
· 2 years ago
I think your series on the topic of christian anarchism is brilliant and I totally (I think) agree. I would, though, like you to spell out more clearly how you think power should be used in the (local) assembly of christians. Most of your material in this series has focus about the relationship to the state, but I think the use of power in church should be a top-of-the-list-topic. To me , the christian anarchy of the New Testament seams to favour decision-making through consensus (no majority rule), avoidance of priviliged titles (as in Matt 23), an ever-present openess to the free sharing of every member of the messiahs body (1 Kor 14:26-), public discussion of the dominant speakers (1 Kor 14:26- again), abolition of "private property" along the lines of Acts and church-controlled delegation of specific obligations within the church as in the so called pastoral letters. How do you practise and think about these matters?
espiritu_paz
· 2 years ago
Mark Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet. I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance. On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance? I hope that was clearer. Abigail
espiritu_paz
· 2 years ago
Mark Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet. I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance. On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance? I hope that was clearer. Abigail
markvans
· 2 years ago
Great thoughts and questions, Espiritu Paz (if that is your REAL name). I'm not uber confident in my response...most of my blog is me trying to think my way into things, rather the outcome of ponderous reflections. With that disclaimer established, let me just say that I think we need to perhaps move beyond a two kingdoms approach. It isn't that we the Church (as one group) needs to engage in American Culture (as another group) simply on our own terms--giving, yet never receiving.
In my thinking, I've shifted away from a two kingdoms approach into thinking of a one Kingdom approach--a Christarchy, if you will. In this way, Jesus is the Lord and all caesars are would-be usurpers. In my mind, then, I can give and take from folks...but never in a way that recognizing caesar's legitimacy. I realize that there are problems with this perspective. My largest concerns are that we:
1) recognize a very much this-world soveriegnty of Christ over (and even against) the Powers (including the State).
2) that we don't resist the Powers physically, but spiritually, and with loving, compassionate hospitality.
3) that we center ourselves with those who have been marginalized by the State.
4) that, since we are enmeshed within the System whether we like it or not, we live within the system as adamant Christ-followers (including in the aforementioned political sense).
The sticky-wicket, as it were, in all of this is that while we resist the State, I believe we are called, simultaneously, to turn the other cheek as we love them. This complicates things because then our goal isn't merely to subvert the Empire, but to love it. And this requires engagement. This requires a self-reflective, thoughtful, disciplined way of relating with the Empire (are you hearing this dlw...this is a big area of overlap that promises some room for dialogue). I'm not sure of how to go about doing that...holding the tension of subversion and embrace. Hospitality is a useful concept here...but I think you're right that it can be simply one-way. That would be a monologue, not a dialogue.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Great thoughts and questions, Espiritu Paz (if that is your REAL name). I'm not uber confident in my response...most of my blog is me trying to think my way into things, rather the outcome of ponderous reflections. With that disclaimer established, let me just say that I think we need to perhaps move beyond a two kingdoms approach. It isn't that we the Church (as one group) needs to engage in American Culture (as another group) simply on our own terms--giving, yet never receiving.
In my thinking, I've shifted away from a two kingdoms approach into thinking of a one Kingdom approach--a Christarchy, if you will. In this way, Jesus is the Lord and all caesars are would-be usurpers. In my mind, then, I can give and take from folks...but never in a way that recognizing caesar's legitimacy. I realize that there are problems with this perspective. My largest concerns are that we:
1) recognize a very much this-world soveriegnty of Christ over (and even against) the Powers (including the State).
2) that we don't resist the Powers physically, but spiritually, and with loving, compassionate hospitality.
3) that we center ourselves with those who have been marginalized by the State.
4) that, since we are enmeshed within the System whether we like it or not, we live within the system as adamant Christ-followers (including in the aforementioned political sense).
The sticky-wicket, as it were, in all of this is that while we resist the State, I believe we are called, simultaneously, to turn the other cheek as we love them. This complicates things because then our goal isn't merely to subvert the Empire, but to love it. And this requires engagement. This requires a self-reflective, thoughtful, disciplined way of relating with the Empire (are you hearing this dlw...this is a big area of overlap that promises some room for dialogue). I'm not sure of how to go about doing that...holding the tension of subversion and embrace. Hospitality is a useful concept here...but I think you're right that it can be simply one-way. That would be a monologue, not a dialogue.
I have a thought that might simplify things here. We do not need to love the Empire, because the empire is an institution. We are called to love people. But it is perfectly okay to hate institutions, ideas, and organizations. So, as a Christian, I am called to extend love to Barack Obama. This does not mean that I need to love the Democratic party itself or anything that it represents. I have met Iraqis who dislike America because of the occupation. At the same time they can extend friendship to an individual soldier.
I think this a very important concept in the area of Christian anarchism. It is easily possible to buck the system while showing love and mercy to those individuals who are a part of the system
All Comments
This being said. I pay my taxes, which I suppose makes me a hypocrite.
This being said. I pay my taxes, which I suppose makes me a hypocrite.
An easy way to not pay income taxes is to be poor. We got all the money back we payed plus some extra, I think. Yeah, its a little like "free-loading" except we do not use any welfare type services. We just work hard in an economically depressed area and earn the typical wage offered.
Just a thought.
An easy way to not pay income taxes is to be poor. We got all the money back we payed plus some extra, I think. Yeah, its a little like "free-loading" except we do not use any welfare type services. We just work hard in an economically depressed area and earn the typical wage offered.
Just a thought.
I would, though, like you to spell out more clearly how you think power should be used in the (local) assembly of christians. Most of your material in this series has focus about the relationship to the state, but I think the use of power in church should be a top-of-the-list-topic. To me , the christian anarchy of the New Testament seams to favour decision-making through consensus (no majority rule), avoidance of priviliged titles (as in Matt 23), an ever-present openess to the free sharing of every member of the messiahs body (1 Kor 14:26-), public discussion of the dominant speakers (1 Kor 14:26- again), abolition of "private property" along the lines of Acts and church-controlled delegation of specific obligations within the church as in the so called pastoral letters.
How do you practise and think about these matters?
I would, though, like you to spell out more clearly how you think power should be used in the (local) assembly of christians. Most of your material in this series has focus about the relationship to the state, but I think the use of power in church should be a top-of-the-list-topic. To me , the christian anarchy of the New Testament seams to favour decision-making through consensus (no majority rule), avoidance of priviliged titles (as in Matt 23), an ever-present openess to the free sharing of every member of the messiahs body (1 Kor 14:26-), public discussion of the dominant speakers (1 Kor 14:26- again), abolition of "private property" along the lines of Acts and church-controlled delegation of specific obligations within the church as in the so called pastoral letters.
How do you practise and think about these matters?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet.
I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance.
On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance?
I hope that was clearer.
Abigail
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet.
I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance.
On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance?
I hope that was clearer.
Abigail
In my thinking, I've shifted away from a two kingdoms approach into thinking of a one Kingdom approach--a Christarchy, if you will. In this way, Jesus is the Lord and all caesars are would-be usurpers. In my mind, then, I can give and take from folks...but never in a way that recognizing caesar's legitimacy. I realize that there are problems with this perspective. My largest concerns are that we:
1) recognize a very much this-world soveriegnty of Christ over (and even against) the Powers (including the State).
2) that we don't resist the Powers physically, but spiritually, and with loving, compassionate hospitality.
3) that we center ourselves with those who have been marginalized by the State.
4) that, since we are enmeshed within the System whether we like it or not, we live within the system as adamant Christ-followers (including in the aforementioned political sense).
The sticky-wicket, as it were, in all of this is that while we resist the State, I believe we are called, simultaneously, to turn the other cheek as we love them. This complicates things because then our goal isn't merely to subvert the Empire, but to love it. And this requires engagement. This requires a self-reflective, thoughtful, disciplined way of relating with the Empire (are you hearing this dlw...this is a big area of overlap that promises some room for dialogue). I'm not sure of how to go about doing that...holding the tension of subversion and embrace. Hospitality is a useful concept here...but I think you're right that it can be simply one-way. That would be a monologue, not a dialogue.
In my thinking, I've shifted away from a two kingdoms approach into thinking of a one Kingdom approach--a Christarchy, if you will. In this way, Jesus is the Lord and all caesars are would-be usurpers. In my mind, then, I can give and take from folks...but never in a way that recognizing caesar's legitimacy. I realize that there are problems with this perspective. My largest concerns are that we:
1) recognize a very much this-world soveriegnty of Christ over (and even against) the Powers (including the State).
2) that we don't resist the Powers physically, but spiritually, and with loving, compassionate hospitality.
3) that we center ourselves with those who have been marginalized by the State.
4) that, since we are enmeshed within the System whether we like it or not, we live within the system as adamant Christ-followers (including in the aforementioned political sense).
The sticky-wicket, as it were, in all of this is that while we resist the State, I believe we are called, simultaneously, to turn the other cheek as we love them. This complicates things because then our goal isn't merely to subvert the Empire, but to love it. And this requires engagement. This requires a self-reflective, thoughtful, disciplined way of relating with the Empire (are you hearing this dlw...this is a big area of overlap that promises some room for dialogue). I'm not sure of how to go about doing that...holding the tension of subversion and embrace. Hospitality is a useful concept here...but I think you're right that it can be simply one-way. That would be a monologue, not a dialogue.
I think this a very important concept in the area of Christian anarchism. It is easily possible to buck the system while showing love and mercy to those individuals who are a part of the system