Part II - The Christian Anarchist Response

Chapter 4 - Responding to the State

Having outlined the many Christian anarchist criticisms of the state, it is now time to explore the proposed response to the state’s contemporary prominence.[1] That response is made of two fairly distinguishable concerns: how to respond to and interact with the state; and how to build an alternative, stateless society. That is, on the one hand, Christian anarchists have to work out a way in which to interact with the prominent state, a modus vivendi that honours Jesus’ teaching; and on the other, they have to exemplify the Christian alternative to it, to embody and to thereby demonstrate the possibility of the sort of stateless community life which they understand Jesus to be calling them to. The former is the subject of this Chapter; the latter, of the next.

This Chapter’s focus on the Christian anarchist response to the state brings to the fore two important New Testament passages which have been deliberately omitted so far: Paul’s instructions to the Christians in Rome that they “be subject unto higher powers,” and Jesus’ saying about rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Both passages are often seen as problematic for Christian anarchism since they appear to contradict its basic proposition - after all, do they not clearly instruct Christians to concentrate on spiritual matters, to submit to the authority of the state, and to let the state and its politicians deal with political affairs? Also, there are substantial disagreements among Christian anarchists on how to approach these passages - are not these disagreements further confirmation that their interpretation is mistaken? By considering a wide range of Christian anarchist writings, this Chapter suggests a negative answer to both these questions. That is, despite some real differences, a generic and not too incoherent Christian anarchist interpretation (or set of interpretations) can be sketched out according to which these passages do instruct Christians to stay out of state politics, but they imply an indifference to the state that is peculiarly subversive. For Christian anarchists, this Chapter therefore shows, it is the standard interpretation of these passages that turns out to be false and dishonest.

The first section of this Chapter discusses Romans 13, looking at Christian anarchists’ opinion of Paul, at their actual exegesis of the passage, and then at what they make of similar passages elsewhere in the New Testament. In the second section, the two instances where Jesus is giving advice on payment of taxes are interpreted from a Christian anarchist perspective: first the “render unto Caesar” passage from Mark 12, then the curious recommendation about collecting the temple tax from the mouth of a fish, from Matthew 17. The third section then outlines the divergent Christian anarchist positions on civil disobedience: the case against it, the case for it, and the paramount importance of obeying God whatever the case may be. The fourth section then lists a few examples of what Christian anarchists argue to be appropriate responses to the state’s demands, such as on elections, on taxes, and on military conscription. The fifth and final section then considers the Christian anarchist rejection of any violent revolutionary methods in response to the state, and the related conviction that real change can only come about by example rather than by force.

4.1 - Paul’s letter to Roman Christians, chapter 13

In his study of New Testament passages relevant to the state, Penner summarises the conventional view when he asserts that “The most elaborate and specific body of teaching in the New Testament on the Christian’s relation to the state is Romans 13,” where Paul writes the following:[2]

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.[3]

Of course, this book argues - as Penner does - that many other passages in the New Testament have inherent implications for the state, but Romans 13 is probably the one with the most explicit reference to it. A few other scattered verses which have been omitted so far also refer directly to the state in a similar vein, but as noted in more detail below, what they say is largely encompassed by Romans 13. As a result, as Eller puts it, a thinker’s “handling of Romans 13 (along with Mark 12) is the litmus test” of his Christian anarchism.[4]

Mainstream theologians have made the most of this passage to legitimise the church’s support of the state. Ellul thus claims that “the official church since Constantine has consistently based almost its entire ‘theology of the state’ on Romans 13 and parallel texts in Peter’s epistles.”[5] Based on Romans 13, establishment theologians have argued that Christians ought to submit to state authorities, even to wield the sword when these request it, because God clearly intends the state to be his main tool to preserve social order and stability - in other words, that the state is sanctified by God, and that Christians should welcome that and collaborate with the state. For many Christian anarchists, however, such an interpretation betrays the subtle meaning of this passage. It does not take its context into account, and anyway, it leaves the church with the difficulty of dealing with the “embarrassment” of “tyrants.”[6] Once again, therefore, Christian anarchists are suspicious of traditional exegeses, and instead, they articulate an alternative interpretation of their own.

4.1.1 - Paul’s weaknesses

Before this alternative interpretation can be outlined, it is important to note that Paul himself is also viewed with suspicion by some Christian anarchists.

For a start, several Christian anarchists note that Paul himself did not always submit to Roman authorities, and they demonstrate this by listing his many recorded acts of disobedience. Redford even remarks that Paul proudly cites his punishments for such disobedience as proof of his commitment to Jesus.[7] Was Paul guilty of “evil works”? Was he not doing “that which is good” by spreading the good news? Why then did he incur the “wrath” of rulers? It would seem that either Paul did not abide by his own pronouncement, or that what he meant in Romans 13 must be slightly different to what he is traditionally interpreted to have meant.

Either way, some Christian anarchists also make the point that Christians ought in the first instance to follow Jesus, not Paul, since unlike Jesus, “The apostles can err in their acts.”[8] Indeed, for Tolstoy, the church’s “deviation” from Jesus’ teaching begins precisely with Paul.[9] Hence both Tolstoy and Hennacy (who was strongly influenced by Tolstoy) frankly dislike Paul and see him as at best confusing Jesus’ message, at worst betraying it. As to Elliott, he contends that Paul’s advice to submit to authorities was informed by his “expectation of Christ’s imminent return.”[10] For him, Paul advised submission because he mistakenly expected “the present order” to be soon “swept away.”[11] The “tragedy,” he argues, is that for the church, Paul’s instruction “takes precedence over the witness of Jesus.”[12] For Christian anarchists like Tolstoy, Hennacy and Elliott, therefore, Jesus is the important teacher, and Paul is just an erring follower who has been given too much kudos by the tradition. Beyond this, these particular Christian anarchists have little else to say on Romans 13.

Not all Christian anarchists, however, dislike Paul or view him with such suspicion. Some point out that he seems to be edging towards anarchism when he says that for Christians, “there is no law.”[13] Others remember his advice to contend against the principalities and powers (examined in Chapter 2). Others still try to defend him against allegations that he sought protection from the state - obviously anathema to any genuine anarchist. Either way, not all Christian anarchists see Paul as a traitor. Several try to make sense of Romans 13 rather than reject it outright as dishonest and inauthentic. Their resulting exegesis, they argue, actually ends up paradoxically confirming rather than contradicting the Christian anarchist position.

4.1.2 - The Christian anarchist exegesis: subversive subjection

One Christian anarchist interpretation of Romans 13, posited by Redford, is to argue that this is an “ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection.”[14] For him, Romans 13 must not be interpreted literally because Paul is not speaking his true mind (partly for reasons mentioned in the next paragraph). Similar arguments have been made by others: Timothy Carter, for instance, suggests that Paul is using the “classic ironic technique of blaming by apparent praise.”[15] He sees Paul’s apparent reverence for authorities as “deeply subversive” because of this “ironic edge.”[16] Both Carter and Redford point to examples of Paul disobeying authorities as proof of him not really meaning for Christians to obey. Such interpretations of Romans 13, however, can - rightly or wrongly - sound more like justifications to brush the text aside than patient attempts to grapple with it and give it a real chance.

Yet both Redford and Carter also note something that several other Christian anarchists take note of as well: Paul’s letter is addressed to the Christian community in Rome - the very heart of the Roman empire. It is written at a time when Christians are already being persecuted across that empire. For several Christian anarchists, therefore, Paul is deliberately very cautious in his wording, as his letter could easily be used by Roman authorities as a pretext to step up this persecution. Hence for some Christian anarchists, Paul’s advice is largely “pragmatic rather than philosophical:”[17] by submitting to the authorities’ wishes, Roman Christians might be able to develop good relations with their persecutors and thereby avoid further conflict. Thus, the historical context of Romans 13 is important to pay attention to. It helps explain why Paul would have deliberately addressed - in this letter - the question of Christians’ relations to the authorities in the first place, and indeed even perhaps why he may have opted for that “rhetorical misdirection” or “irony” alleged by Redford and Carter.

The textual context of Romans 13:1-7 is even more important, as it throws light on what Paul has in mind when writing these particular verses. Along with Yoder, several Christian anarchists insist that “chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form a single literary unit.”[18] In both chapters, Paul is writing about love and sacrifice, about overcoming evil with good, about willingly offering oneself up for persecution. Interpreting Romans 12 and 13 as a coherent whole, Ellul notes that “there is a progression of love from friends to strangers and then to enemies, and this is where the passage then comes. In other words, we must love enemies and therefore we must even respect the authorities.”[19] Eller agrees: these authorities “are brought in as Paul’s example of those to whom it will be the most difficult to make the obligation apply.”[20] They are “a test case of our loving the enemy.”[21] In any case, for Yoder, “any interpretation of 13:1-7 which is not also an expression of suffering and serving love must be a misunderstanding of the text in its context.”[22] Hence Paul’s message in Romans 13 is to call for Christians to subject themselves to political powers out of love, forgiveness and sacrifice.

Seen in that light, Romans 13 is not a betrayal of Jesus’ revolutionary Sermon on the Mount (as Tolstoy would have it), but actually an exegesis of it: Romans 12-13 is an “eloquent and passionate statement” of the Sermon applied to the case of the state.[23] In the Sermon, Jesus calls for his followers to love their enemies, to give not only the requested coat but the cloak also, and to bless their persecutors. In Romans 12-13, Paul is doing the same, and applying Jesus’ commandments to the authorities.

At the same time, Eller emphasises that to “be subject to” does not mean to worship, to “recognise the legitimacy of” or to “own allegiance to.”[24] For him, “It is a sheerly neutral and anarchical counsel of ‘not-doing’ - not doing resistance, anger, assault, power play, or anything contrary to the ‘loving the enemy’ which is, of course, Paul’s main theme.”[25] Hence Paul is not counselling “blind obedience.”[26] As explained below, if what the authorities demand conflicts with God’s demands, then Christians ought to disobey - but also then submit to any punishment. Ultimately, a Christian’s allegiance is only to God, not to the state.

Yet Paul goes on to write that “the powers that be are ordained of God.”[27] Does this not suggest divine sanctification of state authorities? Does it not imply that political powers are always endorsed by God? For Christian anarchist writers, it only means that God “allows” it, not that “he agrees with it” or that these authorities are “good, just, or lovable.”[28] Here, they recall 1 Samuel 8, where despite his disappointment with the Israelites’ request for a king, God grants them their wish. Chelčický furthermore argues that “The earthly rulers and the state authorities are the punishment of God for disobeying His laws.”[29] Thus God does indeed “appoint” state authorities, but reluctantly, only because his commandments are being ignored. It does not imply that anything the authorities do is willed by God, or that, as Penner puts it, “God’s moral character is in any way imprinted on the state.”[30] Again, “appointing” or “ordaining” is not the same thing as “approving” or “agreeing with.”[31]

Nonetheless, since people have lost faith in him and instead place their faith in political authorities, since people will not listen to him anymore, God uses the state as one of his “servants” in his mysterious ordering of the cosmos. Several Old Testament passages describe God using state authorities to punish sins and injustices. The state, it seems, is one of God’s tools to maintain some order where his commandments are not being heard.[32]

It is probably in that sense that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”[33] The authorities should be feared by those who do evil, but not by those who do good works. Perhaps there is a suggestion that despite doing good works and nevertheless being persecuted by the state - which they were - Christians should not fear the state. This particular phrase, however, is often avoided in the Christian anarchist literature: Christian anarchists never really seem to fully make sense of it. What they do point out, however, is that it cannot mean that these authorities do not persecute good people: they crucified Jesus, Paul himself was beaten by them, and Christians were being persecuted just as Paul was writing these words. Besides, elsewhere, Paul criticises these authorities, and warns Christians of further persecution.[34] Therefore, this verse cannot mean that the state always praises good works and only ever punishes evil ones. What it perhaps does imply is that persecuted Christians should not fear these authorities because in the eyes of God, the works that they do are good, and even if they die, at least their “martyrdom” will “magnify their glory” - much like Jesus’ death did.[35]

In any case, even state leaders are subject to God’s judgement, and are warned of this (for instance) in Acts 28:20.[36] These leaders do not know the precise purpose God has in mind for their actions: “like a plough in the hands of the ploughman,” Chelčický writes, the ruler “does not know what the ploughman intends.”[37] God uses state authorities as “instruments in the grand economy of his providence,” but at the same time, state leaders “[act] entirely out of [their] own perverse and wicked inclinations” and are “punished” by God accordingly, writes Ballou.[38] It is therefore unknowingly that state authorities are acting as God’s servants. In turn, their actions and intentions are examined by God, and, where their work is evil, they will themselves eventually incur God’s providential wrath.

Yoder moreover recalls that according to Paul, the principalities and powers, “which were supposed to be our servants, have become our masters and our guardians.”[39] They “were created by God,” but they “have rebelled and are fallen” because “they claimed for themselves an absolute value.”[40] Yoder then argues that instead of God “ordaining” these powers, a better interpretation of the text would see him as “ordering” them.[41] That is, “God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be, but only to order them, to put them in order.”[42] Yet while God “orders” them and uses them for good, they remain rebellious and fallen nonetheless.[43] That God puts them in order does not mean that they “do no wrong, commit no sin, and deserve no punishment.”[44] They remain living evidence of humanity’s rebellion against God.

It is crucial to bear in mind, then, that if God ordains state authorities, it is only to maintain order among those who have refused to follow his commandments. In other words, the state may be valid for non-Christians, but if “all truly followed in Christ’s footsteps it would wither away.”[45] God uses the state in his ordering of the cosmos only because his commandments for a peaceful and just society are not being followed. In a community of Christians, however, these authorities and powers would be redundant. Thus for several Christian anarchists, the state remains a regrettable reality among non-Christians, but only because they refuse to follow Jesus’ commandments. The state is violent and unchristian, and God wants all humans to overcome it; but as long as Jesus’ alternative is not embraced, the state remains God’s only way to somehow redress sins and injustices. The state is a symptom of human imperfection, tolerated by God only because he accepts that we have rejected him.

Of course - and disappointingly for non-Christian anarchists - this does imply that Christian anarchist theory is only prescribing anarchism for Christians. Among non-Christians, the state is an acceptable, though regrettable and imperfect, servant of God’s justice. This does not diminish in any way the many criticisms Christian anarchists mount against the state. After all, Christian anarchists want to see Jesus’ teaching taken up by all - they want the whole society to convert to true Christianity. But at the same time, according to Paul, they are to tolerate the presence of the state as an unfortunate symptom of society’s rejection of God.[46] Christianity overcomes the state, but it tolerates it among the heathens. That, for several Christian anarchists, is what Paul is implying in Romans 13. He is reminding Christians of the reasons for the state’s existence, but he is also calling them to patiently endure and forgive this pagan rejection of God.

The message behind this, therefore, is to make it plain “that Christians were not a sect out to overthrow Caesar and force their religion on everyone else.”[47] Paul’s concern is for Christians not to engage in any violent insurrection - despite their persecution. He is telling the Christians in Rome to “stay away from any notion of [...] insubordination,” and instead to adopt a loving, “nonresistant attitude towards a tyrannical government,”[48] an attitude which would therefore “set an example of humility and peaceful living for others.”[49] In other words, Romans 13 “seeks to apply love in a context where Christians detested the authorities.”[50] It does not legitimise the state, but it also makes a point of not legitimising any insurrection against it.[51] It is reminding Christians that Jesus refused to engage in that type of revolutionary politics, that the Christian revolution is to happen by setting an example of love, forgiveness and sacrifice instead.

Thus the Christian is to remain indifferent, so to speak, to particular forms of political authority (this important topic is discussed in more detail in the Conclusion). However evil or tyrannical any one of them may be - and there is no denying that they can be very brutal - a follower of Jesus should overcome evil by good: by loving enemies, by turning the other cheek, and by submitting to persecution and possible crucifixion. It is not for the Christian to avenge human injustices, however horrible any one of them may be. In Romans 12:19 (as already noted in Chapter 1), Paul recalls that God said “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” That is, vengeance is denied to the Christian because it belongs to God (and the Christian does not know how God will “avenge” injustices). Eller also interprets Paul as telling Christians not to “set their minds on high things” - that is, for Eller, not to get concerned and distracted by specific political ideologies or utopias.[52] Instead, the only priority is to abide by Jesus’ commandments.

Hence, according to this Christian anarchist exegesis, Romans 13 cannot be interpreted as divine sanctification for the state. It accepts the state as ordained by God, but only for those who have rejected God. Thus “It carefully declines to legitimize either Rome or resistance against Rome.”[53] For Ellul, “we have no right to claim God in validation of this order,” and therefore “This takes away all the pathos, justification, illusion, enthusiasm, etc” that can be associated with specific political authorities (again, this theme is revisited in the Conclusion).[54] Moreover, to quote Tennant, “an exhortation to obey authorities does not imply that those authorities are required to exist in the first place. [...] If there is no state, there is no need to obey it.”[55] Besides, as Chelčický remarks, while the passage does counsel submission to the state, it does not provide a justification for Christians to become rulers themselves. Indeed, when Paul was writing this, all authorities were pagan - Romans 13 never considers “Christian” authorities. What Paul is saying in Romans 13 is that Christians should love and forgive state authorities - not that they should participate in their sins.

This does not imply uncritical passivity. Where the state infringes upon God’s commandments, the Christian should - as always - side with God, not with the state. Indeed, submission to the state is only a consequence, a derivative of submission to God and God alone. When Christians submit to the state, it is because they are submitting to God. If the state demands something that conflicts with God’s commandments, then the state should be disobeyed.

Thus, in apparent reference to Mark 12, Paul concludes Romans 13:1-7 by calling for Christians to “Render therefore to all their dues.”[56] This is examined in more detail in the next section, but the gist of it for Christian anarchists is that Christians ought to give to the state what it asks, unless doing so conflicts with what God demands. What is required, then, is “passive subordination” but not “pious obedience to the state.”[57] The state should be treated with love and due respect, but “Obedience to secular power has definite limits. In matters contrary to the law of God, the Christian is obliged to refuse obedience” and “must willingly suffer whatever penalties the state imposes.”[58] As explained further below, this means that Christians must disobey “Directives such as those to wield the sword, to swear an oath, or to enter a public court to settle a dispute.”[59] What is less straightforward is the question concerning the payment of taxes - which is addressed in detail below.[60]

The important point is that, as Ballou writes, “The Christian has nothing to care for but be a Christian indeed.”[61] The state is a pagan distraction, to be treated with love and respect, but only because doing so is in line with Jesus’ teaching of love and forgiveness - and it is that teaching only which the Christian is really abiding by even when submitting to the state.[62] It certainly has nothing to do with any duty to protect certain freedoms or maintain some order in a chaotic war of all against all.

4.1.3 - Similar passages in the New Testament

Christian anarchists interpret shorter passages elsewhere in the New Testament along the same lines. The most important of these minor passages is probably 1 Peter 2:13-25, since as Alexis-Manner claims, it is “usually used by supporters of obedience to the government as a trump card” if defeated on Romans 13.[63] For Christian anarchists, however, it is actually just repeating the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 13. Peter’s plea for Christians to show respect for the king, for instance, is in line with Romans 13. Even Peter’s call for slaves to submit to their masters - which Paul also makes elsewhere - mirrors Romans 13: it is not a defence of slavery, but a call to subvert it by accepting one’s subjection to it out of love and forgiveness.[64] Moreover, just as for Paul, Christian anarchists point out that Peter seems not to have always fully abided by his pronouncements - at least not if they are taken to imply total and unquestioning obedience to authorities. Like Paul, Peter’s allegiance is first and foremost - indeed only - to God, and the respect he shows to the state is never absolute.

The other New Testament passage cited by a Christian anarchist in parallel to Romans 13 is Revelation 13 - despite these two being often cited as an example of contradicting passages. For Eller, the Beast does not represent just the Roman empire but the spiritual essence of what he calls “arkydom” - in other words, the state.[65] And as discussed in Chapter 2, Revelation “does not go on to suggest that Christians should therefore resist, withhold their taxes, or do anything else in opposition to this monster;” but instead, “they are asked to bear patiently whatever injustice and suffering comes upon them by keeping faithful to Jesus,” and at the same time to “come out of the arkys,” to “separate [themselves] (spiritually and psychologically) lest [they] get [themselves] entangled and go down with them.”[66] For Eller, therefore, there is no opposition between Romans 13 and Revelation 13: neither differentiates between “good” or “bad” states (they refer to “arkydom” in general) and both advise patience and submission rather than violent revolution.

Thus, however surprising or incoherent it might at first seem, several Christian anarchists argue that Romans 13 calls for Christians to accept and forgive the state, but without granting it any absolute authority.[67] For them, this does not in any way compromise Jesus’ implicit criticism of the state or his call for humanity to overcome it, but it simply confirms that Jesus calls for Christians to subvert it through love, service and sacrifice.

4.2 - Jesus’ advice on taxes

The other New Testament passage often quoted by supporters of the state as proof of the error of Christian anarchism is the following:

13. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15. Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.

17. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.[68]

This passage has often been cited by church theologians to suggest that when pushed on the question, Jesus defended the state’s tax system. It has also been used to develop the notion of a division of realms between state and church, whereby the state would be concerned with the material and temporal realm (politics), and the church, with the spiritual and eternal one (religion). For Christian anarchists, both interpretations are illegitimate: Jesus is neither “siding with the establishment,”[69] nor dividing realms between politics and religion. Again, therefore, Christian anarchists put forward their own, different interpretation.

4.2.1 - Caesar’s things and God’s things

To begin with, Ellul argues that Jesus must have had “a reputation of being hostile to Caesar” for this question to be asked in the first place.[70] He was already seen as a political threat, and the authorities were trying to entrap him: if he had answered “yes, give tribute to Caesar,” then this would have dealt a blow to his following; but answering a clear “no” would have made him liable for immediate arrest.[71] For some Christian anarchists, therefore, Jesus’ response is a “politically astute” response to a contentious question, an ingenious reply to avoid the trap set by his detractors.[72]

Furthermore, some Christian anarchists claim that the image and superscription on the coin were a clear infringement of the first and second commandments - in other words, a case of idolatry. Hence Jews caught with the coin were arguably violating the Decalogue.

Ellul moreover explains that “in the Roman world an individual mark on an object denoted ownership.”[73] Therefore the coin did indeed belong to Caesar - money does belong to the state.[74] If Caesar wanted his coin back, then this coin should be given back to him. The important question, then, is to define what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God - because Jesus does also emphasise that what belongs to God should be given to God.[75] For Ellul, what belongs to Caesar is simply “Whatever bears his mark! Here is the basis and limit of his power. But where is his mark? On coins, on public monuments, and on certain altars. That is all. [...] On the other hand, whatever does not bear Caesar’s mark does not belong to him. It all belongs to God.”[76] Thus, for instance, Caesar has no right over life and death. That belongs to God. While the state can therefore expect us to return its coins and monuments when requested, it has no right to kill dissidents or plunge a country into war.[77]

Christian anarchists indeed maintain that what belongs to God is much broader than what belongs to Caesar: to Jesus’ Jewish audience, the debt owed to God is incomparably greater. Besides, money is “the domain of Mammon.”[78] For a faithful Jew, the higher obligation is always to God, and, against this, Caesar’s claim is almost irrelevant. Myers therefore contends that by his careful answer, Jesus

is inviting them to act according to their allegiances, stated clearly as opposites. Again Jesus has turned the challenge back upon his antagonists: What position do they take on the issue? This is what provokes the strong reaction of incredulity [...] from his opponents - something no neat doctrine of “obedient citizenship” could possibly have done.[79]

In other words, as Ellul insists, “Jesus does not say that taxes are lawful.”[80] Instead, according to Penner, he uses to occasion “to point the Jews to the fact that they had, in effect, accepted the supremacy of Rome, when He made them acknowledge whose coinage they were using.”[81] His detractors had not been giving to God what belongs to God: they had betrayed God by their de facto allegiance to Caesar.

For Eller, therefore, the apparent choice between Caesar’s things and God’s things is “fake,” because “Whether a person chooses God or not is the only real issue.”[82] By uttering those words, Jesus “makes the distinction between the one, ultimate, absolute choice and all lesser, relative choices.”[83] Questions like the payment of taxes “are ‘adiaphora’ [Greek for ‘indifference’] in comparison to the one choice that really counts” - the choice of God above Caesar.[84] We are told several times in the New Testament that we “cannot serve two masters,” and the message of this passage is “to absolutize God alone and let the state and all other arkys be the human relativities they are.”[85] Seen in this light, Jesus’ answer is not so much a defence of the tax system or of the division of realms, but a counsel of subversion by indifference (see the Conclusion for more on this).

Thus, for Christian anarchists like Eller, “civic responsibility is a proper obligation only insofar as it does not threaten our prime responsibility of giving God what belongs to God.”[86] In other words, “let Caesar take his cut,” says Eller, “so that you can continue to ignore him.”[87] Hence if Jesus seems to recognise as appropriate the payment of taxes, it is because that concern is insignificant compared to the one concern that really matters.[88] At the same time, however, what must be denounced is Caesar’s attempt to compete with God: the state’s tendency to seek to dethrone God and be worshipped and served in his place (a tendency noted in Chapters 2 and 3) - precisely because that touches on the much more important issue of rendering to God what belongs to God.

4.2.2 - The temple tax and fish episode

Christian anarchists read the other main passage in which Jesus refers to paying taxes in much the same way. The progression of the dialogue in Matthew 17:24-27 is even more interesting than in the “render unto Caesar” case:

24. And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25. He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26. Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.[89]

Ellul thinks that too much attention has focused on the curious and miraculous side of this prescription.[90] For Christian anarchists, it is clear from the dialogue that the state has “no legitimate jurisdiction over” Christians, yet that Christians should nonetheless pay taxes “to avoid offense”[91] - that is, “so as not to stir up trouble.”[92] If Jesus ends up asking for Peter to pay the tax, Eller therefore writes, it is “for reasons entirely extraneous to the recognition of any arky.”[93]

Eller then compares the justifications given in Romans 13, Mark 12 and this passage as follows:

In Mark 12, the stated reason was “Let Caesar have his coin so he will get off your back and leave you alone to be giving to God what belongs to him.” In Romans 13, it was “Let Caesar have his coin so that you won’t be drawn into the disobedience of failing to love him.” Now, in Matthew 17, it is “Let Caesar have his coin so as not to be guilty of causing ‘offence.’”[94]

The priority is always to follow God and his commandments, and any submission to the state is an epiphenomenon to that.

Yet Eller also points out that in some other instances, Jesus does not seem to mind causing offence.[95] The difference, he argues, is between causing offence “deliberately” and “accidentally.”[96] The difference is in what constitutes the main motive. To repeat, what matters is always giving priority to God, and abiding by his commandments. In doing so, one should indeed avoid causing offence to others. Sometimes, however, people might be offended at one’s actions when giving priority to God - but if so, “that’s their business,” says Eller, because offence was never intended and because the only purpose was “to obey God.”[97] What should be avoided is the causing of deliberate offence. For Eller, therefore, the proper Christian attitude with respect to taxes is to pay them, because withholding them would turn the causing of offence into a political instrument and thus lose sight of what is much more important: obedience to God.[98]

4.3 - Pondering the role of civil disobedience

The above exegeses open up the question of the limits of acceptability of any civil disobedience. On this issue, however, Christian anarchists are somewhat divided.

4.3.1 - Against civil disobedience

The main Christian anarchist who argues against any form of civil disobedience is Eller. For him, one should not engage in “deliberately illegal action” in attempting to counter any particular evil in society.[99] Too often, he says, Christians who try and fail to persuade others react by “turning up the volume,” at the “high end” of which is civil disobedience.[100] Such disobedience, according to Eller, presumes that effectiveness is enhanced by “offense-causing.”[101] Yet for him, civil disobedience helps neither the “content” nor the “persuasiveness” of the “witness and protest” because it “does not call attention to the truth content of the witness and protest but to the offensive behavior of the witness-protester.”[102] For him, “failure of others to accept” the “truth” does not justify “recourse to questionable methods.”[103]

One of Eller’s problems with such tactics is that typically, they result in “two worldly arkys condemning each other” - that is, a political climate of mutual, zealous and self-righteous condemnation that polarises society into rival political views.[104] What is lost in the process is the higher aim of obedience to God. For him, any civil disobedience should be accidental to that primary goal. Obedience to God, rather than effectiveness in persuasion, should always remain the guiding principle. Hence one should avoid compromising with power politics. According to Eller, direct action is not the only way to bring about change. Another way, and for Eller the only Christian way, is “voluntary self-subordination.”[105] Eller admits that the outcome of this method is uncertain, but he argues that is nonetheless precisely the alternative which Jesus and his early followers taught and lived.

4.3.2 - For (non-violent) civil disobedience

For other Christian anarchists, Eller’s position is a “total cop-out.”[106] It is “naïve,” and in effect, it “accepts” or “condones” oppression.[107] They say that “we are called to resist, [...] to actively confront evil and hatred and violence” - though loving and non-violent means should of course be adopted in that struggle.[108] For these Christian anarchists, the “arrogant state” simply must be confronted, unmasked and subverted.[109]

Moreover, doing so is not unchristian: Jesus himself challenged the authorities, spoke out against them, broke a few rules (on the Sabbath) and even sometimes engaged in militant (but non-violent) direct action. He also warned that Christians will be persecuted and that this will be an “opportunity to bear witness.”[110] Furthermore, the cross is “a symbol of resistance to evil,” so following Jesus and taking up the cross implies at least some form of resistance as well. Besides, when God and the state require contrary things, Christians are clearly called to obey God, not the state, which would then indeed imply some form of disobedience to the state - but also patient endurance of the consequences.[111] Hence rather than seeing it as civil disobedience, for them, one should see it as obedience to God.[112]

Some Christian anarchists even speak of acts of disobedience or witness against the state in the language of liturgy. Thus civil disobedience becomes “a prayer,” and the confronting of state power a sort of “casting out of demons.”[113] Chapter 6 mentions several examples of such language and actions.

Then again, Ellul insists that civil disobedience must not become a political strategy to achieve political goals - whether or not it can indeed be effective as a political strategy. As discussed below, Christians can sympathise with and participate in movements of civil disobedience, but their goal must always remain solely to follow God’s commandments.

Moreover, the state’s punishment for such disobedience should be fully accepted. Day says of Hennacy that “His refusal to pay federal income tax does not mean disobedience since he has always proved himself to be ready to go to jail, to accept the alternative for his convictions.”[114] The penalty for disobedience should thus be patiently and forgivingly endured. Besides, for Christian anarchists, prison is a kind of resting place in today’s world, a “new monastery” in which Christians can “abide with honour.”[115]

In any case, there can be no denying that there is a tension here, between Jesus’ call to turn the other cheek and his cleansing of the temple, between what Eller calls “voluntary self-subordination” and civil disobedience. Yet even so, perhaps the tension can be over-exaggerated somewhat: for Christian anarchists, even turning the other cheek is defiantly trying to unmask an evil (the violence that has just been inflicted), and Jesus’ cleansing of the temple was an equally non-violent attempt to unmask another evil (the concentration of power in the temple).

As to Tolstoy, as discussed elsewhere, he seems to have quite genuinely read (perhaps indeed misread) Matthew 5:39’s “non-resistance to evil” as “non-resistance to evil by evil” - not unlike Wink, as explained in Chapter 1. This ambiguity was picked up by his detractors, and many of his admirers cling on to the non-violent resistance which Tolstoy’s reading allows for. As explained again below, Tolstoy himself was happy to disobey and “to fight the Government by means of thought, speech, actions” and the like, and called for Christians to desist from participating in the mechanics of the state’s power.[116] He was keen to protest and disobey, though always in a strictly non-violent way.

4.3.3 - Obedience to God

So who is right? Are Christians called to engage in civil disobedience? It seems that there can be no nicely detailed and predefined answer to these questions. In the end, as discussed in Chapter 1 and 2, the highest principle and ultimate reference on which all Christian (anarchist) guidelines are based is love. Jesus frequently repeats that love of God and of one’s neighbour are the two most fundamental commandments on which the rest of the law subsequently hangs.[117] It follows that if to love God and to love one’s neighbour sometimes requires disobeying the state (when obedience to the state would imply a violation of any of these two fundamental commandments), then there might be a case for moderating the purest interpretation of the subsequent command not to resist.

Besides, if Wink is right in interpreting the original Greek as criticising violent resistance and rebellion only, and indeed since (according to Christian anarchism) Jesus does call us to react to state violence and injustice, it seems that some degree of civil disobedience is inevitable for his followers in certain specific situations. Nevertheless, what for Christian anarchists remains clearly contradictory to Jesus’ commandments is violent resistance. It is whether non-violent resistance can sometimes be tolerated that is less clear. Evil certainly calls for a response, but for Christian anarchists, this reaction can never be violent. The spectrum of possible responses to evil ranges quite narrowly from non-resistance to non-violent resistance - but also, in the latter case, submission to any consequent penalty for this resistance. Anything outside this narrow range, however, would seem to amount to a disobedience of Jesus’ law of love.

At the same time, Eller’s warning seems important enough to heed. For example, Tolstoy’s own reaction to violence was to spread his gospel in various essays, plays and novels: his protests were largely verbal; Gandhi, who (as Chapter 6 explains) was inspired by Tolstoy, applied the principle of non-violence much more confrontationally; King and later pacifists pushed it even further into tactical political activism. Similarly, the Catholic Worker movement only adopted more confrontational methods of civil disobedience over time, partly under the influence of Hennacy. What these and other examples in Chapter 6 suggest is that there is perhaps a tendency for what begins as fairly strict non-resistance and obedience to God to move along the spectrum of possible actions ever closer to politically-driven civil disobedience - and beyond. Eller’s fear about turning up the volume might be worth remembering: doing so tends to reveal a gradual creeping towards power politics and a concomitant loss of sight of God.

Thus, even if a variety of actions are in line with a Christian anarchist reading of the Bible, one must perhaps always remain on guard to avoid the sort of degeneration spotted by Eller. Every context might result in different actions being most appropriate to continue to serve God and not the state, but it is crucial to always keep service to God as not just the primary but indeed the only concern that informs such non-violent and (in that sense) accidental civil disobedience. Indeed, for Christian anarchists, whether obeying or disobeying, a Christian response to the state is always incidental to the Christian obedience to God.

4.4 - Disregarding the organs of the state

In order to clarify somewhat the response to the state prescribed by Christian anarchists, it is helpful to look at specific examples of what, for many of them, Christians cannot collaborate with the state on.

4.4.1 - Holding office and voting

The first and perhaps most obviously forbidden area for Christians concerns the holding of offices of the state. For Christian anarchists, obviously, no true Christian can become a ruler, a member of parliament or a public administrator, because this would make the Christian complicit in state violence and oppression. The only ruler Christian anarchists recognise anyway is God. Christian anarchists also reject the claim that Christian participation in the state machinery can somehow “reform” or “purify” that machine.[118] Quite the contrary: for Chelčický, participation in the government would “contaminate, even vitiate,” a Christian’s witness.[119] As to the situation whereby a ruler would “perchance, become a Christian,” according to Chelčický, “his only means of ruling would then be persuasion, that is, preaching” - but if so, then “he is not a king any more, he becomes a priest.”[120]

In addition, in that voting amounts to an endorsement of the state and its electoral procedures, it is also rejected by Christian anarchists. According to Hennacy, “by voting for legislative, judicial, and executive officials, we make these men our arms by which we cast a stone and deny the Sermon on the Mount.”[121] Ballou agrees: voting makes us morally responsible for the unchristian actions perpetrated by whoever wins that election.[122] Indeed, Hennacy explains that “win or lose, you will have consented, by having voted, to accept the winning candidate’s judgement as superior to your own.”[123] Taking part in elections thus implies an implicit approval of the election process and of the legitimacy of its outcome - whatever the eventual outcome of that election. For several Christian anarchists, all this leads to a denial of the teaching of Jesus, and therefore Christians cannot take part in state elections.

4.4.2 - Paying taxes

Regarding payment of taxes, Christian anarchists hold sometimes slightly different positions. Some believe that Christians should not pay taxes because they fuel the state’s unchristian machinery. Others argue that taxes should not be paid willingly, but that the state’s eventual compulsory collection of them should not be resisted. In the end, most follow Jesus’ advice and eventually but reluctantly pay them so as not to cause offence. In any case, among Christians, according to Chelčický, there should be no such taxes: “a Christian cannot tax another Christian.”[124]

(In passing, it is worth noting that Tolstoy sometimes keenly defends Henry George’s social program, which recommends a single tax on land value. Yet while this may at first seem contradictory, it must be emphasised that Tolstoy only endorses George’s proposal, in Maude’s words, “by way of a concession to humanity’s weakness.”[125] If he is at times enthusiastic about George, it is only because his programme is a step in the right direction. Tolstoy’s preference, however, is to see a more radical Christian anarchist society come about. Still, his support for George does result in a somewhat ambivalent overall message concerning taxes.)

4.4.3 - Conscription and war

On war, the Christian anarchist position has already been discussed. War being so violent and unchristian, Christian anarchists cannot see how a Christian can become a soldier and participate in its horrors. Moreover, as already noted, soldiers are used by the state not only in war but in the repression of their own population. Hence military service, for Christian anarchists, is deeply unchristian. Where it is just an option, it should simply be ignored; but where it is compulsory, it should be opposed.

Tolstoy, who lived at a time when universal military conscription was becoming a norm, was particularly vocal in promoting conscientious objection to military service. In his writings, he reports several cases of it and of the abusive treatment which these objectors received in response to their objection. Tolstoy cherished the hope that a wave of conscientious objection might become a tide of public opinion and pave the way for society to adopt Jesus’ radical teaching. This is mentioned again in Chapter 6. The point to note here is simply that Christian anarchists called for Christians to refuse to take part in military service.

4.4.4 - Other state services

Since they dislike the state so much, predictably, Christian anarchists also refuse to make use of any of its organs. Thus, not only can Christians not work for the police, but for them, they should not make complaints to it or otherwise rely on its services.[126] Similarly, for Christian anarchists, neither can Christians take part in court proceedings, nor can they rely on courts for the adjudication of any disputes. Chelčický furthermore regrets that “a priest who goes [...] himself to court, elevates their shame into honour.”[127] Christians cannot seek punishment of others through the judicial system, nor should they adorn secular courts with their presence. Ellul also advocates conscientious objection to things like compulsory vaccination or compulsory schooling - the latter being just a propaganda tool through the national education policy.

Overall, therefore, most Christian anarchists recommend Christian disregard for the organs and services of the state, and refusal to participate in them. Eller is perhaps the only exception in that he says he is “occasionally [...] willing to work through or even use worldly arkys” if “some immediate human good” seems possible by doing so - although he does admit that this is “risky business,” because of “the danger of getting caught” in the delusion that the state is a force for good.[128] On the whole, however, most Christian anarchists would rather keep a clear distance between them and the state. Where the state insists on something like payment of taxes, most of them will eventually render Caesar his coin, but where participation in or reliance on the state implies disobedience to God (like in military service), they are calling for Christians to take a stronger stance and thus illustrate their contempt for the state and the primacy they ascribe to God.

4.5 - On revolutionary methods

It will be evident by now that however much they criticise the state, Christian anarchists do not favour any overthrow of government. Methods of this kind, for them, follow “the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder,” and end up causing more harm than good.[129] Their response to the state is therefore more compassionate, more forgiving, more patient than that of many other revolutionaries - yet they still believe that theirs is the only truly revolutionary method.[130]

4.5.1 - No compromise with violence

Christian anarchists therefore make a point of stressing their differences - as well as their similarities - with other revolutionary currents, usually by reiterating their absolute rejection of any compromise with violence or coercion.

Many Christian anarchists thus distinguish their position from (classic) socialist and communist thought.[131] They usually explain that while they genuinely sympathise with the goal of a communist, stateless and classless society, what they strongly disagree with are the coercive means which socialists are willing to adopt to reach that end. For Christian anarchists (as explained in Chapter 1), the end never justifies the means, because “the means become the end” or at the very least “corrupt” or obscure it.[132] Hence a stateless end cannot be reached by using the state as a means to that end. Indeed, just like Bakunin, Tolstoy foresaw the risk of a communist revolution resulting in just another dictatorship.[133] He and other Christian anarchists have therefore repeatedly called for socialists and communists to reflect on the impossibility of reaching their righteous destination by taking the reins of the state or through any other revolution method which compromises with violence.

While on this topic, it is worth noting that if Christian anarchists also sometimes distance themselves from the term “anarchism” and the revolutionary currents behind it, it is usually precisely because of the violent connotations that this word has been known to carry - especially towards the end of the nineteenth century, when anarchism was widely associated with terrorism, regicide and other forms of revolutionary violence. Often, therefore, it is only because they were not (or not yet) familiar with the strong non-violent tradition in anarchist theory that some Christian anarchists rejected the label “anarchism” altogether.[134] The very foundation of Christian anarchism is a rejection of violence, so Christian anarchists are just as quick to denounce anarchist schools that promote violence as they are to denounce other revolutionary currents that seek to attain their goal by taking control of the state.

Christian anarchists also comment on the Zealots, a religious and political sect which was growing in strength during Jesus’ time and which sought the violent overthrow of the Roman occupation. Several Christian anarchists stress that Jesus and his followers would have clearly sympathised with the Zealots’ criticisms and aspirations (in the same way that they today sympathise with socialism and communism), but that nevertheless, Jesus very clearly distanced himself from these Zealots, precisely over the question of the means to be used for the liberation of the oppressed. As explained in Chapter 1 and 2, it was precisely in his alternative method that, according to Christian anarchists, Jesus was a truly revolutionary messiah. He might have hesitated a few times and he might have contemplated alternative paths to the kingdom of God, but in the end, he willingly took up the cross and demonstrated the revolutionary potential of love and forgiveness. His teaching and his example are clear: evil - even the worst of it - should be responded to with patient love and forgiveness, even at the risk of death.

This is also where Christian anarchism clearly differs from other, more prominent theologies of liberation - theologies which often openly acknowledge their intellectual debts to Marxism. Where liberation theology seeks to overthrow oppressive governments and empower the oppressed through the state, Christian anarchism preaches patient love and forgiveness, despite very real oppression, and point out that this is the only revolutionary method grounded in the New Testament. Moreover, Christian anarchists are critical of liberation theology’s dismissive treatment of the cross as a symbol of Jesus’ teachings.[135] Myers puts it well, in his interpretation of what Jesus is basically telling other revolutionaries:

Our nonviolent resistance demands no less of us than does your guerilla war ask of you - to reckon with death. But we ask something more: a heroism of the cross, not the sword. We cannot beat the strong man at his own game. We must attack his very foundations: we must render his presumed lordship over our lives impotent. You consider the cross a sign of defeat. We take it up “as a witness against them,” a witness of the revolutionary power of nonviolent resistance. Join us therefore in our struggle to put an end to the spiral of violence and oppression, that Yahweh’s reign may truly dawn.[136]

The cross, as discussed in Chapter 2, is not the failure of Jesus’ revolution but the very epitome of it, and that is what, from a Christian anarchist perspective, has been misunderstood by other theologies of liberation.

At the same time, Christian anarchists like Ellul and Tolstoy claim to “fully understand the insurrection of the oppressed who see no way out.”[137] Their outrage is understandable given the hardship which they feel is imposed upon them. Tolstoy says he “cannot blame the revolutionaries” for using “the same immoral means” as their oppressors - at least the revolutionaries, he says, have “mitigating circumstances on their side.”[138] These are: “that their crimes are committed under conditions of greater personal danger” than agents of the state are ever “exposed to;” that they are usually “quite young people to whom it is naturally to go astray;” and that they are anyway only reproducing the methods which they have been taught by the state.[139] Similarly, Ellul calls for Christians to sympathise with the oppressed, even when they adopt violence, though Christians should nevertheless also always question such adoption of violence.[140]

Revolutionary violence has an inherent tendency to backfire: it erodes any public support for the revolutionaries’ cause, and it becomes “a convenient pretext” for the state to “intensify” its repression.[141] As noted in Chapter 1, the outcome is not revolutionary change but more violence and repression. Violent revolutionary means only lead to endless violence and counter-violence. Almost every attempt at violent revolution, according to Christian anarchists, has degenerated into bloodbaths and recriminations, and where revolutions did succeed in overthrowing a repressive government, they, too, have led to more repression.[142] Yet, Yoder writes, “If the new people” have “the same techniques, the same willingness to coerce and the same attitude towards authority as the bad guys - then it is not worth changing palace guards.”[143] Surely, Tolstoy asks, human beings must be able to devise “better means of improving the conditions of humanity than by killing people whose destruction can be of no more use than the decapitation of that mythical monster on whose neck a new head appeared as soon as one was cut off?”[144]

4.5.2 - Revolution by example

Lenin is alleged by one Christian anarchist to have said: “I made a mistake. Without doubt the oppressed multitude had to be liberated. But our method only provoked further oppression - and atrocious massacres. It is too late now to alter the past - but what was needed to save Russia were ten Francis of Assisi’s.”[145] Whether Lenin really did say this, what it suggests is that the true revolution can only come with a new philosophy, a new way of life, and that this alternative can only come about by example, not by force. In a sense, therefore, the revolutions of the past were simply “not revolutionary enough.”[146] For Christian anarchists, the true revolution must come by different means - by Christian witness and example.

That Christian anarchist witness and example is discussed in more details in the next Chapter. The point to note here is that this alternative revolutionary method implies that any aspirations of top-down political engineering must be renounced. However appealing it may be, for Christian anarchists, the hope “to make people good by law” is deluded.[147] Eller explains that such “arky faith” is attractive because, “Perfectly confident that our commitments are to the ‘good,’ we cannot see why it should be anything other than good that our power for good be ‘magnified’ through the collective solidarities of good arkys,” and because “Still completely confident about the justice of our own cause, we dream about the possibility that, judiciously applied to the right spot, the power of even a small pebble from our weak sling will bring down the Goliath of Evil.”[148] In practice, however, it does not work, because “arky faith” compromises with violence and coercion, leading to more self-righteous violence and misunderstandings and so on. Christian anarchists therefore believe that those who seek to govern or change society from above are deceiving themselves (an issue which is discussed further in the Conclusion).

Instead, for Christian anarchists, “Real change must come from the bottom up or, better yet, from the inside out.”[149] Chelčický argues that to make people better, the only option is to teach them by example - they might then, of their own will, choose to follow that example. “A righteous society,” Young writes, “can only be realized by changing the heart and mind of each individual.”[150] Hence, to borrow a famous phrase attributed to Gandhi, “We must be the change we want to see in the world.”[151] For Christian anarchists, “There can be no more powerful strategy than that of people who dare to be different.”[152] This strategy is discussed in more detail in the next Chapter. The important point to note here is that choosing the road of bottom-up “discipleship” also implies foregoing the (deluded) dream of top-down efficacy.[153] Success is therefore measured not by the “immediate delivery of political outcomes” but “in terms more of the consistent faithfulness” of the witness.[154] The focus is not on the effect of Christian discipleship, but on Christian discipleship itself. That way, as Day writes, “The ‘means to the end’ begins with each one of us.”[155] That is why “the only revolution” that is “worthwhile,” for Hennacy, is “the one-man revolution within the heart.”[156]

Admittedly, this is not easy, not least since it requires a readiness to die with no guarantee of the martyrdom’s efficacy. Yet Jesus shows that it is precisely by such moving examples of personal and non-antagonistic sacrifice that state violence can be gradually unmasked and defeated. Ellul says of Christian martyrs that, over time, “through their implacable meekness and their steady witness they succeed in demolishing the justifications a regime puts forward.”[157] For Ballou, when, through “pure Christian examples, [...] a considerable portion of the people have been enlightened and won over to Christian non-resistance, the tide of public sentiment will begin to set with such force [...] that the less enlightened and less conscientious portion will insensibly yield to the current.”[158] As the next Chapter shows in more detail, many Christian anarchists thus hope that with time, the violence and deception of the state will be exposed to an increasing number of people who will then also yield to the truth revealed by Christian anarchism and join the church of true Christianity.

Hence for Tolstoy, the real basis of any change is public opinion, and ultimately, public opinion is moved by truth. Tolstoy writes that

Men bound to one another by deceit, form, as it were, a compact mass. In the compactness of this mass is the evil in the world. The aim of the whole intellectual activity of mankind should be to break through and destroy this aggregate of deceit. Revolutions are attempts to break up this mass by violence. Men imagine that if they once disperse it it will cease to exist, and they strike it furiously in order to break it up, - but they only weld the atoms more closely together, for each atom must be filled with an inward power of its own before the mass can be finally disintegrated. The strength of this bond of union among men rests on a lie, on deceit. The strength which can deliver each particle of this mass it truth. Truth is communicated to men only by the deeds of truth. Only the deeds of truth, lighting the conceptions of every individual man, can destroy this evil attraction and detach men one after another from the mass bound together by it.[159]

Therefore, like other Christian anarchists, Tolstoy places his hopes of revolution on the inspirational, indeed contagious, quality of the Christian example. The true revolution, for him, will not come about through any compromise with political engineering, violence or coercion, but only by a gradual change of public conduct and consciousness spearheaded by courageous Christian anarchist witnesses.

Of course, this relies on Christians leading the way. Hence Christian anarchists call for Christians to fully embrace Jesus’ subversive teaching. Their response to the state is not to resist it (at least not violently) but to unmask it, to forgivingly subject themselves to it, to render to it the few things that belong to it - but also to clearly follow God alone and ignore or disobey the state if it demands things which should be rendered to God, if obeying it would entail a disobedience of God. For Christian anarchists, the only truly revolutionary response to the state is not to overthrow it and compose a different government, but to adopt a different - Christian - way of being, to patiently forgive and thereby unmask the state, but at the same time, to live out the stateless alternative “here and now.”[160]

Hence what matters for Christian anarchists even more than how Christians respond to the state is how they embody Jesus’ teaching in community, because that community is what can set the example for those not convinced by Christianity yet. Therefore, their response to the state is one of indifferent and dismissive submission to most of its demands - provided that these are not incompatible with the will of God. More important than that, however, is their collective witness in striving to embody the true church - and that, in turn, is the topic of the next Chapter.

1 The first three sections of this Chapter have also been published as Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos, “Responding to the State: Christian Anarchists on Romans 13, Rendering to Caesar, and Civil Disobedience,” in Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives, ed. Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009).

2 Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 76.

3 Romans 13:1-7.

4 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 114-115.

5 Ellul, “Anarchism and Christianity,” 166-167.

6 Many theologians have sought to argue that somehow Romans 13 does not really apply to tyrants and dictators, but only to peaceful and just forms of government - especially democratic ones - but Ellul has little respect for such “strange casuistry” which anyway does not appear founded on the passage. Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 79.

7 (He also remembers that Joseph and Mary disobeyed Herod to protect baby Jesus.) Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 13-14.

8 Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 98.

9 Tolstoy, “Church and State,” 336.

10 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 52.

11 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 77-78.

12 (He uses the word “tragedy” in the plural.) Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 78 (see also 89).

13 Unfortunately, however, the anarchist interpretation of this passage is nowhere elaborated in great detail - it is usually just cited as evidence of Paul’s anarchist credentials. Day, Selected Writings, 343; Simon Watson, “The Catholic Worker and Anarchism,” The London Catholic Worker, issue 15, Lent 2006, 8. (Galatians 5.)

14 Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 14.

15 Timothy Carter, “Commentary: The Irony of Romans 13:1-8,” Third Way, issue 28, May 2005, 21. (This commentary was sent to me by Keith Hebden, the current editor of the revived A Pinch of Salt - which is why it is mentioned briefly here.)

16 Carter, “Commentary,” 21.

17 Meggitt [?], “Anarchism and the New Testament,” 11.

18 He notes the unity of the theme both chapters address, but also some specific verbal cross-references that link the two chapters together. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 196.

19 He adds that Paul “is reminding Christians that the authorities are also people (there was no abstract concept of the state), people such as themselves, and that they must accept and respect them, too.” Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 81. See also Ellul, “Anarchism and Christianity,” 170.

20 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 197.

21 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 197.

22 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 198.

23 [Anonymous], Why I Worship a Violent, Vengeful God, para. 5.

24 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 199.

25 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 199.

26 Wink, Jesus’ Third Way, 59.

27 Romans 13:1. Redford reads this to mean that “the only true and real authorities are only those that God appoints, i.e., one cannot become a real authority or ruler in the eyes of God simply because through force of arms one has managed to subjugate a population and then proclaim oneself the potentate. Thus, by saying this Paul was actually rebuking the supposed authority of the mortal governments as they exist on Earth and are operated by men!” Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 15 (Redford’s emphasis).

28 For the first two quotes, see Alexis-Manners, Deconstructing Romans 13, 3. For the last one, see Ellul, who writes that “We have to remember that the authorities have attained to power through God. Yes, we recall than Saul, a mad and bad king, attained to power through God. This certainly does not mean that he was good, just, or lovable.” Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 81.

29 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 95 (paraphrasing Chelčický).

30 This touches on an important debate regarding God’s ultimate responsibility for the actions conducted by political authorities, a debate which Christian anarchists do not venture into in any detail and which is therefore left out of the main body of this Chapter (although a few reflections related to this are offered further below in this section). Suffice it to say here that this debate concerns not just Christian anarchists, but all Christian theologians, and that most would agree that God cannot be fully responsible for every act ever conducted by political authorities, as this would imply the unacceptable conclusion that God killed Jesus. For more on this, see for instance Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 65-66, 89-90, 119 (for the quote).

31 Alexis-Manners, Deconstructing Romans 13, 3.

32 Sometimes, therefore, these authorities are indirectly and unconsciously doing God’s work, and according to Eller, if, as a Christians, you were to resist them, “You could find yourself resisting the particular use God has in mind for that empire; at the very least, you definitely are trying to take over and do God’s work for him.” Eller, Christian Anarchy, 203.

33 Romans 13:4.

34 Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 16-17. (1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 2 Timothy 2:8-9, 3:12.)

35 Chelčický (whose words are borrowed here) actually goes even further, saying that “if they were killed, it was in accordance with His will; He wanted to test His servants and to magnify their glory through their martyrdom” (which again touches on the debate over God’s ultimate responsibility for actions perpetrated by political powers). Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 119 (quoting Chelčický).

36 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 120. Tennant also draws a parallel with the Book of Samuel. He writes: “Samuel made it plain that ‘[i]f you fear the Lord and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the Lord your God - good! But if you do not obey the Lord, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you, as it was against your fathers’ (1 Sam. 12:14, 15). Similarly, Paul in Romans 13:4 asserts that the human ruler ‘is God’s servant to do you good,’ which therefore implies that the ruler is to abide by God’s law and to enforce it upon the ruled.” Tennant, Christianarchy?, para. 9.

37 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 120 (quoting Chelčický).

38 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance in All Its Important Bearings, 35.

39 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 141.

40 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 142.

41 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 201. On page 172 onwards, he also agrees with the view that to “be subject to” would be better translated as to “subordinate oneself to.”

42 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 201 (Yoder’s emphasis).

43 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 141-144.

44 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance in All Its Important Bearings, 34.

45 Brock, The Political and Social Doctrines, 48.

46 It should be noted that while this view summarises the conclusion reached by those Christian anarchists who give Paul a chance and see his Epistles as genuinely compatible with Jesus’ teaching, it is not one that those who reject him outright - Tolstoy in particular - would subscribe to. For someone like Tolstoy, who universalises Jesus’ commandments by grounding them in universal reason, the state is evil and should not be tolerated but overcome - period. Then again, in a sense, for all Christian anarchists, non-Christians are those who have not fully understood or seen the truth. Moreover, all Christian anarchists prescribe tolerance, love and forgiveness of those who err on the side of evil. In the end, therefore, the difficulties which those who reject Paul would feel with the conclusions derived by those who do not are probably less serious than might first appear.

47 Tennant, Christianarchy?, para. 19.

48 Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 202.

49 Tennant, Christianarchy?, para. 19.

50 Ellul, “Anarchism and Christianity,” 170.

51 Eller argues that Paul here focuses particularly on delegitimising a violent revolution precisely because of the similarity of Jesus’ subversive message with the message of violent revolutionaries. Eller, Christian Anarchy, 11, 41, 115, 121-125.

52 The passage thus paraphrased by Eller is from Romans 12:16, and, in the King James Version, reads as “Mind not high things.” Eller, Christian Anarchy, 118-121.

53 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 204.

54 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 88.

55 Tennant, Christianarchy?, para. 18.

56 Romans 13:7.

57 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 51.

58 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 136.

59 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 136.

60 Note that Redford considers any insinuation by Paul that Roman Christian should pay taxes to be yet again a case of “rhetorical misdirection.” Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 17-18.

61 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance in All Its Important Bearings, 37.

62 It certainly has nothing to do with any duty to protect certain freedoms or maintain some order in a chaotic war of all against all.

63 Alexis-Manners, Deconstructing Romans 13, 3.

64 1 Peter 2:18-25. For Christian anarchists, the same applies to other New Testament passages on slavery and on accepting one’s unfortunate position in life (such as Paul’s epistle to Philemon, or 1 Corinthians 7:20-24).

65 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 43-44.

66 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 44-45 (Eller’s emphasis).

67 Such an interpretation is indeed one that is bound to result in “angry objection” from both liberal and conservative quarters, as Yoder reports to have faced in response to the first edition of his book. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 188 (for the quoted expression)-192.

68 Mark 12:13-17. See also Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:19-26.

69 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 76. Hennacy also remarks that “It would not seem logical that, by saying ‘Render unto Caesar,’ which meant giving taxes to kill in war, to spread hatred and lies about the enemy, to return evil for evil, that Jesus would nullify all of his Sermon on the Mount.” Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 298.

70 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 59.

71 Some commentators note that the issue of payment of taxes was a sensitive political issue both when Jesus said this and at the time during which Mark is estimated to have written his Gospel (during the Jewish-Roman war of AD 66-70). In both contexts, Jesus’ answer would clearly and pointedly distance him and his followers from the Zealots who favoured armed rebellion against Rome. Eller, Christian Anarchy, 78-80; Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 61; Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 312-314; Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 50.

72 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 52.

73 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 59.

74 (A close look at the small print of most bank notes reveals that the same logic still applies today.) Note that Christian anarcho-capitalists like Redford disagree on this: for him, Caesar’s face on the coin does not make the coin his. Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 10-11.

75 Eller reports Hengel’s thesis that this crucial second part of the sentence is what “left them ‘amazed,’” and that “the Greek of the connective should be translated ‘but’ in place of the usual ‘and’: ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s - but to God the things that are God’s.’” Eller, Christian Anarchy, 77.

76 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 60.

77 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 60-61. To cite a few more examples of separate “belongings,” Ellul writes that the only things which belong to Caesar are those things which he himself “creates;” Myers notes that the land of Israel belongs to God; Penner argues that the verse only admits taxes among things to be rendered to Caesar, and that one could perhaps infer that being made in the image of God, the Jews “owed themselves to God;” and Tolstoy suggests that money and property belong to Caesar, but one’s soul, to God. On a different note, Hennacy quotes Day, who said (quoting St. Hilary): “The less of Caesar’s you have, the less you have to render.” Ellul, “Anarchism and Christianity,” 167-168; Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 298 (see also 317, 431); Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 312; Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 52; Tolstoy, “The Gospel in Brief,” 228; Tolstoy, “The Teaching of Jesus,” 371-372.

78 Ellul, cited in Eller, Christian Anarchy, 11 (see also 195).

79 Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 312 (Myers’ emphasis).

80 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 60.

81 Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 51.

82 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 11 (also: 77).

83 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 82.

84 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 83.

85 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 83.

86 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 196.

87 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 196 (Eller’s emphasis).

88 Note that Christian anarcho-capitalists refuse to recognise any validation by Jesus of any form of taxation since, as far as they are concerned, taxes are pure theft.

89 Matthew 17:24-27.

90 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 63-64. Ellul’s interpretation of that fantastic story of fishing out a coin is that, in making that prescription, “Jesus held power to ridicule,” that “an absurd miracle” is performed “to show how unimportant the power is.” Ellul, “Anarchism and Christianity,” 167; Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 64.

91 [Anonymous], Ninety-Five Theses in Defense of Patriarchy, theses 77-78.

92 Redford, Jesus Is an Anarchist, 11, 49.

93 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 206.

94 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 208.

95 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 208.

96 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 208-210.

97 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 209.

98 He sees “tax payment” (or “an allowing of Caesar to take his taxes”) as “the model of all the offense-causing actions of Jesus,” which only aims to obey God and has “total disregard of the arkys;” and “tax withholding” as an “arky-faith action” which “[uses] offense as a tactic for influencing events.” Eller, Christian Anarchy, 208-209 (emphasis removed).

99 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 210.

100 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 210-214.

101 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 214.

102 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 213.

103 Moreover, for Eller, however evil the state is (and he repeats that he continues to believe it is), at least democratic laws do make it possible to use more honourable ways of being heard. Eller, Christian Anarchy, 216.

104 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 217.

105 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 239.

106 These words are Stephen Hancock’s, the editor of the first fourteen issues of A Pinch of Salt, in his review of the book, in Stephen Hancock [?], “Christian Anarchy: Jesus’ Primacy over the Powers (Book Review),” A Pinch of Salt, issue 8, October 1987, 9, 13.

107 For the accusations of “political naivety” and “condoning” of “oppression,” see Hancock [?], “Christian Anarchy,” 13. As to Ellul, he writes that “Christian radicalism [...] cannot counsel the poor and the oppressed to be submissive and accepting [...] without at the same time constraining the rich to serve the poor.” Ellul, Violence, 150-151 (Ellul’s emphasis).

108 The ending of the full sentence of the latter passage is important: “We are called not to be passive, but to actively confront evil and hatred and violence with love of enemies, forgiveness and self-sacrifice,” hence also the insistence on non-violence. [Anonymous], “The Power of Non-Violence,” London Catholic Worker, issue 12, January 2005, 2-3 (writer’s emphasis).

109 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 39.

110 [Anonymous], “The Power of Non-Violence,” 3. (Luke 22:12-13.)

111 This sentence is heavily paraphrased from Ballou, Non-Resistance in Relation to Human Governments, 4; Ballou, “Non-Resistance,” 141-142. Note that even Eller admits that in his argument, he has not analysed this very possibility of the state demanding something that is contrary to the will of God - in which case he is clear that the only course of action is obedience to God and “accidental” disobedience to the state. He then even proposes a “litmus test for making the distinction: If an action of lawbreaking is done solely as obedience to God, then, plainly, whatever media exposure occurs is entirely incidental to the purpose. If, however, media exposure is sought and valued, the action must have a political, arky motivation that goes far beyond simple obedience to God.” Eller, Christian Anarchy, 218-219 (Eller’s emphasis).

112 This paraphrases Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen, who said “Some would call what I am urging ‘civil disobedience.’ I prefer to see it as obedience to God.” [Anonymous], Multi-Denominational Statements (Jesus Radicals), available from http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/taxes/wartaxes.html (accessed 5 November 2006), under “Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle”.

113 [Anonymous], “A Vote for the State Means...” A Pinch of Salt, issue 12, March 1989, 9; Jim Douglass, “Civil Disobedience as Prayer,” A Pinch of Salt, issue 3, Pentecost 1986, 8-9.

114 Dorothy Day, “Foreword,” in The Book of Ammon, by Ammon Hennacy, ed. Jim Missey and Joan Thomas (Baltimore: Fortkamp, 1994), ix.

115 Douglass, “Civil Disobedience as Prayer,” 8 (where the expression “new monastery” comes from); Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 132 (from where the expression “abide with honour” is borrowed).

116 Leo Tolstoy, “On Anarchy,” in Government Is Violence: Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, ed. David Stephens, trans. Vladimir Tchertkoff (London: Phoenix, 1990), 79. Maude also explains that one of the reasons Tolstoy dislikes scientific Marxism is precisely because it tends to prescribe patience rather than action, and that Tolstoy liked Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience and translated it into Russian. Aylmer Maude, Tolstoy and His Problems (London: Grand Richards, 1901), 44-45, 48.

117 For example, Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:30-31; John 13:34-35.

118 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance, chap. 7, para. 16-19; Ballou, Non-Resistance in Relation to Human Governments, 6; Ballou, “Non-Resistance,” 143.

119 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 98.

120 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 31.

121 Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, xix. On pages 106 and 441, Hennacy writes that to those who ask him how he votes, he replies that he votes “every day” by “practising” his Christian anarchist “ideals.”

122 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance, chap. 1, para. 51-54, and chap. 57, para. 20, 22.

123 Hence for him, what is “irresponsible” is not refusing to vote, but voting, “for the very act of voting is dodging your responsibility by passing the buck to others.” Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 256 (see also 441).

124 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 32 (see also 138).

125 Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, 429.

126 Note, however, that Day admits to have called the police when “an armed maniac” tried “to kill” one of their editors, in Day, The Long Loneliness, 270. Note also that this is one of the issues where Yoder clearly differs from Christian anarchists: he argues that the police fulfil a role that is acceptable to Christians, although he has reservations as to whether a Christian can ever really be called to serve in the police.

127 Molnár, A Study of Peter Chelčický’s Life, 65 (quoting Chelčický).

128 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 14-15.

129 Garrison, “Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention,” 8.

130 This is paraphrased from Tolstoy, who wrote: “Mine is the true revolutionary method,” in Kennan, “A Visit to Count Tolstoi,” 259.

131 Interestingly, Hennacy suggests that if “Communism [appeals] to so many people,” it might be “because we have failed as Christians.” Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 182. Berdyaev makes the same point in Berdyaev, The Realm of the Spirit and the Realm of Caesar, 150. As to Tolstoy, he writes that “Socialism is unconscious Christianity;” a point Maurin seems to be making as well. Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Fontana, 1993), 379 (for Tolstoy’s quote); Maurin, Easy Essays (2003), 66.

132 Day, Selected Writings, 272 (for the “means become the end” quote); Segers, “Equality and Christian Anarchism,” 219-220 (for the idea that means “corrupt” ends).

133 On the topic of predictions, note also that in 1949, Hennacy predicted that communism would “fall by its own weight of Bureaucracy and Tyranny of Power.” Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 125.

134 Tolstoy, for instance, changed his mind once he read Eltzbacher’s study of anarchism, as explained in David Stephens, “The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy,” in Government Is Violence: Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, by Leo Tolstoy, ed. David Stephens (London: Phoenix, 1990), 177. He still continued to avoid the word “anarchism” to describe his own thinking (probably because of the violent connotations which his readers would continue to associate the term with), but he stopped using it dismissively to describe violent revolutionaries.

135 Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 431, 469-471. On page 471 (original emphasis), Myers writes: “How is it that liberation theologians want the authority of a ‘history of Jesus’ when it comes to solidarity with the poor, but not at the point of the strategy of the cross? The answer lies in the fact that they regard Jesus’ choice of the cross as his abandonment of politics: ‘Jesus dies in total discontinuity with his life and his cause’ (Sobrino, 1978:218). It is ironic that the most indisputably political fact of the gospel story is depoliticized by liberation theology.”

136 Myers, Binding the Strong Man, 431 (verse references removed).

137 Ellul, Violence, 68.

138 Tolstoy, “I Cannot Be Silent,” 405-406.

139 This is not Tolstoy’s exact list. The last mitigating circumstance listed here is only implicit in Tolstoy’s text (page 405), and in his own list, Tolstoy mentions two more mitigating circumstance: that “however odious their murder may be, they are still not so coldly, systematically cruel” as those committed by the state; and that “they all quite categorically repudiate all religious teaching and consider that the end justifies the means,” whereas state officials (during Tolstoy’s time) claim to “all support religion and Christianity.” Tolstoy, “I Cannot Be Silent,” 406.

140 Goddard explains that Ellul suggests that “the Christian must be willing to participate in movements using violence,” but this must “be a non-conformist participation” which is “always openly questioning the justifications of violence,” which must not be seen as “a sign of God’s approval” and which must “challenge the movement’s idols.” Moreover, the Christian must always be “willing to change sides.” The Christian also has a role as “a watchman in the world,” foreseeing problems and working on trying to resolve them early. Either way, the point is that, as the next Chapter explains, Christians should sympathise with the oppressed and care for them but always keep faith and obedience to God at the forefront of all concerns. Goddard, Living the Word, Resisting the World, 186-187.

141 Tolstoy, “The Kingdom of God Is within You,” 215.

142 For Tolstoy and Ellul, there is no difference between state violence and revolutionary violence - Tolstoy says that “There is as much difference as between cat-shit and dog-shit. But I don’t like the smell of either one or the other.” Tolstoy, quoted in Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 377. For Ellul’s more academic and detailed discussion, see Ellul, Violence, 108-118.

143 Yoder, “Peacemaking Amid Political Revolution,” 60.

144 Tolstoy, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” 197.

145 Lenin, quoted in Dave Andrews, Brother Sun and Sister Moons: Engaging a New Dark Age, available from http://anz.jesusradicals.com/newdarkage.pdf (accessed 17 July 2006), 6. This quotation is said to be found in “Letters on Modern Atheism,” but that text appears impossible to trace. Various internet websites also refer this quote to that text, but again without enough publication details to trace it. Other websites claim that these words were actually pronounced by Lenin on his deathbed, to a friend of his. Again, however, there is no way of tracing the original. It is therefore uncertain whether Lenin did write or utter these words - yet they still illustrate the Christian anarchist argument very well.

146 This expression is paraphrased from Yoder, who, while discussing the Zealots, writes that “Jesus rejected the way of Barabbas, not because it was revolutionary, but because it wasn‘t revolutionary enough.” Yoder, “Peacemaking Amid Political Revolution,” 57.

147 Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 214.

148 Eller, Christian Anarchy, 26-27.

149 Carl Thomas, quoted in Stephen W. Carson, Christians in Politics: The Return of the ‘Religious Right’, available from http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson17.html (accessed 21 November 2007), para. 79.

150 Roger Young, A Plea to Christians: Reject the State! (Strike the Root), available from http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Young/young3.html (accessed 21 November 2007), para. 12.

151 Gandhi, quoted in Andrews, Plan Be, 69.

152 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 167.

153 Bartley, Faith and Politics after Christendom, 144-147, 182.

154 This quote is actually partly a paraphrasing of Bartley, who writes that the church “may come to see success and failure in terms more of the consistent faithfulness or otherwise of its witness than of whether it delivers the immediate political outcomes that the church has often sought historically.” Bartley, Faith and Politics after Christendom, 221.

155 Day, Selected Writings, 290.

156 Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 33.

157 Ellul, Violence, 144.

158 Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance, chap. 7, para. 32-33.

159 Tolstoy, What I Believe, 220 (Tolstoy’s emphasis).

160 Geoffrey Ostergaard and Melville Currell, “Sarvodaya: Indian Anarchism,” in The Gentle Anarchists: A Study of the Leaders of the Sarvodaya Movement for Non-Violent Revolution in India (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971).