Christian Anarchism

I have struggled to find out how to describe myself and my position. I do not chime very well with David Haywards Christian Atheism style - that would seem to be the opposite of what I have done and where I am, because I am not rejecting God in any form. Yes, even the oppressive forms that I no longer find helpful or positive I still believe represent some part of God - maybe just one I cannot yet understand.

I was reading my copy of Geez magazine, which is an excellent resource for challenging Christian thought, and I realised that a form of Christian Anarchism is much closer to where I am. Of course, I cannot just take a title and leave it at that, I need to define it rather better for myself.

The problem is that anarchism has a bad name - it is seen and used as a synonym for violent, destructive acts and people. Whenever there are riots, it is the "anarchists" who are so often blamed for the smashing of stuff and the aggression towards the police. The truth is, I suspect, that they re scapegoated, and used as a justification for police force, but that is not my theme here. The point is, they have deliberately been used as a label for destructive forces in our society.

But I am not destructive. I am not out to destroy anything, at least not by violence. I am happy to destroy the edifices that have been erected in the name of Christianity, where they are oppressive. I am happy to destroy the ideas that people are forced to accept, against their rational minds, because this is what Christian belief says. But I am not out to smash churches up, or destroy peoples beliefs.

The other side of Anarchy, and especially Christian Anarchy, is that it seems to be strongly associated with a left-wing political perspective. Now, this is a natural connection, a rejection of authority marries very well with a rejection of the capitalist ideal. However, to associate with any form of political position is, it seems, to weaken the anarchist perspective, to accept that one political ideology is better than another is not anarchic, it is just revolutionary. Anarchism is about rejecting all political and structural answers - which means, conversely, accepting people who hold any positions.

Anarchy, in a true or literal sense, is about a rejection of externally imposed rule. For me, this mean a rejection of any systems having an authority to tell me how to be a Christian. It does not mean that  reject God as one whom I willingly submit to, and whose authority I accept. It does not mean that I reject the Bible - I don;t, I accept the Bible as a divinely inspired word to me. What I do reject is other people telling me what God is or is like, or how I should behave to him. I do reject people telling me how to interpret the Bible, what is actually means. I will listen, I will hear, and I might accept, but I do not accept that anyone has the authority to tell me how to run my relationship with God.

Somewhere along the line, if I don't take responsibility for this myself, then in what sense is it a relationship, in what sense am I a Christian, if my faith is totally defined by what other people say it is?

The point it about necessity, and freedom. It is not about destroying, it is about saying that church is not necessary for Christian faith. If you find it helpful or positive, then that is fine, but insisting on it is not. Similarly, insisting on a particular biblical interpretation means that you are limiting Gods revelation to one very narrow route. It may be a useful one, but there are others too, and others may be valid. It means that you and I have the freedom to engage with and experience God however we want, and however we find the most productive and useful.

Isn't this dangerous? Of course. That is part of the fun of it. If we are to take responsibility, we also need to take responsibility for keep in touch with others, for keeping ourselves going in the right direction. It means taking responsibility for exploring new dimensions of faith ourselves, drawing on the resources that are available, and being guided but not directed by them. It means not relying on others to interpret and understand the world around us, but doing it ourselves, doing theological exploration ourselves. Maybe it means working with others who want to explore the same sort of areas too.

If I were to relate it to music, I think anarchism is very often related to punk - so often violent, expressly anti-establishment, and so easy to define it as seeking to undermine the entire establishment. Which, in theory at least, it was. However my understanding of it is much closer to the dance revolution, the music I like and enjoy, which is a different form of anarchism. It is no longer anti-establishment, it is simply saying we don't need the establishment. The thing is the experience, here and now, not the record companies, the clubs, the "system". When you can put together music in your bedroom, when you can get it played to thousands over the internet, when you - a single individual - can take charge, and say that the "system" is not required, that is a far more sinister threat than the punk approach of smashing the establishment.

A Christian Anarchism which does not seek to destroy the existing way of doing things - if people find this helpful, then who am I to argue - but instead seeks to say "however, it is not necessary" this is a real threat to people who are heavily invested in the system.

This is Christian Anarchism. Not destructive, violent and nihilistic. But uplifting, freeing and exciting. Well I think so, at least.