The Bad Roman FAQs

There are several questions that come up from folks new to our project, and I’m hoping to answer all of these questions here. Though I will add, I love the questions and by no means want them to stop, so please keep them coming!

“Craig, what are you doing? What is your reasoning behind The Bad Roman Project? What exactly is your goal? Why do you feel the need to express such an opinion to people who may not be on board? Are you concerned with alienating friends and family?” 

The Bad Roman Project is pushing on two years old now. After a conversation I had with Michael Storm, on his show Toward Anarchy, and a series of articles written by Nathan Moon for our blog, I have been inspired to answer the above questions in this article.

Let’s turn the world’s thinking upside down…

“Craig what are you doing?”

In short, I’m just trying my best to love my neighbor. As many of you already know, I spent the majority of my time as an active neo-conservative voter. As my understanding of how Anarchism works, and how it aligned with my faith grew, it hit me like a punch to my throat. “Oh, peace is what Anarchism espouses?” Well, that idea really threw a wrench in my neo-con understanding of politics. Living peacefully among other individuals was something secular, so why were non-secular Anarchists talking about it?

In my neo-con days I already knew, but actively chose to ignore, that peace was what Jesus is about and what He calls us to. I was so entangled by statism that my thinking probably went a bit like this: “Peace...huh?! We will have none of that, we have to make the sand glow to promote freedom and liberty abroad...right? I mean if Ted Cruz says so it has to be the case, right?” 

As I moved away from the political arena, I realized the consequences of my involvement, what I did was turn back to my Christian teachings and I realized very quickly in my journey to Christian-Anarchism just how wrong I was. The Bible is full of Jesus saying love your neighbor, how was I able to ignore that this whole time? These days I go by what Jesus says, not Ted Cruz, and Jesus says to love your neighbor. That is what I am doing.

“What is your reasoning behind The Bad Roman Project?”

This project was born out of my growing frustration with Christians, more specifically, their worship of Donald Trump in the 2016 election is the driving force behind why we started this project two years ago.

Do you remember when Obama was running for president? Do you remember the deity status he was given? I remember vividly because it was something I pointed out continuously while rooting for John McCain (God forgive me).

Why is this relevant? In the 2016 election, Trump was also made into a deity, this time by the right, and, in my opinion, the deification of Trump was and continues to be far worse. Obama will always be a deity to the Democrat party, but his following is minuscule relative to what I, and many others, saw with Trump. I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing among “conservatives” and their support for Trump. Imagine a “conservative” presidential candidate saying “the constitution is not always relevant”.

Even more concerning, as a Christian and Conservative, was when Trump declared: “I’ve never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness,” and this statement was completely ignored by professing Christians! Their response instead: “Well he is the lesser of two evils” and “not Hillary” were the battle cries. I knew I could not be the only Christian who wanted a better solution than choosing between two evils, I wanted to follow Jesus and this is what the Bad Roman Project aims to explore.

“What exactly is your goal?”

This is very simple for me and everyone involved with the project: No king but Christ. 

I have taken the absolute stance as a Christian that there is no king but Christ. Who is your king? Does your king have a letter by his or her name on a ballot? As a Christian, I realized I belong to a different kingdom and this is the ultimate goal of The Bad Roman Project, to be ambassadors for Christ within whatever nation-state we find ourselves in: No King but Christ. 

“Why do you feel the need to express such an opinion to people who may not be on board?”

I know this will sound cliche, but I love people. I’m not one to claim to know everything, but if I am able, through this project, to help fellow Christians, who may be where I was politically, return to a Jesus centric way of living, or at least plant the seed for it then I will be content. That is it. We do this for people who are seeking conversations not being had in mainstream media and for those who have questions about how their faith aligns with their politics.

“Are you concerned with alienating friends and family?”

This question has been tough for me because it has happened. I didn’t set out to alienate anyone but it has become an unfortunate byproduct of starting this project. That being said, yes it concerns me and I have been, at times, been reserved in conversation on purpose to avoid further alienating folks. But, at the same time, I won’t reserve my comments to caudle feelings when asked my opinion. I don't think it is fair to anyone if I feather my answers to any question. Anyone who knows me knows I'm honest in what I believe and it has cost me some very important friendships. And you know what? I’m ok with that. The truth seriously sets you free. It's not popular but it's indisputable and consistent. My focus is always on Jesus, and he never promised things would be easy, or he would not have said “love your enemies.”

Turn the world upside down.

Love yall,

Craig Harguess

Never Follow Orders

Nuremberg trials

The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals after WWII where members of the Nazi party who carried out the Holocaust were tried for war crimes. The Superior Orders defense was used so extensively in these tribunals, the term has now become interchangeable with “the Nuremberg defense.” This defense asserts that a person cannot be held responsible for their actions if they were under direct orders from a superior to carry them out. In the Nuremberg trials, it was ruled that this was not a valid defense when charged with war crimes. It was certainly a sobering moment in human history for all to consider how far they were willing to go under orders of an authority figure.

Milgram experiment

Inspired by the Nuremberg trials, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram devised an experiment to measure obedience to authority figures. The subjects of the experiment were made to believe they were assisting in a study on how punishment affected a person’s ability to memorize information. The subject was instructed to give the “learner” a shock each time they gave an incorrect response. The subjects believed they were giving real electrical shocks to the other person, who in reality was an actor pretending to receive these shocks. The actor would increasingly protest as the imaginary shock voltage increased, to the point of crying out and banging on the wall for the experiment to stop. At the highest voltages, the actor would fall silent. If the subject hesitated in being willing to administer the shocks, the experimenter would reinforce the importance of them continuing with the experiment. Milgram learned that 65% of the subjects were willing to carry out the experiment until they had reached the maximum voltage of electric shock. Although every subject paused at least once to question the experiment, the majority of them were willing to continue when instructed to do so by the authority figure. This was certainly a shocking result. The 65% of subjects who continued to the end of the experiment believed that they had rendered an innocent person unconscious or potentially killed them, but were willing to do so because their instinct to obey authority was so strong.

Six years after the experiment, during the height of the Vietnam war, one of the former subjects wrote to Milgram explaining why he was thankful he had participated in the experiment:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority ... To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself ... I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience.

Muhammad Ali resisting the draft

Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight boxing champion of the world in the golden era of boxing and has been ranked the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time. He was outspoken and oftentimes provocative which led to him becoming an icon. Mentored by Malcolm X, Ali converted to the Nation of Islam. In 1966 the requirements for draft eligibility changed and Ali was notified that he would be eligible to be drafted. He announced that he would refuse to serve in the US army as it was against his religious beliefs and applied for conscientious objector status. His application was denied and he was ordered to appear for induction to the US army in April of 1967. Although he did appear, he refused to step forward when his name was called. Immediately Ali’s boxing license was revoked and he was stripped of his title as heavyweight champion. He was convicted of the criminal offense of violating the selective service laws. He appealed his case and was allowed to remain free through the appellate process. Although he was barred from boxing, he began speaking out against the war around the country. By the time his case went before the supreme court, public opinion on the war had shifted and his case was overturned. Muhammad Ali was not only willing to resist authority but to put his entire life, career, and freedom on the line to stand up for his convictions. His actions had a major effect on public opinion and increasing pressure on politicians to end the war in Vietnam. 

Who do you follow?

You are probably given “orders” to follow multiple times a day. Your boss will ask you to complete certain tasks, customers may have requests of you, your family members may ask you to do chores, even following a recipe when you cook. You can never escape following orders, but you can make a point to be conscious of making following orders a secondary reason for the choices you make. Your boss may ask you to complete a task. You choose to follow through on it because you understand and agree with the vision of the company and feel like that task is in line with that vision as well as an efficient use of your time. It is important to practice measuring the small every day orders you follow against your personal ethics, so you are prepared and willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to uphold your principles when more serious situations arise. Is doing something you believe in more important than how much money you make? Is how much money you make more important than spending extra time with your family? 

The pull to blindly submit to authority is very strong and not only psychologically. There are oftentimes serious personal and professional consequences as well. What would it take to make you quit your job or risk getting fired? What lines, if crossed, would result in the ending of a personal relationship? It’s important to have clear boundaries in every personal and professional relationship, but these boundaries don’t come without consequences. It may not be as black and white as ending the relationship altogether, but deciding what is and is not worth fighting for requires serious talk and some negotiation. 

It’s easy to look back on the Holocaust, the Milgram experiment, and the Vietnam war and perhaps picture yourself on the right side of history, standing up to authority and refusing to harm your fellow human beings. Don’t make the mistake of believing yourself to be harmless. These were not anomalies in history, but examples of harnessing natural human nature into a force for catastrophic destruction. The benefit of hindsight makes things easy to recognize, but even today, we see praise for government agents separating families, imprisoning peaceful people, or even killing. Recognize this nature also lies within yourself and stay vigilant. Take responsibility for every thought, word, and action and never simply follow orders.

God Weeps for His Church

---

Biblical tradition has a way of hunting down and haunting the worst inclinations of people.  The prophets were bold enough to do this in real-time. Regardless of the character, biblical prophets gave necessary, albeit challenging, direction to God’s people.  Hosea, for example, went to such lengths to demonstrate God’s displeasure with Israel that he married a prostitute, “for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” He then named their subsequent children for God’s anger – “I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel,” “No Mercy,” and “Not my People.” Hosea goes on to conduct divorce proceedings with Israel on behalf of God, speaking to their idolatry, insolence, and deference to kings in place of the Lord, before God offers forgiveness for repentance.

Now, I'm no prophet.  I don't claim to have a word from God burning within me to reconcile His people to Him.  What I do have, like the prophets of old, is a hard word for American Christians. For too long, the Church - the body of Christ - has clung to ‘Ol’ Glory’ and the tenets of particular political parties instead of Christ Himself.  I find myself included in this group more often than I care to admit. 

In a political climate where ripping paper and shirking handshakes are business as usual, divisiveness and persuasion-polarization are nearing a fever pitch.  That's not to say this is the worst these United States have seen; we killed half a million of each other in a so-called "civil" war, we shot fire hoses and sent dogs on protestors for equity, we've survived the Great Depression and the Great Recession, 9/11, and the wars of Communist Containment and the Global War on Terror.  

Today, though, the discourse has shifted.  We aren't arguing ideologies; we're battling neighbor against neighbor over practically anything.  These aren't ethereal principles being advanced squarely in the political arena; this is the Colosseum with a line in the sand.  We want ever-more extravagant theatrics in place of debate, and we're all told to pick a side. This is progressivism in contemporary terms.  Every facet of life is political because every facet of life is due for examination with a federal lens. It is our duty as Christians to not only resist this basest urge but to divorce ourselves completely from it.  

Based on the latest Pew data, American Evangelicals and Mormons have an empirically Republican bent, while historically black Protestant churches are reliably Democrat supporters.  Both camps of political Christians have been resounding supporters of their most recent presidents, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama, respectively. Each report "ascribing a high-level of importance to their personal faith and say they participate in religious activities," yet the question is, 'where are the fruits?'

It doesn’t take a lot of time on the internet to find behaviors, statements, and policies from both parties and presidents that poorly represent Christ or make the country less safe for faith adherents.  To name a few:

• The bipartisan support of the federal domestic spying program.

• The seemingly never-ending wars of the Middle East.

• CIA torture program.

• The ever-growing list of governmental powers and its associated bloated budget. 

• The rampant and grisly drone program known world-wide for targeting weddings, funerals, and school buses full of children.

Many of the worst aspects of the American government are common ground for the political class.  Yet Christ-followers are not flooding the streets or rebuking these policies in any meaningful way.  Institutionally, the Church remains silent on much of this, instead choosing only to affirm social issues they deem worthy.

Instead, conservative Christians attempt to justify war crimes, the pardoning of war criminals, torture, despotic immigration measures, and a record-setting military budget on Christian grounds.  Conversely, liberal Christians can be found publicly supporting abortion, questions on marriage and ‘social justice,’ and turning a blind eye to the same foreign policy atrocities as their counterparts. 

This phenomenon isn't just misguided theology.  It is the worst aspect of an increasingly partisan and growing state apparatus that intrudes upon all aspects of life and therefore necessitates picking a political team. Some refer to it as mere tribalism, that peoples' tendency to organize along "in-group" lines manifests in such ugly ways.  Christians, though, should see the political process for what it is in our terms: idolatry. 

Throughout Hosea – and within the rest of the prophetic and historical books of the Bible, beginning in 1 Samuel 8 – God's anger is directed at this very inclination in His people.  The Israelite's belief in man-made social organization, be it rulers or erudite policymaking, to usher in God's will for them was a great offense to God. It was hubris to think kings could establish a utopian vision of peaceful coexistence in love-filled communities while subduing the earth.   But it wasn’t only pride, rather, a direct repudiation of God’s order. Creation wasn't to hand the reins of control to man, but rather an invitation to ride along in the cart while God led the way. 

Historically, liberal Christians, particularly those in the black community, are motivated by injustice when picking political sides.  Yet injustice continues, even within the ranks of the Democratic party, it is often perpetrated directly upon the poor and minority communities they claim to support.  Abortions, draconian laws, the separating of families for non-violent crimes, oppressive police states, and hefty tax burdens are all foisted upon these folks by the very representatives they vote into office.

On the other hand, conservatives have tended toward traditional means of governance, including ‘original intent’ within Constitutional ‘exegesis,’ to preserve the liberty to worship and the values of Christianity.  Yet, the blood of innocence cries out from the earth, spilled from regulators and warmongers lurking in DC these very Christians are frothing to support. The Christian Evangelical movement is wholly distorted by red-faced bluster about patriotism and ‘walking with a big stick,’ moot principles for those meant to inherit this earth.  

As flags were unfurled and hearts were covered, American Christians should have been the first to take a knee.  Not for one particular issue, but for the glory of God. There is no functional difference between the statue of Nebuchadnezzar and the monuments American's hold dear.  The worship of the golden calf and the obsequious praise of the stars and stripes are one and the same. What’s worse, Christ-followers aren’t being threatened with the lion’s den, but worship stone and paper joyfully.

Brothers and sisters, resist the urge to venerate troops or the framed-faces of presidents adorning our walls.  Sing your songs not to cloth and stone but to God’s glory, and refuse to pledge your allegiance to any king but Christ. For we are called to be set apart from unbelievers for God’s sake, not to be unrecognizable in the crowd of faces seeking man’s direction.

Contributors

John Dangelo is a Christian, husband, father and full-time emergency room nurse.  As a former Marine Corps veteran, John writes about the relationship of Christians and the state, foreign policy, and has been featured with antiwar.com.  You can follow his blog and Instagram at antiwarwarvet.com and @antiwarwarvet.