24 Jun 2012

There Are Christian Anarchists

Drug War, private law, Religious 50 Comments

This is going to be a brief post since I have been traveling all day, coming back from Porcfest (which was awesome, by the way, but more on that as the video becomes available).

Anyway, while at Porcfest I was chatting with an economics colleague, and she said that someone at dinner was stunned to learn that she was both a Christian and not a fan of the State. Now I don’t know if this particular colleague calls herself an anarchist, but she for sure is against drug prohibition and the U.S. government’s foreign wars, and at the very least she is very familiar with, and sympathetic to, the writings of people like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman on free-market anarchy.

(Now even though I wrote a pamphlet in grad school sketching a vision of how a free market could handle the provision of judicial and defense services, I don’t call myself an “anarchist” anymore. However, that is mostly me being pedantic, and wanting to distinguish myself from a lot of self-described anarchists who feel that authority per se is bad, and don’t like “anyone telling me what to do.” Since I worship and follow King Jesus, it seems weird for me to call myself an anarchist on that score.)

But back to the main point: I actually think evangelical Christians are a ripe demographic for understanding the ideal of a Stateless society. God warned the Israelites not to submit to an earthly king, and His warnings were spot-on. Indeed, for those of you who are skeptical of my claim here, skim (or better yet, read carefully) this page. I found it just by googling “god warns against king” and this was the top hit that had a URL suggesting to me it was written by someone who actually believes this stuff.

Notice that it’s not merely God warning the Israelites that the king will lay heavy burdens on them, taking their sons into war, etc. It also explains how Israel was “governed” before kings, via judges. Check this out:

c. What was the difference between a king and a judge? A judge was a leader raised up by God, usually to meet a specific need in a time of crisis. When the crisis was over, usually the judge just went back to doing what he was doing before. A king not only held his office as king as long as he lived; he also passed his throne down to his descendants.

i. In addition, a judge would not have a “government.” He was there to meet a specific need in a time of crisis. A king would establish a standing government, with a bureaucracy, which is both a blessing and a curse to any people.

ii. In Judges 8, Gideon was offered the throne over Israel. He refused it, saying “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you; the LORD shall rule over you.” (Judges 8:23) This was the heart of all the judges, and why Israel went some 400 years in the Promised Land without a king.

Now I need to be honest, the guy who wrote the above almost certainly is NOT an advocate of dissolving the coercive State apparatus. He earlier argues that there was nothing wrong with wanting a king per se. (I think he is overreaching on that point, but I’m not going to go into that now.) At the very least, though, you can see how Bible-believing Christians don’t need to look to Iceland for an idea of how a Stateless world could work.

50 Responses to “There Are Christian Anarchists”

  1. Marc says:

    There is a frequent caller to Free Talk Live who self describes as “Gene, the Christian Anarchist.”

    He also has a Corvette that is a driving advertisement for Ron Paul, lol.

  2. Cory says:

    My favorite Christian anarchist, and I think the first authority on the subject in the modern times, was Leo Tolstoy. The Kingdom of God is Within You is perhaps one of the greatest treatises on the state and the peace-loving Christian that there is. Google it. It’s free on line. His other books on Christian anarchy are available, as well.

  3. Cory says:

    And yes, by Leo Tolstoy, I mean the author of War & Peace and Anna Karenina

  4. Kontrarian says:

    Awesome article. I am a Christian and an anarchist. The idea that some how these are polar opposite has always bothered me. In an attempt to address this I have recently started my own website (shameless plug) and posted a link to this article (hope you don’t mind). As Christians, we need to talk to our brothers in Christ and convince them that voluntarism is the only “political” view that can be reconciled with Jesus’ teachings.

  5. Watoosh says:

    I’m somewhat worried that the combination of love Jesus & hate the state often manifests itself as some form of Christian Reconstructionism. Anyone can find a reason to resist big government when it suits them (especially when there’s a black Arab Muslim-atheist Maoist-Marxist-fascist illegal immigrant in the office). The problem is that even if someone is both a devout Christian and deep enough in the rabbit hole to question the necessity of a state, they might not be in it for the same reasons as libertarians are.


    I’m not saying it’s a requirement for evangelical Christian anarchists to believe in literal Biblical law, but enough people believe so to make me concerned.

    • Carrie says:

      I’m late to this thread, but thanks for posting this.

      Looking a bit closer, one also discovers that even some of those affiliated with the “libertarian” movement are using the idea of religious liberty as a cover to ultimately institute theocracy:

      From Gary North:

      So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. […] God’s law will be enforced.


      The defense of Christian education today is therefore schizophrenic. The defenders argue that there is no neutral education, yet they use the modem doctrine of religious liberty to defend themselves — a doctrine which relies on the myth of neutrality in order to sustain itself. As a tactic, it is legitimate; we are jockeying for power. We are buying time. But anyone who really believes in the modern doctrine of religious liberty has no option but to believe in some variant of the myth of neutrality. Those who have abandoned the latter view should also abandon the former.

      Source: http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/CC_1-40.html


      The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant – baptism and holy communion – must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.


      Paul made it clear: there can be no permanent covenantal reconciliation between the Christian and the non-Christian. One or the other must forsake his covenant vows. This has to apply to the civil covenant, for it is one of God’s three designated covenantal institutions. The leaven of righteousness fills the political arena and thereby replaces the leaven of unrighteousness. Replacement is the goal, not long-term co-operation.

      Source: http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnpp/GNPP-109.html

  6. Lord Keynes says:

    And yet you ignore the fundamental passages in the New Testament about the state.

    Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.” (Romans 13.1–7).

    “For the sake of the Lord, submit to every human institution, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority or to governors, as sent by him to punish evildoers and to praise those who do good.” (1 Peter 2:13-14).

    • Kontrarian says:

      It is unwise to not look at scripture in it’s entirety when addressing issues like this. Boy do the statist love to go straight to Romans 13 and forget about the rest of the Bible or what Jesus taught us through his actions.

      Jesus submitted himself to the cross. I think we all submit to the proverbial guns you are pointing at us right now. Jesus chose to lay his life down, government had no authority over him, he is the King of kings. Likewise, the government has no authority over me, yet I submit to their guns.



      This issue has been addressed many times before.
      Look, if someone is going to steal money, which they issued, from you at gun point, just give it back to them.
      But if you think Jesus, if he was alive during the draft, would have submitted himself to the state and killed people in a foreign land for geopolitical reasons, you have a skewed view of Christianity.

      • Lord Keynes says:

        “It is unwise to not look at scripture in it’s entirety when addressing issues like this.”

        (1) That’s actually what Murphy does in this post.

        (2) You ignore the very clear words: “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.” So was Paul lying here? Did he get it wrong?
        If so, you’ve admitted there are passages in the Bible not inspired by god, and thus the whole Christian edifice comes crashing down, for now you can’t really know what passages are “inspired” and which are not.

        (3) anyway, in the end, I am not religious, so whatever pathetic rationalizations Christian libertarians make certainly don’t settle anything about government or state interventions.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          “anyway, in the end, I am not religious, so whatever pathetic rationalizations Christian libertarians make certainly don’t settle anything about government or state interventions.”

          Neither has a single one of your blog posts.

          Actually no, they have. They have shown the economic destructiveness, and immorality, of state interventions.

        • The Economical Engineer says:

          If I may, your bolded words are rather clear. There is NO authority that exists, besides which was instituted by God. I wholeheartedly agree with Romans 13; AND I believe the State is evil and needs to be disposed of. I do not believe that to be a contradiction. The authorities – that we as Anarchists oppose – view those authorities as usurpers do we not? Their authority is illegitimate. Just because God instituted all authority, doesn’t mean that Man can’t usurp that authority for evil. Christians believe God created every Man as well, but that doesn’t mean that Man can’t corrupt what was originally good. Short synopsis for something that requires more space, hope it makes sense.

          • Tel says:

            So if you are successful in smashing the state, then presumably God must be OK with that, and it’s all part of his master plan.

            Then again, if you try to smash the state and die in the effort then God must be OK with the state as it is, and that’s also part of his master plan.

            So the theory of Evolution says that it works by survival of the fittest, and it also says that we know which ones are fittest because they are the ones that survived. All a bit circular.

            What would be really useful is if either God or Evolution would tell you what’s going to happen before you go and find out the hard way. That’s what I’d like to see.

        • Kontrarian says:

          In reply to (2), these are not contradictions. Paul is saying we should submit, that doesn’t mean you are to approve or condone. When you read the Bible, you know that the heart of the king is in God’s hand, whether he is good or wicked. So we should submit to wicked rulers in submission to God. If submitting to a wicked ruler crosses submitting to God, then you do not. There are many such stories like this in the Bible, going all the way back to Moses and Pharaoh or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Taxes and revenue are trivial things to true Christians because we lay are treasures above and God will always provide for us, even if taxed 99% of out income. That does not mean that Christians condone taxation, we just submit.

        • John@EconEngineer says:

          I’m going to have to disagree with you a bit Kontrarian. Though due to extended nesting I’m responding to Lord Keynes here instead.

          Christian’s emphasize “Paul is saying we should submit” way too much, and don’t emphasize “If submitting to a wicked ruler crosses submitting to God, then you do not.”. The thing is, nearly all aspects of the State are against Gods laws. So, as ones maturity and understanding of God’s Law grows, the need to submit to the State’s laws lessen.

        • Cory says:

          I disagree. The “whole Christian edifice” is not reliant on the entirety of the Bible being accurate or inspired by God or whatever. For some Christians, that may be the case. But, for those who are inspired by the words of Jesus as presented by his flawed and not-well-taught disciples, one can hear his message through the noise of competing philosophies. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, take no oaths, etc. All these things deny the power of the state and its authorities. If God demands submission to the authorities, including taking their oaths and hating their enemies, then God is a hypocrite. If anything, it’s the edifice of the Bible that crashes down when Jesus’ message is allowed to be subsumed in the noise of the rest of the biblical rabble.

          I’d much rather hear Christian rationalizations than Keynesian rationalizations. The former is far less tortured and painful, though both philosophies are run by a priestly class that attempts to prevent heresy.

    • Nathan says:

      Bob touched on this in a past post already: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/01/the-first-of-several-posts-on-roman-13.html

      Obviously, it makes sense that God advises people to not riot against the government and make trouble. There was a reason for the passage. People saw that the apostles were teaching that all were equal before God. They didn’t want Christians to make trouble. How long do you think Christianity would have lasted if every slave ran away and Christians started rioting against the government?

    • Major_Freedom says:

      You ignore the fundamental fact that the bible contains many passages that are mutually inconsistent, which means one can cherry pick whatever they want out of the bible and claim that their beliefs are consistent with “the bible.”

      Pointing out passages that are inconsistent with someone’s referencing of one passage in the bible is as futile as would be pointing out passages in Keynes’ “General Theory” that are inconsistent with someone’s referencing of one passage in the General Theory.

      One person can claim that savings are identical with investment, while another person can claim that savings are not necessarily identical with investment, and yet both are making claims entirely consistent with passages in The General Theory.

      One person can claim that “aggregate income” means the full value of output, while another can claim that “aggregate income” means only that part of output which is not required to make up for capital consumption, and yet both can claim that they are making statements entirely consistent with passages in The General Theory. – See K. Ormazabal (2003)


      Regarding Keynes’ beliefs throughout his life, a pro laissez-faire economist can cite Keynes as his inspiration:

      “I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago.” – J.M. Keynes, 10 days before his death

      while an anti-laissez-faire internet pundit such as yourself can cite Keynes for your inspiration for rejecting it (by citing the younger Keynes).


      You of all people should understand it when someone cites an idea or passage from an internally contradictory text.

  7. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, it seems to me that you would reject the authority even of the Judges of ancient Israel, even in the Bible it says pretty clearly that God supported their authority. Or are you willing to accept the authority of those with a divinemy granted right to rule?

  8. Keshav Srinivasan says:

    Bob, it seems to me that you would reject the authority even of the Judges of ancient Israel, even in the Bible it says pretty clearly that God supported their authority. Or are you willing to accept the authority of those with a divinemy granted right to rule?

    • Nathan says:

      The Jewish people were obviously a lot different than what we have today. Christians relationship to God is completely different than what the Jews had so your point is mostly irrelevant.

  9. joeftansey says:

    More generally, christians should be open to taking deontology seriously.

    I think that they don’t.

    Also this is from the OT, so, something something shellfish and polyester blends.

  10. RPLong says:

    As time goes on, I get less interested in anarchy vs. minarchy and more interested in individualism vs. collectivism.

    I think Murphy is correct that it’s easy to envision a Christian anarchist. On the other hand, I’m not sure I could accurately envision a Christian individualist no matter how hard I tried.

    Not that one is better than the other. I mean, I have my preferences, but of course everyone else does, too. That’s what having a belief system is all about.

    What I am most surprised by in this post is: Now even though I wrote a pamphlet in grad school sketching a vision of how a free market could handle the provision of judicial and defense services, I don’t call myself an ‘anarchist’ anymore.”

    • Paul says:

      What is your definition of individualist? I consider myself both a Christian and an individualist. To me, individualism is the idea that the responsibility of any decision is ultimately born by the individual rather than the group. I don’t see how this contradicts Christianity unless you hold the belief that God will save based on group association.

      • RPLong says:

        That’s fair enough. I accept that by your definition, one can be a Christian and an individualist.

        My definition is something more along the lines of what Rand had in mind when she argued against collectivism, or what Mises had in mind when he wrote that “All collectivist doctrines are harbingers of irreconcilable hatred and war to the death.”

        • Major_Freedom says:

          The expanded quote from Mises:

          “Collectivism, in fact, can be stated in no other way than as partisan dogma in which the commitment to a definite ideal and the condemnation of all others are equally necessary. Loyola did not preach just any faith, but that of the Church of Rome. Lagarde did not advocate nationalism, but what he regarded as German nationalism. Church, nation, state in abstracto are concepts of nominalistic science. The collectivists idolize only the one true church, only the “great” nation—the “chosen” people who have been entrusted by Providence with a special mission—only the true state; everything else they condemn.

          “For that reason all collectivist doctrines are harbingers of irreconcilable hatred and war to the death.”

    • Deep_Thinker says:

      Actually, a Christian individualist is easy to envision.

      You just have to understand that when individuals pursue their own self-interest (individualism), it actually benefits everyone.

      I assume that you are referring to selfishness being unchristian. However, if that were the case, then free market theory would cease to exist.

    • Ben Kennedy says:

      Someone above mentioned Tolstoy. In Tolstoy’s worldview, individualism/collectivism are the two predecessor states to Christianity, which is his “divine conception of life” – from The Kingdom of God is Within You, chapter 4:

      “The man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in the family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government), but in the eternal undying source of life–in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family and social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his religion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of the whole–God.”

      Of course, Tolstoy is by no means representative of typical Christian thought – but he definitely asserted he was neither an individualist or a collectivist

      • Cory says:

        And yet, Tolstoy never got away from speaking of the individual. Only the individual can make the motor power of his to be love. No collective can do that for any member of the collective. It is true that one who has that pure joy of being one with God and living fully in the present will appear, to the layman, to have lost any sense of individuality. That is a state that can only be attained by an individual.

        Collectives cannot tolerate such individualistic pursuits except in those collectives where that is the express goal, such as a monastery. Even then, politics often hold sway.

  11. Deep_Thinker says:

    I love how the bible passages quoted above are arguments in favor of the state. Any Biblical scholar knows that you have to look in different places in the BIble for any one verse or small set of verses to be complete. The verses quoted above have been translated many times, and if you look back at the originals paint a much different picture. Furthermore, even in the new translations it is obvious that “the authority” is set up only to punish those who do evil. What is evil? Evil is not drinking raw milk, smoking a joint etc… Our rulers don’t have absolute power to criminalize anything they want.

    Furthermore, using the BIble as evidence in favor of the state is an appeal to the divine. God has given us logic and reason to use. That logic and reason points to our current “authority” being evil. Remember, Jesus was born and immediately was taken out of the country, in defiance of the King. He also was put to death as a “criminal”.

    The verses above simply say that God is in control of all, and we can’t take those verses and agree that the authority in that time (when justice was typically done by the locals) is the same as it is now..

    • eleemacfall says:

      Furthermore, it’s completely absurd to assume that Paul had been given the moral authority to add to the commandments Christ himself had given us

      Christ himself made no commandments regarding obedience to the state. The tribute episode is often interpreted as one, but that interpretation completely misses the point of the episode. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s” was a rhetorical response to a challenge to Christ’s rabbinic authority. And as with all such instances, his response to the challenge was intended as a rebuke against the Pharisees, NOT as a moral commandment. In that particular case it was a rebuke for bringing the graven image of a man who claimed to be the son of a god (Tibereus Caesar) into the Temple.

      Paul’s advice to the early church can only properly be construed as just that – advice. It is a massively unfounded assumption to believe that Paul had the divine authority to make moral commandments applying to all people at all times. His writings were an attempt to apply the morality of Christ to specific instances. Christ tells us to love our enemies; Paul tells the Roman church to be at peace with the state under which they lived. Good advice, but by no means a universal commandment to do whatever corrupt pretenders to godhood (which is all that politicians are) tell you to do.

  12. Stephen says:

    Actually, I think being religions and an anarcho-capitalist is inconsistent. To arrive at the idea of anarcho-capitalism you must use rationalism. The same rationalism used to disprove that there is a god.

  13. James says:


    Let’s use the term “mainstream view” to refer to the belief that God established governments, that opposition to governments is opposition to what God has established, and that Christians are obligated to obey governments except in the case that the orders of a government require sin.

    Now I’m sure you’ve seen Romans 13: “The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    But for whatever reason, this doesn’t convince you that the mainstream view is correct. Is there any set of words such that if those words were scripture, you would agree with the mainstream view?

    • eleemacfall says:

      It is only recently the “mainstream view” that Paul’s letters of advice should be considered to have the same moral authority as the words of Christ Himself. The mainstream view is therefore less likely to be correct, as it is a new (properly, heretical) belief.

  14. David Friedman says:

    “God warned the Israelites not to submit to an earthly king”

    That’s a little tricky. Samuel warned the Israelites about what a king would do. He did it after praying to God and getting a response much less specific than his warnings.

    As you may know, opinion among Jewish scholars on the interpretation of that passage was mixed, with one side arguing that it implied that kings were authorized to do all of the things that Samuel offered as evidence of why one should not have a king. I’m told that both sides of that argument appear in the Talmud, and the argument that the passage authorized kings to do those things shows up in later Jewish legal scholarship as a justification for lawmaking by communal authorities, seen as inheriting the authority of the kings of Israel.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Dr. Friedman thanks for your perspective. I never heard that aspect of it, so I will think about what you said and try to be more nuanced when discussing this in the future.

    • Stephan Jerde says:

      “Samuel warned the Israelites about what a king would do. He did it after praying to God and getting a response much less specific than his warnings.”Right. God’s response was that the desire for a king was an outright rejection of Him, that to choose to give a mortal man dominion was to renounce God and his rule. (1 Samuel 8)

      Samuel then basically restates what Moses warned in Deuteronomy 17.

      • Stephan Jerde says:

        That was ( 1 Samuel 8 ) Putting the end paren right up against the 8 evidently says to put the smiley at the beginning of line?

  15. Luther says:

    I would call myself a Christian anarcho-capitalist and find them perfectly consistent in philosophy. But I readily submit to the authority of existing government as it is applied to myself and my family (with the exception of any act that the state would force me to commit that conflicts with God’s law). I will, however, point out the anti-Christian practices of pro-statists (theft, murder, covetousness) and advocate for greater economic and civil liberty. As an elected city official I will also continue to vote against enlargements of the state and FOR reductions in its scope and intensity. I will do that again at tonight’s city council meeting.

  16. Marc says:

    “For the sake of the Lord, submit to every human institution, whether to the emperor as the supreme authority or to governors, as sent by him to punish evildoers and to praise those who do good.” (1 Peter 2:13-14).

    Your religion = fail as a matter of political economy.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Is there any religion that doesn’t fail in this respect?

  17. Deep_Thinker says:

    Is Taxation theft? If it is, then how can the Bible have a commandment against theft, but at the same time say that authorities have the right to engage in it?

    Is murder a sin against the commandments? How can the authorities be doing “the right thing” by the endless wars they engage in?

    Some will try to rationalize the behavior of the state.. However, it is clear that the authorities have stepped far outside of even a Biblical authority (if you believe in such things) that was given to them.

    Every passage about authority on this Earth is very clear on two points. 1) Authority is not specific as being government. It could mean a private party authority, which is compatible with anarcho-capitalism. 2) That authorities are only set up to punish evil. What is evil? I think the Bible is very much in line with the Non-Aggression principle.

    So while some may choose to “obey” the government in every law it passes, I can’t see how they are being consistent at all.. Some say when God’s law and man’s law conflict, they follow God’s law. Fine, but do you pay your taxes? Isn’t that theft? Don’t your taxes go to fund murders across the globe? Where are the principles that seem to be lost among religious political observers?

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Is Taxation theft? If it is, then how can the Bible have a commandment against theft, but at the same time say that authorities have the right to engage in it?

      The same reason Keynes’ “General Theory” has passages that state aggregate income is the value of total output, whereas other passages state that aggregate income is that part of total output not used up in capital, with the sole difference being The General Theory was written by one person.

      • Deep_Thinker says:

        I do agree that taxation is theft – 100%.

        But the general theory wasn’t translated X number of times either. If we go far back enough, the meaning and context of these Biblical passages is different and usually more consistent.

        Many justify taxation (theft), redistribution, wars etc.. by religion. An appeal to the divine that cannot be proven. “God has given me the right….” etc.. It’s rubbish. The Bible teaches property rights. It talks about the land of the Jews, about giving to God what is Gods and Caesar what is Caesars. (which many falsely interpret to mean taxation when in fact it was a witty answer against those trying to trick Jesus.)

        In the Bible, is also talks about Jesus telling his disciples to pay a tax when they enter a town – so as not to offend them.. Not as a compulsory action.

        We come to a point where one might say that taxation is ok according to the Bible. Well, what if the tax rate is 100%? Is that still ok? I personally think that if we find an inconsistency in the Bible, then we are misinterpreting some of the passages either due to ignorance, or bad translations.

        • MamMoTh says:

          What does Deep stand for?

          • Anonymous says:

            To you, it’s where Mosler is in you.

            • MamMoTh says:

              And what does Anonymous stand for, major [coward–edited by RPM]?

  18. Anonymous says:

    If God Says Civil Government is Oppressive, Haughty, and Abusive; Why Do Religious Institutions Promote It Anyway?


  19. Brian Shelley says:

    I’m a Christian Anarchist as well. If you click on my name you’ll find a few blog posts I wrote that are very in support of Christian Anarchy. Haven’t been updated it recently, but last time I read them I had no problem with them.

  20. cavalier973 says:

    Not only did Samuel give that kick-tail speech about what having a king would mean for Israel, God destroyed their crops with a big storm for doing so. No, I think it’s clear that God doesn’t like the State.

    Romans 13 makes it clear that Christians are not to engage in violent insurrection, but I do not see that it ever mandates that there must be a government. For example, if a ship wrecks on a deserted island, then the survivors aren’t required to set up a government to meet some sort of Biblical requirement.

    I agree with Robert Murphy that there are sources of authority apart from the state; the difference is that they do not wield coercive power. One’s Family, one’s Church, one’s employer are all examples of authority figures in one’s life. When one goes onto another’s property, in a sense he places himself under the owner’s authority. If one refuses to obey the authority of these various groups, the only legitimate power these sources of authority have to retaliate is to ostracise; that is, to expel one from the property.

Leave a Reply