The Early Church and the Foundations of Voluntaryism (Christian-Anarchism)

During the course of The Bad Roman project, I have become fascinated by the early church, and when I say early church, I’m talking about the first 300 to 400 years prior to Constantine. I am a full believer that we, as the church, should return to that old-time religion. When I say that, I don’t mean back in the 50’s and 60’s; I mean the true intent of the early church. So what I want to do with this article is show proof of the early church’s Anarchist actions. 

If you have followed our project for any amount of time, then you will be familiar with my stance, but this article isn’t for me, it’s for you to decide on your own. If we are to take the teachings of Christ seriously, then we should lean on the understanding of the folks who were a lot closer to the situation than we'll ever be. Yes, we have the Bible, which is a great resource in regards to following Christ, but what happened, and what was said beyond the Bible? Thankfully we have a wealth of information from those folks who were there. I will include a list of books I have read that helped me put this article together at the end so that you can check them out for yourself. We will look at several writings from those who witnessed  it first-hand and, in the case of Polycarp, endured persecution to the point of death.

We will start with Polycarp (69-156), who by all accounts, was taught directly by the Apostle John, giving him some significant credibility. Polycarp was a No King but Christ, Jesus-centric disciple. The torture of Polycarp by the state is pretty graphic in Arnold’s book, but it is necessary to understand just how devoted he was to Jesus; he knew without a doubt He is his King. Prior to his eventual arrest and torture, Polycarp immediately ordered food to be served to those arresting him, and they still took him to the proconsul.  Polycarp was “cut by scourges until the anatomy of [his] body was visible, even to the veins and arteries, [he] endured everything.” Here is where it gets more interesting. They tried like hell to get him to deny his faith, but he was stoic and did not comply.

I am not willing to do what you advise me.

They pushed him further,

Swear and I will release you! Curse Christ!

This is my favorite part….

Eighty-six years have I served him, and he has never done me any harm. How could I blaspheme my King and Savior?

This is a mic-drop moment for me! He clearly states who his King is, and it dang sure isn’t Caesar! They ended up trying to burn him to death, and when the fire didn’t consume him, they stabbed him to death.

Are you convinced of the Anarchist mentality of the early church yet? No? Let's continue.

Origen (185-254) is very interesting to me. Whenever we quote him on social media, the first pushback we get is “well, he was a universalist”, which is used as a pejorative and has absolutely nothing to do with his Jesus-centric understanding of the state. Origen was a student of Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and widely understood to be the most prolific writer of the pre-Nicene church, dictated around two thousand works. There is some controversy about Origen among modern scholars. They suggest that he did not oppose properly undertaken wars, but if you dig deeper into his writings that just doesn’t seem to be the case. One very important statement by Origen should put all of that to rest. He says, “if all the Romans become Christians, they will not war at all…. Christ forbade the killing of anyone.”

What I want to focus on with this article is the early Christian’s view of the State, and there are a couple of statements by Origen that should be heard loud and clear.

To those who ask us whence we have come or who we have for a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take sword against a nation, nor do we learn any more to make war, having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of following the ancestral customs in which were strangers to the covenants.

There is one key point in this quote that needs to be recognized, which is why I shared it. Origen made it clear who our leader is, and it is without a doubt Jesus. I absolutely love the No King but Christ in this message.

This next statement from Origen comes from his work titled Against Celsus. For context, Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of early Christianity. This statement is so much fun for me.  It really drives home the point of how the early Christians worked on the fringes of society, having no interest in engaging with political processes. 

The Christians form among themselves secret societies that exist outside the system of laws...an obscure and mysterious community founded on revolt and on the advantage that accrues from it.

Now that statement may raise some eyebrows because the word “revolt” is used, but think about what that means. It wasn’t a violent revolt like so many of us are accustomed to understanding; it was a peaceful revolt against the evils of the State. They just did not dirty their hands with these evils.

Now, let me tell you about my guy Tertullian (155-220). His writings have probably had the most influence on how I approach the Bad Roman project. When we started, we understood that we would be in your face about what we believe when it comes to #nokingbutchrist and love you along the way. So, if you want to understand why I approach this project the way I do, then read some Tertullian. No nonsense, and it really is what it is. His approach to the Roman Empire is absolutely fascinating to me and is seriously missing in the church today. 

Bercot’s description of Tertullian is spot on; he writes, “Fiery Christian writer in Carthage, North Africa” 

I love learning about these folks. The older I have gotten, the more interested in history I have become, and the history of the early Church is no exception. I feel like I was probably born in the wrong era, haha, but I’m thankful we have writings to lean on to get a sense of exactly what was going on back then. I said all of that to give a little background on Tertullian.

He was born into a pagan family in the city of Carthage, which was one of the four largest cities of the Roman Empire. He was very well educated in rhetoric, philosophy, law, and medicine. He worked for a time in Rome as a jurist and returned to Carthage. His conversion to Christianity is somewhat of a mystery but boom! He burst onto the scene with his writing Apology, from which the following texts are taken.

“We are charged with being irreligious people and, what is more, irreligious in respect to the emperors since we refuse to pay religious homage to their imperial majesties and to their genius and refuse to swear by them.

High treason is a crime of offense against the Roman religion. It is a crime of open irreligion, a raising of the hand to injure the deity… Christians are considered to be enemies of the State, enemies of the public well-being… In dealing with religious veneration of the second majesty, we Christians are accused of a second sacrilege because we do not celebrate the festivals of the Caesars among you.

We wage a battle when we are challenged to face the tribunals of law. There, in peril of life, we give testimony for the truth. Guards and informers bring up accusations against the Christians as sexual deviants and murderers, blasphemers and traitors, enemies of public life, desecrators of temples, and criminals against the religion of Rome. Look, you do not deal with us in accordance with the formalities of criminal cases even though you consider the Christian guilty of every crime and an enemy of the gods, emperors, laws, morals; yes, of the whole nature. “You do not,” so they tell us, “worship the gods, nor do you make sacrifices to the emperors.” Accordingly, we are charged with sacrilege and high treason. We are publicly accused of being atheists and criminals who are guilty of high treason.

Wow! Does this show you anything like what we see today? Don’t you wish people would call out the state worship that happens in churches today, just like this? Tertullian was well aware of the religion of the State, also known as statism.

In us, all ardor in the pursuit of glory and honor is dead. So we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings. Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state.

This quote is interesting to me because he makes it clear that the affairs of the state are entirely foreign to him and certainly should be for professing Christians. Let’s move on to more Tertullian…

All the powers and dignities of this world are only alien to, but are enemies of God. Through them, too, penalties prepared for the impious are ignored.

I’m not sure anything else can be said with regard to the state, but there is one more Tertullian quote I would like to share. This one may be my favorite…

I owe no duty to forum, campaign, or senate. I stay awake for no public function. I make no effort to occupy a platform. I am no office seeker. I have no desire to smell out political corruption. I shun the voters booth, the juryman’s bench. I break no laws and push no lawsuits; I will not serve as a magistrate or judge. I refuse to do military service. I desire to rule over no one- I have withdrawn from worldly politics! Now my only politics is spiritual- how that I might be anxious for nothing except to root out all worldly anxieties and care.

If these examples aren’t convincing you of how a Christian ought to relate to the State, then how about the very words of our King? Who outright rejected Satan’s temptation in Matt 4:1-11. Jesus had the biggest mic drop ever regarding this topic, and as Christians, isn’t He our ultimate example?

Were the early church Anarchists? From my understanding, I would conclude that the early church was indeed anarchist, but labels don’t matter much. What is certain, is that they knew exactly who their King is. In the end, that is the only thing that matters. Choose this day whom you will serve (Joshua 24:15). #nokingbutchrist 

There is so much more I could have put into this article. If you are interested in reading more about the early church and its beliefs, here are some book suggestions:

1. The Early Christians In Their Own Words by Eberhard Arnold

2. The Early Church on Killing by Ronald J. Sider

3. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot

4. The Christians As The Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken

5. Liberty in the Things of God by Robert Louis Wilken

Love y’all,

Craig Harguess

Not of This World Part 3: The Kingdom of God & Tribalism

Overview of the Kingdom of God

Jesus’ ideal—the Anarchist’s ideal—is subversion through submission and patience, remembering of course that Anarchy is a process and not a goal itself. It’s frustrating because many assume this means complete isolation. It’s true that many in the Anabaptist tradition have slipped into the shadows and quieted down—“The quiet in the land.” But their own history testifies against them! Anabaptist history is filled with tales of heroic men, women, and children who openly protested the mainstream institutions. Thus, the Christo-Anarchist must be able to live “in” societies opposed to their “utopian ideal” while remaining distinct from them. You might’ve heard Christians say “in the world, not of the world.” While they can articulate it, this is the reality of a Kingdom that many Christians aren’t prepared to accept.

In the days of the Roman empire, John the Baptist and Jesus came preaching that sinners should repent for the Kingdom of Heaven and of God was “at hand.” The phrase “at hand” means something is within easy reach; near; close by. Put another way, Jesus himself said, “the time is fulfilled.” Thus, the days of the Roman empire were present and the promised Kingdom of God was within easy reach—manifested, present. Truly, this was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, which was that “…the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom…” Therefore, a disciple of Jesus doesn’t use the popular political routes of the day to enforce morality or “Judeo-Christian values” on the larger populace (i.e., they don’t legislate morality). They’re content with going about their lives in the Kingdom, living as shining lights and examples in the middle of a darkened world system, even “protesting” at times. Yet never joining in the circus. 

But not everyone is prepared to give such an example, and this is because they haven’t received the Messiah portrayed in the Gospels. Christoyannopolous cites Vernard Eller, who makes this astonishing conclusion regarding the real Christ and the false: “So we tend to treat Christ as our idol, someone we’d like to be like, but know we never will be like; rather than our model, someone we’d like to be like, and do our best to be sure we are like.” For Eller and Christoyannoplous, Jesus’ example can be followed. This is also the Anabaptists’ conclusion in the Reformation era. The Protestants, Anabaptists charged, lived just as ungodly as the Catholics, who saw Jesus as someone to be worshiped (as an idol)—someone who set an impossible standard…someone who gave commands he never expected us poor sinners to follow. This idea paints Christ as a cruel master who expects far too much of his followers. The truth, however, is that the secret to Anarchism, as it’s demonstrated by a true disciple of Christ, would be submission to the Father’s will and leading of the Holy Spirit. This means that true voluntary service and obedience in this Kingdom is possible, and it manifests to those outside of it.

Tribalism

Of course, we must consider the Old Testament when discussing Scripture, especially if we’re going to make the claim that true New Testament Biblicists are Anarchistic. After all, the Old and New Testaments form one composite religious text. The Old Testament is “troublesome” for secular anarchists because it seems to support hegemony, especially patriarchy. After all, Joshua leads militaristic campaigns and conquers nearly all of Canaan with permission from Yahweh. Moses is God’s prophet who must deliver commandments detailing a male-centric priesthood. Saul is Israel’s first king—one who descends into paranoia and relentlessly tries to kill David, his successor. We could go on, but this is sufficient evidence to at least imply that the Bible is by no means an Anarchist’s handbook. But Mark Van Steenwyk disagrees and offers compelling reasons to the contrary.

If I understand him correctly, Steenwyk would argue we need to understand that Scripture gives us an ideal blueprint for humanity and at the same time reveals the consequences from straying from the only legitimate authority that exists. In other words: God is the only legitimate ruler over mankind; when we wander from that authority, we descend into wickedness, and human governance is merely a symptom of the sin problem! The Old Testament therefore doesn’t condone the kingship of men, it reveals the problems with it. We get this sense from two passages in Steenwyk’s book. For instance, he reminds the reader that the Hebrews once existed as confederate tribes before they were a monarchy. 

While it is true that the patriarchs had many possessions, it is a stretch to infer from their wealth modern notions of property rights. Pre-agricultural nomadic peoples were tribal. While the patriarchs were hardly egalitarian, their understanding of ownership was much more communal than modern Western notions. The wealth of the tribe or clan or family was for the benefit of all.

While Steenwyk seems personally uncomfortable with the fact that the Bible is patriarchal, the reality is that, in general, the idea of wealth and property was “communal,” or for the benefit of the “tribe or clan or family.” This isn’t complete Anarchism, obviously. It doesn’t have to be. The point is that the Old Testament seems to highlight a more humane, God-prescribed structure as an alternative to a monarchy or centralized government: family.

When we skip forward in the Hebrew history, we’re confronted with the perversions associated with governments of men. Steenwyk makes an astute observation of the conflict between prophets of God and kings of men:

As we read through the prophets, when God speaks, it is usually through a prophet who challenges the king’s power and who stands outside of the machines of the monarchy. So much could be said here. The emphases of the kings are very different than those of the prophets. It is astonishing how much the prophets link idolatry and exploitation of the poor. The kings often centralize wealth and power. The prophets challenge that trend. The prophets, it would seem, still hold God’s Jubilee vision in their imaginations.

The prophets were quick to rebuke wayward kings for deviating from God’s pattern, which outlined a communal/ tribal form of governance that took poverty, widowhood, war, injustice, justice, etc. into much more humane and thoughtful consideration than the selfish, imperialistic kings had. Undoubtedly, Jesus, being a Jew, knew of his nation’s history; the Apostles, too, understood this as well. So it comes as no surprise then that we see a careful distinction between the “Old” Israel (one ruled by corrupt kings) and a “New” Israel (one ruled by a prince of peace) in the New Testament writings. The early church, and the Anabaptist descendants especially, was an expression of this “New” Israel of God and practiced this in their daily lives.

---

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.