Not of This World Part 6: Upside Down (Series Conclusion)

Upside Down

Throughout the Book of Acts (a chronicle of the early ministries) we see civil unrest in the wake of early evangelism and how the disciples demonstrate what they learned from Jesus’ example. Here’s one instance of many demonstrating the power of the message:

“And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, ‘These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.’ And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.”

Acts 17:1

Word spread quickly how “threatening” the Apostle’s message of Jesus was. They were those who “turned the world upside down.” The church in that area—ekklesia—had gained a reputation for challenging societal norms of the day. Ideas like “servant leadership” and having “all things common” stood in direct contrast to the affluent, Imperialist culture of their day. The message of Jesus’ resurrection was especially controversial but also intriguing to the philosophers and ever-antagonistic Jewish leaders. The legitimacy of Caesar in general, the pagan religion, and Pharisee’s order was being called to question all at once. One fantastic instance is recorded just two chapters later:

“And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen; Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, ‘Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth. Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.’ And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians’.” 

Acts 19:23

What’s remarkable about this scene is everything at stake for the Ephesians. Not only is the legitimacy of their religion called into question but also their economy. Demetrius, a craftsman, earned a living making silver shrines and idols. The rhetoric of the early evangelists had “set at nought” the profitably of the craft itself and also maligned the reputation and legitimacy of the deity and temple of worship. Such a challenge was met with an angry mob. As we’ll see, this legacy continued from the time of the earliest churches through the Dark Ages. 

Anabaptist Iconoclasm/ Host Desecration

As peaceful as they were, Anabaptists certainly didn’t shy away from issuing stern rebukes to heads of state and church, nor were they restrained when it came to destroying what they deemed idols and superstitions in the land. Like John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles before them, they understood their “civic duty” very well: obey God rather than men.

Examples of this are given throughout Gary K. Waite’s book Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe. Waite’s book examines the witch hunts and Anabaptist persecutions of the time in different regions of Europe and seeks to understand the religious and political reasons for such. Waite is careful to remind the reader that while the Anabaptists themselves were skeptical of the “superstitions” of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, they were being identified as the agents of a Satanic conspiracy and were blamed for other-worldly phenomena sometimes attributed to witches and sorcerers. In his book, we learn Anabaptist skepticism was aimed directly at two primary Catholic (and sometimes Protestant) dogmas: the Eucharist and infant baptism.

Student’s of Church history, namely Anabaptism, know these pious folk were notorious for refusing to have their infants baptized (which was considered infanticide by the state-churches), and they also were known to disrupt Mass and stomp on supposedly consecrated “Hosts.” All of these protests are Anarchist tactics aimed at cutting directly to the heart of the established institutions—for the Anabaptists of the Dark Ages, it was the most effective way to disrupt the status quo, both state and church. It was very performative.

Waite tells of one Jacob Gasser. This brave Anarchist “ran up to the altar, grabbed the plate of wafers out of the priest’s hands, threw it onto the floor, and trampled upon the bread. He then tossed the chalice with the consecrated wine against the church door.” Of course, we know Gasser wasn’t alone in his sentiments or actions, as Waite relates: “This disturbing act…had followed close on the heels of the iconoclastic actions of Tirol’s rebellious peasants. It was also performed in consideration of magical beliefs and a long history of eucharistic miracle legends.” Gasser’s, and others’, willingness—obligation rather—to cause such upheaval in one of the most important and powerful societal institutions of that day only testifies to the fact that Anabaptism is fundamentally Anarchism. Anabaptists were actively striking at an insidious root: the institutional Church’s reliance on the State to substantiate tenuous, superstitious dogmas. It can’t be denied that they learned these tactics, and gained boldness, from Jesus’ and the Apostles’ examples.

Series Conclusion

A logical and plain reading of the Gospels and basic understanding of non-conformist movements throughout Church history leads an honest student to the conclusion that Gospel and Christ-centered discipleship is Anarchism in its purest form. While I believe this shouldn’t be a topic of debate among Christians, I understand the traditions of the State-Church systems have prevented serious consideration of this topic even to this day. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the Kingdom of God and Heaven is a powerful alternative to the Devil’s kingdoms of darkness where Mammon and The State are gods. 

---

About the Author

Nathan Moon is a house-painter because he “has a useless English degree”. More importantly, he’s a student of Jesus, which is the theme of his blog.

He hopes to one day have a small photography/movie-production company. He lives in Wisconsin with his wife and four daughters.

You can learn more about him and see his work at his website is www.anabaptistapologist.com.

Not of This World Part 2: Two Kingdoms & Active Resistance

Two Kingdoms

In his essay, Christian Anarchism: A Revolutionary Reading of the Bible,  Christoyannopoulos notices that, “an honest and consistent application of Christianity would result in a political arrangement that would amount to anarchism…”. Thus Christian anarchism is not about forcing together two very different systems of thought—it is about pursuing the political implications of Christianity to its fullest extent.” There’s no doubt that “Christianity” is, itself, a political system: the most Primitive, Gospel-centered church admittedly does have the semblance of a hierarchical structure (but it’s purely voluntary, and it’s leaders are to be servants). So we see that politics, Christianity, and “Anarchy” aren’t exclusive. If anything, “Anarchy,” how it’s demonstrated in the ekklesia, or the “Kingdom of God,” is the purest political structure one could hope for. The problem that arises is when one kingdom attempts to usurp the other and begins to intrude where it’s unwelcome. Many of the Anabaptists (Proto-“Anarchists”) saw in the Gospels and Epistles what they termed a “Two Kingdom'' principle. They bemoaned the admixture of Church and State and, unlike their contemporaries, pursued the political implications of Christianity to its fullest extent. 

The Anabaptist concept of “Two Kingdoms” immediately situates the Kingdom of God as an opponent of The State. On page 24 of his book Church and State, Charles F. Reitzel compares and contrasts the two. His notes are significant to the serious disciple and underscores the importance of the separation of these two kingdoms. He diagrams the differences in the following way:

The difference between the church and state should be clearly evident now. If the assumption of the New Testament is separation of these two kingdoms, then what possible “Civic Duty” would a Christian have towards government? Can s/he sit in courts as a judge or juror? Can s/he police the community with a license to use force against potential threats to protect capital and the private property of the rich? Can s/he swear an oath to protect the [worldly] Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic”? Can s/he vote in political elections or donate time and money toward those campaigns to enforce “godly policy”? Let’s see what Jesus would do: 

“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (Jn 18:36)

We see Jesus’ kingdom is altogether different than Caesar’s, yet multitudes of Evangelicals war against this teaching. 

Paul told followers of Christ that Satan is the “god of this world.” It’d therefore follow that the kingdoms and rulers of this world are under diabolical influence. While God certainly did “ordain” governments among men, he left men wholly in charge of them. Given that men are susceptible to Satanic influence, it’s not hard to understand just how quickly human government fell under the dictatorship of the Devil, and, as we saw, this power among men isn’t inherent in themselves. So now we need to ask the following question: If we’re to ‘submit’ to these powers as Paul said, but ultimately the governments we submit to are Satanic, then don’t we have a contradiction in Scripture? Secular Anarchists and some in the believing community might assume so. Let’s see.

Standing for the Kingdom of God: Active Resistance/ Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is sometimes considered a more provocative means to a peaceful end. Some might consider this form of Pacifism more performative and needlessly confrontational…something many Anabaptists today are reluctant to embrace. However, true Christlike non-resistance is Civil Disobedience with a goal to directly challenge norms and turn the hearts of men back to God—it’s direct action. 

Non-Resistance and Conscientious Objection, along with Tax Evasion, are probably the most effective, yet risky, protests men could do. It’s the classic “David and Goliath” scenario. This has been the calling of every true disciple since John the Baptist called men to repent. The fact civil disobedience is on full display throughout the Gospels, Book of Acts, and even in Epistles to churches, should come as no surprise to careful readers of the New Testament. James Redford makes an astonishing note on the life of Jesus. Redford reminds the reader,

“Thus in the most fundamental of regards, there is a great antagonism from the very start between Jesus and government (to say the least). Jesus was born into the world as a criminal and would latter be killed as a criminal—a criminal as so regarded by the government, that is.”

Redford’s charge of criminality is only through the eyes of the state. He’s of course referring to the “Flight to Egypt” event given in the second chapter of Matthew’s Gospel account, where Joseph and Mary flee the wrath of the Tyrant Herod. Herod, no doubt, viewed the child as a political adversary and thus a criminal. Redford’s observation is all the more telling: indeed, Jesus’ life was fated to be one in opposition to the kingdoms of this world!

With this scene essentially opening the life and ministry of the Messiah, there’s no uncertainty in the reading of Scripture that when men abuse otherwise “legitimate, God-ordained government” subjects of the Kingdom of God are especially obliged to obey God rather than man as though they’re already free to do so: civil disobedience…essentially, Anarchy.

The Gospels relay one example after another of Anarchism—men entering into an alternative Kingdom of freedom, living as voluntary subjects of the Father in Heaven in opposition of the pseudo-religious and coercive political systems of the day. We began our probe with the conception of Jesus and how his pre-birth experience immediately put him at odds with the Roman/Herodian State. But Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, was numerically the first martyr because of his Anarchism.

In Matthew 11, we learn John is imprisoned for no other reason other than the fact he’d publicly, unabashedly rebuked Herod for his private sins. John’s fate would eventually be beheading, if for no other reason than political pressure—in fact, in Matthew 14 we get the sense that Herod was reluctant.

With every turn of the page, we see what Redford notes, that, “Jesus’s Kingdom is to be the functional opposite of any Earthbound kingdom which has ever existed. And for government, this is the ultimate crime of which Jesus was guilty, and which required His extermination” (p. 3). The functional opposite of the coercive State is a peaceful, voluntary community of willing disciples who accept the possibility of martyrdom. T.J. van Braght, in his classic anthology of martyrdom The Bloody Theater or Martyr’s Mirror of the Anabaptist or Defenseless Christians, makes the following distinction and application:

To Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we have accorded the first place among the martyrs of the new covenant; not in the order of time, for herein John was before, and preceded with his death; but on account of the worthiness of the person, because He is the head of all the holy martyrs, through whom they all must be saved. 

John the Baptist was technically the first martyr in the New Testament for his Anarchy, but Jesus alone is regarded as the premier example. This is the true message of freedom we find in his words. To put it differently, if “Anarchism” is acting as though you’re already free, and the Son of God declared “If the Son of man shall set you free, you’re free indeed,” then it logically follows that there’s no greater or purer “Anarchist” than the studious, faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God and of Heaven is the epitome of this ideal and stands as a non-violent alternative in almost silent opposition to the kingdoms of this world. This also proves that no force is needed, even in self-defense, to demonstrate a better way to one’s enemy with the hopes of seeing them repent.

---

About the Author

Nathan Moon is a house-painter because he “has a useless English degree”. More importantly, he’s a student of Jesus, which is the theme of his blog.

He hopes to one day have a small photography/movie-production company. He lives in Wisconsin with his wife and four daughters.

You can learn more about him and see his work at his website is www.anabaptistapologist.com.