Chapter 6 - Examples of Christian Anarchist Witness

Chapters 4 and 5 describe the two flanks of the response advocated by Christian anarchist thought to the unchristian state’s contemporary prominence. To illustrate this theory, Christian anarchists frequently name several examples of communities and charismatic individuals striving to follow this Christian anarchist ideal. They themselves often do their best to live up to it in their own lives. The aim of this Chapter is to point to these examples of Christian anarchist witness.

This book is concerned with Christian anarchist thought rather than practice. A comprehensive discussion of examples of Christian anarchist practice would easily constitute a book on its own. The aim of this short Chapter is therefore much more modest: the various examples can only be cited rather than properly assessed. The footnotes provide details of publications based on which a more thorough analysis of these examples can be pursued.

The reason for nonetheless including this short Chapter in this more theory-driven book is that Christian anarchist thinkers themselves refer to these examples in their articulation of the theory. These examples should therefore be approached as tentative illustrations of elements of the line of thinking outlined in Chapters 1 to 5 rather than as conclusive proof of its vindication. Christian anarchists themselves tend to evoke these examples to draw inspiration from them rather than as empirical evidence of the viability of their interpretation of the Bible. Besides, it could indeed be that, as the Conclusion suggests, Christian anarchism is destined to only ever be adopted in practice at the margins of society, even though it should nevertheless always inform and critique the current state of politics.

The Chapter is divided into two main sections. The first lists what are referred to as “pre-modern” examples of Christian anarchism: the early Christian church, and some of the sects and movements of the Middle Ages and the Reformation. The second main section lists “modern” examples - “modern” in the sense that they have come after the first attempts to articulate, in writing, what amounts to explicitly Christian “anarchist” thought.[1] This division is somewhat fluid and artificial, but the aim is to set apart those individuals and communities that have been inspired by the writings or leadership of some of the Christian anarchist thinkers identified in the Introduction. This second section therefore mentions Garrison and his followers, Ballou and the Hopedale community, Tolstoy’s personal example and Tolstoy’s followers in Russia and abroad, Gandhi (for reasons which are explained therein), the Catholic Worker movement, A Pinch of Salt and The Digger, online communities, and Dave Andrews’ community work. The Chapter then concludes by briefly commenting on the incompleteness of many of these examples, thus paving the way for the reflections on Christian anarchist thought and practice that are articulated in the Conclusion.

6.1 - Pre-modern examples

Aside from a few marginal heretical movements, Christian anarchists cite two broad sets of examples of communities striving to witness to at least some elements of pure Christian anarchist thought in the relatively distant past: the early Christian church, and many of the Christian sects which mushroomed in Europe in the late Middle Ages and around the time of the Reformation.

6.1.1 - Early Christians

As noted in the beginning of Chapter 3, Christian anarchists admire the political organisation of the early Christian church (or churches), before it succumbed to the Constantinian temptation. They often cite several Church Fathers, such as Origen, Tertullian, Clement and Lactantius, as men whose writings suggest that the early church interpreted Jesus’ teaching in a way that strongly resonates with their own.[2] These writings (which are among the few sources based upon which a picture of the early church or churches can be drawn today) leave the impression that the early Christian community did take Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount quite literally and strove to live up to its revolutionary commandments.

The early church, they note, was a community of true love and care for one another. Craig insists that this church was centred “on Hospitality,” not “on liturgy.”[3] Moreover, as Maurin puts it, “because the poor were fed, clothed and sheltered at a personal sacrifice, the pagans used to say about the Christians ‘See how they love each another.’”[4] As noted in Chapter 5, it was precisely this communal attitude of love and sacrifice which set Christians apart and persuaded others to convert and join the church.

Moreover, aside from this positive example of community life, early Christians also drew attention by refusing to worship and obey anyone but God - whether pagan deities or human idols claiming divine status, like Caesar. Early Christians, Hennacy writes, thus “refused to place a pinch of incense upon the altar of Caesar.”[5] Indeed, Sandlin remarks, they “were savagely persecuted not because they worshipped Jesus Christ, but because they refused to worship the Roman emperor.”[6] Their belief in just one God was thus perceived to be “deeply subversive.”[7]

Given that they refused to worship the state, they also refused to swear any oath of allegiance to it - thus following Jesus’ commandment. Tertullian’s writings also imply that they refused “to take the administration of any dignity or power,” or to act as judges - again in line with Jesus’ demands (as Chapter 4 explains).[8] Naturally, they were particularly passionate about refusing to serve in the military. The early church, Christian anarchists emphasise, was noted for its uncompromising pacifism and its criticism of military service - indeed some blamed the eventual fall of the Roman empire on Christians for this very reason. Hence, as Ellul writes, in many ways, “the first Christian generation was globally hostile to political power and regarded it as bad no matter what its orientation or constitutional structures.”[9] Early Christians were therefore “viewed by Roman authorities as subversive to the social order,” and the Constantinian temptation was precisely a way to deal with this subversive movement by corrupting its very core.[10]

Before Constantine’s clever manoeuvres, the preferred method employed by the Roman state had been (sometimes very brutal) persecution. A different method had to be adopted, however, because not only did persecution not succeed in weakening the church, but the death of its martyrs actually reaffirmed the Christian message, thereby furthering its dissemination. Still, the gruelling ordeals which early Christian martyrs had to endure along the way should not be belittled. They submitted to the state’s punishment for refusing to disobey God, but this submission entailed momentous sacrifices. Yet such sacrifices were seen as the heart of what being a Christian was about. According to Cavanaugh, early Christians “built [altars] on the graves of the martyrs” as “centers of Eucharistic celebration,” hence “the Eucharist was explicitly connected with martyrdom.”[11] Moreover, despite this brutal persecution, early Christians also followed Paul’s advice and prayed for and blessed their persecutors. Such “love of enemies,” Johnston remarks, was seen as another “particular marker for the early Christian community.”[12] Early Christians were persecuted, but they responded to this perception with love and forgiveness.

In short, in line with the argument articulated in Chapters 4 and 5, early Christians loved and cared for each other, and they subjected themselves to the state’s punishment for any necessary civil disobedience. They had the courage of their conviction. Pacifist Stanley Hauerwas therefore writes that the “very existence [of Christianity] was secured by people who were willing to die rather than conform to the pretentious claims of government.”[13] As already noted, the seeds of the church were indeed the blood of its martyrs.

Yet somehow, the movement was corrupted, and the seeds apparently failed to bring the promised harvest. Precisely because Christianity became a considerable “political force,” Ellul asserts, Constantine “officially adopted” it “and in so doing trapped the church, which readily let itself be trapped, being largely led at this time by a hierarchy drawn from the aristocracy.”[14] As explained in Chapter 3, the church then moderated its radical stance on issues like military service, tempted as it was by the opportunities presented by political power. The dangers presented by this temptation are discussed in the Conclusion. The point to note here is that as Chapter 3 explains, after Constantine, the early church’s example of Christian anarchist witness was deeply corrupted. When the Western Roman Empire then fell to barbarian invasions, as Brock explains, “Christian pacifism” - let alone Christian anarchism - “was submerged for nearly a millennium.”[15]

6.1.2 - The Middle Ages and the Reformation

Maurin believes that after the fall of Rome, the true Christians that survived “found a refuge in Ireland” - though he is the only Christian anarchist to make this point.[16] For all other Christian anarchists, bar the odd heretical movement, the centuries that followed the fall of Rome were by and large devoid of any recorded example of Christian anarchist witness.[17]

Christian anarchists pick up the thread again around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when, as Wagner explains, “popular sectarian heresies [...] began to appear with greater frequency.”[18] Brock claims that “The pacifist idea was reintroduced by Waldenses,” who refused to take oaths and who condemned war and the death penalty.[19] Several Christian anarchists indeed cite this sect as a notable example of radical Christianity. Chelčický is even said by Brock to have been significantly influenced by it. Aside from the Waldenses, the other sect from that period that is cited by Christian anarchists is the Albigenses, who also denounced war and capital punishment and who held the Catholic Church in contempt - as Part I shows, all important themes for several Christian anarchists. Both the Waldenses and the Albigenses were crushed by Catholic persecution, although the Waldenses have managed to adapt and survive in modified forms to this day.

Christian anarchists also refer to monastic movements as examples of attempts to return to the sort of communal life described in Chapter 5.[20] Many of them also admire mendicant friar Francis of Assisi and his followers, noting in passing that with their emphasis on poverty, they were considered “potentially subversive.”[21] Andrews also reports, with approval of course, that Francis refused to take up arms during the Crusades. Over time, however, the Franciscan movement was institutionalised and incorporated into the official church, thus losing much of its politically radical edge; and as a result of this institutionalisation, Francis withdrew from it and retired to a hermitage.

The main Christian anarchist example from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is Chelčický himself, and to some extent his Bohemian predecessors and followers. Inspired by John Wycliffe and Jan Hus (among others), these Bohemian reformers were responsible for what Molnár describes as the third, separate and forgotten type of continental Reformation along the Calvinist and Lutheran ones. As with other reformers, Chelčický was incensed by the Catholic Church’s theology and practice, not least the selling of indulgences, but he differed from other like-minded Czech radicals - most notably the Taborites - because he disagreed with their adoption of violent methods to defend themselves against Catholic armies. Chelčický’s followers formed the Unity of Brethren (also known as the Czech or Bohemian Brethren or Unitas Fratrum), who distinguished themselves by their strict pacifism, and tried to live in line with the principles described in Chapter 5. The Unity of Brethren and the broader Hussite movement, including the Taborites to some extent, are therefore cited by Christian anarchists as further examples of embryonic Christian anarchist communities striving to live up to the radical political implications of Jesus’ teaching. The Taborites, however, were crushed by Catholic armies, and after Chelčický’s death, the Unity of Brethren gradually moderated its radical stance on the state.

Most of the seventeenth century examples admired by Christian anarchists emerged in Britain. They often cite the Peasants’ Revolt, the Ranters, the Diggers and the Levellers as examples of movements struggling with the radical political implications of Jesus’ teaching, and Gerrard Winstanley, who led the Diggers, is often singled out as a courageous radical Christian leader with strong Christian anarchist inclinations. Equally interesting was his contemporary Abiezer Coppe. The Quakers, who were founded in the seventeenth century and continue to thrive today, also stand out for Christian anarchists as a group that courageously embodied some elements of Christian anarchism in its strict pacifism and its consequent civil disobedience to uphold it.

Probably the most frequently cited movement that arose during the Reformation, however, is the Anabaptist-Mennonite movement. This Protestant denomination emerged in the sixteenth century and continues to have a strong following today. Eller, Yoder and Penner all openly belong to this tradition, and Bartley seems to be speaking from within it, too. Many therefore see this movement, particularly its early martyrs and followers, as exemplifying elements of Christian anarchism. Anabaptism has always affirmed the need to take Jesus’ ethical teaching seriously, and has often protested against coercive tendencies in Christianity. Hence it stands against violence and against the swearing of oaths; it is very critical of Constantinian Christianity; and it highlights the importance of presenting to the world a community of Christian love and sacrifice inspired by the witness of the early Christian church. It furthermore stresses that membership of the church must be voluntary - it cannot be meaningfully conferred by automatic infant baptism. Discipleship for Anabaptists therefore implies a “total life of love and as a necessary corollary - nonresistance.”[22] Many Anabaptists believe that no Christian can participate in the organs of the state, and thus call for a clearer and total separation of church and state. Given these views, it is no surprise that Kropotkin, one of the famous fathers of anarchism, asserts that there is “a considerable amount of Anarchism” in Anabaptism.[23]

In short, Christian anarchists point to the example of several sects and movements that embodied elements of Christian anarchism before the term “Christian anarchism” was coined. These, however, only embraced some of the elements of Christian anarchist thought. Pacifism was usually a strong feature, as was often the call for a clearer separation of the true church from the state, but what was not yet fully developed was an argument that grounded clear and explicit anarchist conclusions (say, criticism specifically directed at the state, or the longing for an specifically stateless society) in Christianity. Brock does argue that these movements’ “gospel of revolt and protest, albeit passive, against the existing social order” was usually inspired by a combination of “perfectionism” (or “utopianism”) and the consideration of Jesus’ example as the “ultimate source of authority.”[24] However, they rarely carried their momentum to a full articulation and presentation of Christian anarchism in all its implications.

Still, they were often persecuted by state and church authorities. Unfortunately, in face of this persecution, many of these radical sects and movements gradually admitted the use of violence, which, as Ellul adds, “soon led them to reject Christianity itself.”[25] Again, therefore, the Christian revolution failed to take hold because its pioneers compromised the purity of their witness. Certainly, these movements all evolved and changed over time. Sociologists of religion have reflected on the process whereby radical sects can develop into more established churches. Some reflections on this phenomenon with a particular focus on Christian anarchism are offered in the Conclusion. What must nonetheless be noted here is that each of these older examples cited by Christian anarchists is imperfect in some way. Nonetheless, in that these movements did strive to courageously embody some of the elements of Christian anarchist thought, and in that they have inspired others to pick up the torch of radical Christianity, they qualify as historical examples which Christian anarchists have considered worth referring to.

6.2 - Modern examples

Christian anarchist thinkers also refer to more recent examples of individuals and communities to illustrate their thought. What distinguishes these from older examples is that they are all at least partly inspired by the writings or the leadership of one or several of the people broadly defined in the Introduction as Christian anarchist thinkers.

6.2.1 - Garrison and his followers

As explained in the Introduction, Garrison only can only be described as a Christian anarchist for a brief period of a few years. His Christian anarchism is epitomised by the Declaration of Sentiments which he drafted for a convention in 1838. This Declaration, however, was only signed by twenty seven of the delegates (out of the initial one hundred and sixty).[26] Garrison was proud of his document, but it was not really lived up to either by its signatories or indeed by its composer. Only a few years later, Garrison supported a Presidential candidate in national elections, and a few years after that, he staunchly supported the use of force in the Civil War against the South. His and his followers’ battle had always been much more about the abolition of slavery than about the broader Christian perfectionism which he advocated for one Declaration and a few years only. The example provided by him and his followers, therefore, is not one of Christian anarchism, but one of radical and indeed successful campaigning on one particular cause - the abolition of slavery. Thus, even though his Declaration continues to be one of the most eloquent summaries of Christian anarchist thought to ever be penned, Garrison’s and his followers’ value for Christian anarchism is really limited to that particular document alone.

6.2.2 - Ballou and the Hopedale community

Ballou was a very eloquent speaker and writer on Christian non-resistance, on abolitionism, and on what he called Christian “socialism.” He never described himself as an anarchist, even though as proposed by this book, some of his writings certainly contribute to an articulation of Christian anarchist thought. Moreover, what he called “practical Christian socialism” resonates strongly with the Christian anarchist vision of community outlined in Chapter 5.[27] Ballou tried to implement this vision in a large farm which he purchased with some supporters and lived on for the rest of his life. The history of the Hopedale Community, as it became known, can be found elsewhere. What is relevant to note here that after fourteen years, the radical experiment came to an end, and that only one Christian anarchist (Elliott) refers to it as a typical example of a community “[resisting] violence and [challenging] the right of the [...] state to regulate human behaviour.”[28] In truth, Hopedale is just yet another example of a radical Christian community but without a professed or otherwise explicit anarchist identity.

6.2.3 - Tolstoy’s personal example

Chronologically, the next examples of Christian anarchist witness are provided by Tolstoy and by his followers. Tolstoy himself made serious efforts to live up to what he preached: he stripped his house of luxuries, laboured the land with fellow peasants, made his own (apparently very uncomfortable) shoes, and became a vegetarian. Despite these efforts, he was accused by many of not living up to all the radical implications of his teaching, as seen for instance by the fact that he continued to live in his large country estate. Tolstoy’s answer to such critics was to tell them: “Condemn me if you choose, - I do that myself, - but condemn me, and not the path which I am following.”[29] He added: “My heart is breaking with despair because we have all lost the road; and while I struggle with all my strength to find it and keep in it, you, instead of pitying me when I go astray, cry triumphantly, ‘See! He is in the swamp with us!’”[30] Even if he often failed, Tolstoy says, at least he kept on trying.

Tolstoy moreover tirelessly commented on the broader political situation in Russia: he wrote many letters and essays concerning ongoing wars and domestic troubles (including a few letters petitioning the Tsar), criticising the violence of the state and of the revolutionaries and promoting Henry George’s programme as a step towards the kingdom of God on earth. Thus, to quote Wenzer, he “increasingly became a symbol of resistance.”[31] According to Kentish, “his influence was enormous, both at home and abroad.”[32] Woodcock therefore suggests that “his relentless criticism undoubtedly played its part in undermining the foundations of the Romanov empire.”[33]

Yet even though they were worried about his following, the authorities dared not imprison him. They censored most of his writings, but their persecution targeted his followers rather than Tolstoy himself. Tolstoy regretted this, and called for the authorities to persecute him instead. Indeed, the only present he said would “fully satisfy” him on his eightieth birthday would be to be sent to prison.[34] This nearly happened once, but ironically, his aunt prevented it by appealing to the Tsar.

In any case, his influence waned somewhat after 1905, partly because of his continuous criticism of the revolutionaries’ violent methods, and partly as a result his excommunication, which Maude claims “produced a tremendous sensation” in Russia.[35] He wrote an open reply to the edict of excommunication and thereafter criticised the church even more bitterly than before, and he continued, until his death in 1910, to write about the problems of his time, promoting conscientious objection and calling for Jesus’ teaching to be embraced fully and at once. Tolstoy also famously helped the Doukhobors - a radical Christian sect persecuted by the regime - to emigrate to Canada by handing them the royalties of his last major novel (Resurrection). Aside from all this, he also continued to labour the land and to try to live a more humble and Christian life. Thus, even though he was far from perfect, Tolstoy did try to live in accordance with the teaching which he preached.

6.2.4 - Tolstoyism and Tolstoyan colonies

The comprehensive history of Tolstoyism, of Tolstoy’s broader influence and following at home and abroad, still remains to be written. Given the limited scope of this Chapter, only a few highlights can be noted here. The task is not made any easier by the fact that, as Brock remarks, “Tolstoyism anyhow was a rather nebulous movement.”[36] It should also be noted that Tolstoy himself was very uneasy with Tolstoyism: “I am Tolstoy,” he said, “but I am not a Tolstoyan.”[37] For him, “There is neither a Tolstoyan sect nor a Tolstoyan teaching,” but “only one unique teaching, that of truth,” so that what Tolstoy is calling for is not for others to follow him, but the universal truth which was best articulated by Jesus.[38]

Moreover, he criticised Tolstoyan colonies for having few benefits for humanity at large, focused as they were on the inner life of the community rather than the whole of humanity. Nonetheless, Tolstoy quickly gathered followers at home and abroad. In Russia, many of these came from what Brock calls “‘penitent’ landowners” and upper classes, but also from political agitators and uneducated peasants.[39] He was respected among fellow Russian progressives and anarchists, even though they disagreed with him on important issues. His country home “became a place of pilgrimage” for radical thinkers (from both Russia and abroad).[40] Unsurprisingly, therefore, Tolstoyism was described by the Russian church as a “well-defined and harmful sect.”[41] Several Tolstoyan colonies were set up across the country. However, Tolstoyism in Russia did not survive the Bolshevik revolution. Tolstoyans were severely persecuted and all but wiped out by Stalin. The Soviet attitude to Tolstoy’s work was to applaud his literary talent but bemoan as foolish and dangerous, and therefore harshly suppress, his social teaching. As a result, one struggles to find any traces of Tolstoyism in Russia today.

Abroad, Tolstoy had a following in Hungary thanks largely to Eugen Heinrich Schmitt, whom he regularly corresponded with. After he read The Kingdom of God Is within You, Schmitt was won over by Tolstoy, and he thereafter proudly called himself an anarchist. He became a political activist in Hungary and, for a few years, an important figure among the Social Democrats and their rural political base, endowing their political programme with a distinctively anarchist character.[42] His influence in that party only lasted a few years, however, after which, according to Brock, his Tolstoyism “took on a more cloistered character.”[43] He later “[espoused] a syncretic religion in which Jesus figured as only one [...] of a long line of religious thinkers,”[44] and he even appealed to patriotism at times - both evidence of his steering away from pure Tolstoyism. Nonetheless, as Brock and Aleksov report, by then, a few small centres of Tolstoyism or sects at least partly inspired by it (such as the Nazarenes) had been founded in Hungary; yet eventually, they, too, fell apart. Gradually, Schmitt’s Tolstoyan influence waned, until he finally moved back to Berlin and was quickly forgotten in Hungary. Nonetheless, as Brock suggests, even though Tolstoyism ultimately “proved a failure in Hungary” as a whole, at least, “the nonviolence preached by Schmitt very likely spared the countryside unproductive bloodshed.”[45]

Another country in which Tolstoy inspired a few radicals was the Netherlands, where Tolstoyism had a particular influence on Felix Ortt and J. K. van der Veer, and the Dutch Reformed Church. Ortt published a short (still not translated) book called “Christian Anarchism” in which, according to André de Raaij, he describes love as “the unifying principle of the universe” and calls for people to follow their conscience - both very Tolstoyan themes.[46] Ortt also promoted conscientious objection to military service. Tolstoy’s views on what Nettlau calls “agrarian collectivism” were also popular among Dutch radicals.[47] Yet Tolstoy was not the only influence: Dutch radicals were also inspired by thinkers such as Henry George, for instance. They founded several small colonies, each of which adopted different elements of Tolstoyism and faced different problems, but few of which, in the end, can truly be characterised as genuinely embodying the pure Christian anarchist ideal.

Tolstoyan colonies also sprang up elsewhere in Europe.[48] The Purleigh colony in England, where Tolstoy’s views were quite popular, is one such example. Among the people who joined it were Maude (Tolstoy’s friend and translator) and his family, and Chertkov (a close associate of Tolstoy in his later years). The colony, however, ended in disaster, suffering as it did from bitter disagreements as “discussion of minor everyday matters tended to escalate into a discussion of principles.”[49] For Maude, Purleigh’s failure was due to the impossibility of “trying to combine a gospel of poverty, self-abnegation, and brotherhood, with an autocratic administration of large affairs and the irresponsible power of one man.”[50] The other Tolstoyan colonies across Europe suffered similar fates to Purleigh’s: as Woodcock notes, all seem to have “failed in a relatively short period, either from the personal incompatibility of the participants or from the lack of practical agricultural experience.”[51]

Beyond Europe, Tolstoy also influenced a few thinkers in the United States and in Asia. As already noted, he corresponded (and disagreed with) Ballou. Crosby was also inspired by Tolstoy and became a keen promoter of his ideas. Woodcock however suggests that perhaps Tolstoy’s most lasting impact in the United States is through the Catholic Worker movement.[52] There is little evidence that Day or Maurin were influenced by Tolstoy’s Christian anarchist writings, but Hennacy, perhaps the third most famous Catholic Worker, openly and repeatedly claims he was. Tolstoy also corresponded with, and was visited by, intellectuals from Asia. Yet as Fueloep-Miller argues, these relations “were disrupted by differences,” for instance on “the divine authority of the Veda,” on “Confucian ‘principles of good government’” and on “the role and value of patriotism.”[53]

In any case, Tolstoyism as a broadly defined - if perhaps nebulous - movement did not survive the two World Wars. What became of Tolstoyism in Russia has already been noted. Tolstoy’s writings were also banned by Hitler and Mussolini, for instance, as they realised, according to Maude, that his teaching was “dangerous to a dictatorship relying on physical force.”[54] Moreover, among pacifists and conscientious objectors, Brock explains that “few [...] have been prepared to follow Tolstoy to his final conclusion and repudiate not only the state in all its aspects but the use of even noninjurious forms of force.”[55]

Thus Tolstoy’s ideas inspired many, but they failed in many colonies, were suppressed by authoritarian regimes, and were rejected as too extreme by pacifists and other political radicals. Nevertheless, even with their failures and imperfections, Tolstoy himself and the many colonies he inspired both provide examples of attempts to live up to Tolstoy’s brand of Christian anarchism. As already noted, the comprehensive study of these examples, and of their relation to Tolstoy’s thought, still remains to be written. In any case, only rarely are they cited by other Christian anarchists as exemplary attempts to apply Christian anarchist theory in practice.

In the end, it may well be that, as several commentators have suggested, Tolstoyism’s “lasting legacy” for humanity (so far) has been largely as “a major influence in bringing into being a new pacifism, more universal in its outreach [...] than previous religious pacifism.”[56] Brock maintains that the importance of Tolstoy’s contribution was in bringing the idea of non-violence out of the Christian tradition and into “a common language with the rest of mankind.”[57] Thus universalised through Tolstoy, Jesus’ teaching on means and ends has inspired many figures in the pacifist movement, and has contributed to the broader convergence of anarchism and pacifism. Perhaps Tolstoy’s most significant impact to date, however, has taken place through the actions of one of the most famous of the twentieth century advocates of non-violence - “Mahatma” Gandhi.

6.2.5 - Gandhi: a leader by example

Gandhi openly acknowledged that Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God Is within You “deeply impressed” him and converted him to non-violence for good.[58] Even though he disagreed with some of Tolstoy’s “not accurately stated” ideas, he described him as “that great teacher whom I have long looked upon as one of my guides,” as “one of the clearest thinkers in the western world.”[59] The two briefly corresponded just before Tolstoy’s death, and Gandhi’s second ashram in South Africa was called “Tolstoy Farm.”[60]

Gandhi’s famous campaigns of non-violent resistance against the British in India need not be summarised here. What should be noted is that many Christian anarchists praise Gandhi as an example of someone who courageously applied a method that has very strong similarities with Jesus’. Of course, they accept that it is “ironic” that it had to take “a non-Christian to teach us such a valuable lesson on Christianity’s true way,”[61] that “Christians have a Hindu to thank for ‘putting the cross back into politics.’”[62] Yet according to Andrews, Gandhi “suggested that if Christ could only be unchained from the shackles of Christianity, he could become ‘The Way,’ not just for Christians, but for the whole world.”[63] For Andrews, apart from Gandhi, “no-one has ever enunciated a more Christ-like set of principles for conducting a campaign of nonviolent resistance to political oppression.”[64]

At the same time, Gandhi’s campaign was one of resistance - even if of a non-violent type. He famously said that if the choice is “between cowardice and violence,” he would “advise violence.”[65] Moreover, Gandhi did not reject patriotism, and certainly did not follow Tolstoy’s anarchist conclusions. Clearly, therefore, Gandhi is a very imperfect illustration of Jesus’ way, and not really an example of Christian anarchism. Despite this, however, Christian anarchists have drawn inspiration from him.[66] Catholic Workers in particular claim to combine “the spirit of Christ and the method of Gandhi.”[67] They admire his consistency of means and ends, his courage and his willingness to suffer in campaigning against political oppression. As is noted below, Catholic Worker actions certainly bear strong similarities with Gandhi’s.

Before describing the example presented by the Catholic Worker movement, however, it should be noted that Gandhi has inspired many famous “dissidents” aside from Christian anarchists. Martin Luther King, for instance, adapted Gandhi’s methods for the Civil Rights campaign in the United States, thereby bringing these methods back within the wider frame of Christianity. Other famous admirers and followers of Gandhian non-violence include Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Lanza del Vasto, Lech Walesa and Aung San Suu Kyi. In turn, these dissidents are all esteemed by Christian anarchists despite their imperfections (from a Christian anarchist point of view). In the end, however, they are examples of what Chapter 4 describes as a drifting away from Jesus’ teaching into more confrontational political activism. Nevertheless, for their courage and their general (but here again, not always consistent) rejection of violence, they are sometimes cited by Christian anarchists as examples worth drawing inspiration from.

6.2.6 - The Catholic Worker movement

The Catholic Worker movement has always keenly protested against social injustices. In doing so, it has often campaigned alongside other protest movements. In the United States, in the early days of the Catholic Worker newspaper, its members supported workers’ strikes, contributed to picket lines, and thus drew attention to various contemporary injustices. Catholic Workers were staunch pacifist during the Second World War. Later on, they were at the forefront of the anti-nuclear and the anti-Vietnam war movements. During the Cold War, one of Hennacy’s impacts on the Catholic Worker movement was to make its protests more confrontational. Before him, Catholic Workers had not engaged in direct civil disobedience. After Hennacy, however, an increasing number of Catholic Workers participated for example in “Ploughshares action” (such as hammering military planes), inspired by the Biblical prophecy of “turning swords into ploughshares.”[68] Although they are not Catholic Workers themselves, the Berrigan brothers - famous priests and Ploughshares activists in the United States - have been closely associated with the movement, and there is clearly mutual admiration and mutual inspiration between them.

Outside the United States and more recently, Catholic Worker Ciaron O’Reilly has been engaged in civil disobedience, Ploughshares actions and symbolic acts of “liturgy” in Australia, Ireland and the United Kingdom, including the pouring of symbolic blood in boardrooms of military corporations, rites of “exorcism” of public Ministries, and “disarming” (hammering) military equipment.[69] In England, the London Catholic Worker has been published since 2001, reporting similar acts of public liturgy and protest by its members about various issues, such as the Iraq War or the deportation of refugees. One of its main figures, Catholic priest Martin Newell, has been arrested several times and jailed twice, and his actions and beliefs have been reported as far as The Times.

Aside from these acts of protests, of course, Catholic Workers have set up a number of houses of hospitality and farming communes, mainly, but not only, in the United States - where the movement was founded and has always been strongest. In her autobiography, Day reports the mushrooming of such communities. Hennacy also tells of his frequent visits to radical communities, Catholic Worker or other, across the country. Today, there are over one hundred and seventy Catholic Workers communities in the United States and Canada.[70] In the United Kingdom, Catholic Worker houses have been set up in London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Oxford. There are also Catholic Worker houses in the Netherlands (Amsterdam), Belgium (Ghent), Germany (Hamburg, Dortmund), Sweden (Angered), Mexico (Coatepec) and New Zealand (Christchurch, Lyttleton).[71] Each Catholic Worker community is different, but all strive to provide hospitality to the afflicted and to generally embody the life of love and care eulogised by its founders.

In short, the Catholic Worker movement continues to try to embody the type of Christian anarchism advocated by Day, Maurin and Hennacy, combining a community life of love, care and hard work with participation in protests on, and if need be civil disobedience against, the burning issues of the day. The Catholic Worker movement is therefore cited by other Christian anarchists as a moving example of Christian anarchism in practice.

6.2.7 - A Pinch of Salt and The Digger and Christian Anarchist

The same methods of non-violent protest were supported by A Pinch of Salt, the Christian anarchist newspaper that was published in the late 1980s in England. Its fourteen issues include reports denouncing nuclear energy and weapons, the arms trade, torture, United States involvement in Central and South America, and the extremes of free market capitalism, as well as reports about animal rights and gay rights, and in support of famous individuals like Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu or Sri Lankan illegal immigrant Viraj Mendis. Ploughshares actions figure prominently, as do other similar acts of “liturgy” like public vigils, “reclaim the city” services, or the writing, in charcoal, of messages of “repentance” on the walls of the Ministry of Defence on Ash Wednesday. The main person and editor behind Pinch was Stephen Hancock, and the newspaper’s publication stopped soon after he was arrested for “cleansing the temple of war” (the Ministry of “‘Defence’”).[72]

The aim of Pinch, according to Hancock, was “To pitch the tent of Justice, to get involved in the thick of it, and to reflect, and learn, and act again.”[73] Pinch never aimed to found the sort of organised community of care and hospitality that is so central to the Catholic Worker (which is not to say that Pinch contributors did not admire or promote it in other contexts). Hence the example provided by Pinch in the late 1980s, and cited by several Christian anarchists since, is predominantly one of reporting injustices and engaging in liturgical protests against them, rather than one of community life of the type described in Chapter 5.

Very much the same thing can be said of The Digger and Christian Anarchist, a very similar newspaper to Pinch that was produced by Kenny Hone in Canada around the same time. The editors of Pinch and The Digger exchanged letters and reprinted one another’s writings in their respective newspapers. It does seem, however, that Pinch had a considerably larger readership than The Digger, perhaps partly because its presentation was more attractive and combined criticism of the state with humour, sarcasm, and colourful drawings and images.[74] Either way, both newspapers folded in the early 1990s.

Pinch has recently been revived by Keith Hebden, and although the presentation is inevitably different, the thematic content so far appears quite similar to that of its previous incarnation, reporting on Ploughshares actions, London’s Catholic Workers, and advertising the Camp for Climate Change - thus reflecting the different social context. Issue sixteen also includes a report on the first two conferences on Christian anarchism ever held in the United Kingdom, following the example set by the Jesus Radicals, an online community founded in the United States.

6.2.8 - Online communities

The Jesus Radicals is essentially an online community around a website that promotes Christian anarchism. Based in the United States, it has now branched out to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. The website includes an impressive discussion forum, a list of recommended reading, short essays by members, and regular advertising for the latest conference on Christian anarchism. Its very existence attests to a growth of interest in Christian anarchism, but again, there seems to be no evidence of organised community life of the style described in Chapter 5. As a website, it is inevitably confined mostly to discussions of contemporary issues from a Christian anarchist standpoint - it is difficult for a website to embody the community life prescribed by Christian anarchist thought. At the same time, it does form an online “community” of people with a mutual interest in Christian anarchism. Moreover, Jesus Radicals conferences do bring together thinkers, practitioners, and those curious about Christian anarchism (the 2009 conference was attended by some 250 participants), thus providing some of the basic ingredients on the back on which a “real” community could take shape.

While on the subject of online communities and resources, the “Christian Anarchists” group on Facebook should probably be mentioned, as should The Mormon Worker and the Yahoo group “The Lost Religion of Jesus.”[75] The first provides photos, a discussion forum, links to several other websites, and the possibility to learn more about its several hundreds of members through typical Facebook tools and applications; the second publishes The Mormon Worker (with many articles on current tensions in the Middle East) but also allows readers to post comments on individual articles; and the third provides a (relatively dormant) mailing list for people interested in Christian anarchism. Only the Facebook group, however, compares quite well with the vibrant online community of the Jesus Radicals. Finally, perhaps worth a passing mention is the Academics and Students Interested in Religious Anarchism mailing list, an online forum born out of a series of conference panels on religious anarchism in 2008.

6.2.9 - Andrews’ community work

The final main example of contemporary efforts to put Christian anarchist theory to practice is provided by Australian Christian anarchist Dave Andrews, whose writings often combine more theoretical reflections with numerous moving examples of people and communities taking the risk to courageously embrace Jesus’ teaching of love, care and forgiveness. Andrews himself appears to be heavily engaged in his local community in Brisbane, participating in countless local initiatives to care for the afflicted, to foster a real sense of community, and to protest about (local to global) injustices. He is also actively promoting “web-based networks” through which people can be moved to pledge to try to follow Jesus’ example in their own lives - an example of which is the Plan Be website, forum and community. Thus, although the community in which Andrews participates cannot really be labelled “Christian anarchist” in that such a label does not appear to be explicitly adopted by most of its members, Andrews nonetheless provides an example of an individual Christian anarchist trying his utmost to practice what he preaches in his local community and to convert people from different walks of life to Jesus’ teaching along the way.

6.3 - Incomplete examples

The examples cited in this Chapter are all either mentioned by Christian anarchists or directly inspired by them.[76] All the pre-modern examples cited by Christian anarchists are reported; but of the modern examples, only those directly inspired by Christian anarchist thinkers are. This is not to say that the numerous other individuals and communities who are cited in the Christian anarchist literature as modern examples of radicals striving to follow Jesus are not worth seeking inspiration from, but simply that they cannot really be described as examples of attempts to exemplify Christian anarchist thought.[77] They neither adopt that label, nor claim inspiration from its main authors.

In any case, it will be evident by now that most of the examples cited in this Chapter are, in some way or other, imperfect or incomplete illustrations of Christian anarchism. Although they might all agree on the Christian anarchist criticism of the state outlined in Part I, few embrace fully both of the two flanks of the response advocated by Christian anarchist thought as articulated in Chapters 4 and 5. Of all the communities mentioned above, the ones that most fully embody all the main themes from these Chapters would seem to be: the early church, inasmuch as the idyllic picture which Christian anarchists draw of its life can be seen as accurate; some of the sects and movements of the late Middle Ages and early modern period, even though many fairly quickly moved away from the purer motives which animated them at first; and arguably the Catholic Worker movement, in that among modern examples, it is the one that most fully embraces both the Christian critique of the state and a committed attempt to subvert it by building an alternative society.

It is too early to see if the Catholic Worker witness will succeed in sparking a Christian anarchist revolution (and the potential importance and impact of its apparent subtle drift away from Paul’s counsel of subjection would require a study of its own). As already noted, however, the Christian anarchist seeds of the early church were spoilt after a few centuries. Those of the radical communities of the late Middle Ages and early modern period mentioned above also seem to have failed to grow to their promised potential. Thus, both sets of pre-modern examples seem to have ultimately failed to usher the kingdom of God on earth. To reflect on why this may be so is one of the intentions of the Conclusion.

1 The precise dawn of “modernity” is, of course, a matter for debate, and the word “modern” is used here with a clear understanding that to limit it mostly to the late eighteenth century and beyond is highly questionable in the broader context of that debate. As noted in the text, however, the aim is simply to separate examples cited by Christian anarchists as preceding them in the distant past from examples of Christian anarchists themselves and of those communities that have tried to practice their teaching. The exception that upsets this typology is Chelčický and his followers (see below); but in that Chelčický lived at the very early edge of the disputed time frame of “modernity” (late fourteenth, early fifteenth centuries), and in that “anarchism” as a school of thought, and therefore as a term which Chelčický could identify with, was not to come about for another three or four centuries, a case can be made that this exception need not fundamentally undermine the proposed typology. In any case, clearly, the typology is quite fluid, although hopefully also helpful to some extent.

2 Other Church Fathers whom they cite include Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Maximillian, Cyprian, Tatian, and Hippolytus.

3 [Anonymous], Ninety-Five Theses in Defense of Patriarchy, thesis 68.

4 Maurin, Easy Essays (2003), 110. On the next page, he adds that, by contrast, “because” today “the poor are no longer fed, clothed and sheltered the pagans say about the Christians ‘See how they pass the buck.’”

5 Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 61.

6 P. Andrew Sandlin, Christianity: Mother of Political Liberty, available from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sandlin1a.html (accessed 21 November 2007), para. 5.

7 Bartley, Faith and Politics after Christendom, 23.

8 Tertullian, quoted in [Anonymous], Early Church Quotes (Jesus Radicals), available from http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/church_quotes.php (accessed 16 May 2006), para. 28.

9 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 59.

10 Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist, 63.

11 Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist, 67 and 225 respectively (see also 226).

12 Johnston, “Love Your Enemies - Even in the Age of Terrorism?,” 91.

13 Stanley Hauerwas, “The Church and Liberal Democracy: The Moral Limits of a Secular Polity,” in A Community of Character: Towards a Constructive Christian Ethic (University of Notre Dame, 1981), available from http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/hauerwas/Church&LiberalDemocracy.pdf (accessed 16 May 2006), 85.

14 Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 94.

15 Brock, The Roots of War Resistance, 13.

16 Maurin, Easy Essays (2003), 204-206 (for instance).

17 Among the less significant sects and movements sometimes (but rarely) mentioned as examples of embryonic Christian anarchism, one finds the Carpocratians, the Manicheans, the Montanists (but they all lived around the same time as the early church), and the Paulicians (from the seventh century onwards).

18 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 25. Among the sects who appeared around that time, which Christian anarchists (rarely) cite and which are not already mentioned in the text, one also finds the Bogomiles and the Cathars.

19 Brock, The Roots of War Resistance, 13.

20 For instance, Elliott, Damico and Novak mention the Beghards (also known as the Brethren of the Free Spirit), and Ellul cites the Anchorites - both specific trends within the broader monastic movement.

21 Bartley, Faith and Politics after Christendom, 40.

22 Penner, The New Testament, the Christian, and the State, 31.

23 Peter Kropotkin, Modern Science and Anarchism (The Social Science Club), available from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/science/toc.html (accessed 7 March 2008), para. 10.

24 Brock, The Political and Social Doctrines, 276.

25 Ellul, Violence, 22.

26 These numbers are those reported in John L. Thomas, The Liberator William Lloyd Garrison: A Biography (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963), 258-259.

27 (One major difference is on private property, which Ballou does not disapprove of.) Adin Ballou, Practical Christian Socialism: A Conversational Exposition of the True System of Human Society (New York: AMS, 1974).

28 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, 147.

29 Tolstoy, quoted in Kennan, “A Visit to Count Tolstoi,” 265 (Tolstoy’s emphasis).

30 Tolstoy, quoted in Kennan, “A Visit to Count Tolstoi,” 265.

31 Kenneth C. Wenzer, “Tolstoy’s Georgist Spiritual Political Economy (1897-1910): Anarchism and Land Reform,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56/4 (1997), 643.

32 Jane Kentish, “Introduction,” in A Confession and Other Religious Writings, by Leo Tolstoy (London: Penguin, 1987), 9.

33 George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), 219.

34 Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, 451.

35 Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, 411.

36 Brock, The Roots of War Resistance, 73-74.

37 Tolstoy, quoted in Brock, The Roots of War Resistance, 73.

38 Tolstoy, quoted in E. B. Greenwood, Tolstoy: The Comprehensive Vision (London: Methuen, 1975), 148.

39 Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, 464-465.

40 Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, 381.

41 Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, 372.

42 Peter Brock, “Tolstoyism and the Hungarian Peasant,” Slavonic and Eastern European Review 58/3 (1980), 350-357. Indeed, Brock argues (on page 357) that Schmitt provides the only example of a follower of Tolstoy attempting “to inject the Tolstoyan idea into the programme of a political party and to use the politically organized peasantry of his country as the instrument for bringing a new, non-violent world order into being.”

43 Brock, “Tolstoyism and the Hungarian Peasant,” 356.

44 Brock, “Tolstoyism and the Hungarian Peasant,” 357.

45 Brock, “Tolstoyism and the Hungarian Peasant,” 368-369.

46 André de Raaij, “On Ortt, Dutch Christian Anarchist, in English, on the Net” (email to me, 16 April 2007); André de Raaij, Parallels or Influence: The Dutch Christian Anarchist Movement in 1907, and the Landauer Connection, available from http://www.geocities.com/christianarchy/haifa.html (accessed 31 October 2003), para. 7.

47 de Raaij, Parallels or Influence, para. 11; Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism (London: Freedom, 1996), 237.

48 In Portugal, for instance, António Gonçalves Correia, an anarchist inspired by Tolstoy, founded two (short-lived because persecuted) Tolstoyan colonies, as explained in Alberto Franco, A Revolução É a Minha Namorada: Memória De António Gonçalves Correia, Anarquista Alentejano (Castro Verde: Câmara Municipal de Castro Verde, n.d.).

49 M. J. de K. Holman, “The Purleigh Colony: Tolstoyan Togetherness in the Late 1890s,” in New Essays on Tolstoy, ed. Malcolm Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 209.

50 Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, 378-381 (the quote is from the last of these pages).

51 Woodcock, Anarchism, 218.

52 Woodcock, Anarchism, 218.

53 Rene Fueloep-Miller, “Tolstoy the Apostolic Crusader,” Russian Review 19/2 (1960), 119.

54 Aylmer Maude, “Introduction,” in The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, by Leo Tolstoy, trans. Aylmer Maude (New Delhi: Rupa, 2001), vii.

55 Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, 468.

56 Christian Bartolf, “Tolstoy’s Legacy for Mankind: A Manifesto for Nonviolence,” paper presented at Second International Conference on Tolstoy and World Literature, Yasnaya Polyana and Tula, 12-28 August 2000, available from http:://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/tolstoj/tolstoy.htm (accessed 5 November 2006); Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, 470 (for the latter quote).

57 Brock, Pacifism in Europe to 1914, 469.

58 Gandhi, quoted in Stephens, “The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy,” 18.

59 M. K. Gandhi, “Introduction,” in Recollections and Essays, by Leo Tolstoy, trans. Aylmer Maude (London: Oxford University Press, 1937), 413-415.

60 Janko Lavrin, “Tolstoy and Gandhi,” Russian Review 19/2 (1960), 132; Stephens, “The Non-Violent Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy,” 176.

61 Charlie, “The Love of Jesus,” 5.

62 Andrews, The Crux of the Struggle, 51 (partly quoting an apparently anonymous foreword to an edited book on Gandhi).

63 Andrews, Christi-Anarchy, 95; Andrews, Not Religion, but Love, 22.

64 Andrews, Subversive Spirituality, Ecclesial and Civil Disobedience, 24 (the principles are listed on that and the preceding page).

65 Gandhi, quoted in Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, 425-426; Lavrin, “Tolstoy and Gandhi,” 137.

66 Note that Ellul, however, takes exception to this admiration, arguing that Gandhi is not an example of Jesus’ way since his method aimed “to establish the oppressive power of the Indian state,” and that Gandhi’s success was also partly due to his campaign having targeted “a people shaped by centuries of concern for holiness and the spiritual.” Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity, 100 (for the first quote); Ellul, Violence, 14-15 (for the second quote).

67 [Anonymous], “Conversation between Scott Albrecht and Ven. Gikan Ito. 29/02/04,” London Catholic Worker, April 2004, 4.

68 The “Ploughshares” movement’s name is a reference to Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 (the wording is very similar, but the following excerpt is from Isaiah): “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

69 O’Reilly, Remembering Forgetting. (The book is an autobiographical diary of his actions between 1993 and 2000.)

70 The information is taken from [Anonymous], List of States with Catholic Worker Communities (The Catholic Worker Movement), available from http://www.catholicworker.org/communities/commstates.cfm (accessed 12 March 2008). Note that Mormons have very recently been inspired by the Catholic Worker to get together and produce an equivalent paper for their denomination, as explained in Cory Bushman, “The Mormon Worker,” The Mormon Worker, issue 1, September 2007, available from http://www.themormonworker.org/articles/issue1/volume1_issue1.pdf (accessed 28 February 2008), 1.

71 [Anonymous], List of States with Catholic Worker Communities; Martin Newell, “Hosting Refugees: A Conversation,” The London Catholic Worker, issue 19, Summer 2007, 9.

72 Hancock’s actions are reported in [Anonymous], “The Cleansing of the Temple - Burglars for Peace,” A Pinch of Salt, issue 13, Summer 1989, 10; [Anonymous], “Swords into Ploughshares,” A Pinch of Salt, issue 12, March 1989, 7; Stephen Hancock, “‘No Rearmament Plan’,” A Pinch of Salt, issue 13, Summer 1989, 11.

73 Stephen Hancock [?], “Third Birthday Polemic,” A Pinch of Salt, issue 11, Autumn/Winter 1988, 8.

74 Hancock regularly reported the number of copies he made of each issue. According to these figures, at its height, Pinch reached 1000 copies per issue, and Hancock explains in issue 10 (page 20) that he usually managed to distribute 900 or more of these copies. By contrast, according to a letter sent by Hone to Hancock (which was part of the Pinch files which Hebden lent me), Hone only usually printed only around 100-150 copies of The Digger.

75 Note that this is not an exhaustive list: plenty of online communities can be found discussing Christian anarchist ideas or sometimes even claiming Christian anarchism as their central concern (for instance: Akeldama on http://www.akeldama09.blogspot.com/). The examples cited here are therefore only indicative of the types of online communities embracing elements of Christian anarchism. Still on the subject of the internet, it is also worth citing the newsletters titled Religious Anarchism and edited by Bas Moreel, which report on anarchist trends in various religions and in branches of Christianity.

76 Of the main Christian anarchist thinkers identified in the Introduction, nothing has been said of the examples provided by Pentecost, Berdyaev, Ellul, Eller, Elliott, Cavanaugh, Bartley and the Christian anarcho-capitalists. The reason for this is simple: none of them really provide examples of the type discussed in this Chapter - certainly none is cited by other Christian anarchists as doing so - and none seems to have gathered a following that openly acknowledges to be directly inspired by them (except perhaps Ellul, who appears to be a very important Christian anarchist thinker in the eyes of the Jesus Radicals). This is not to say that they have not tried to live up to what they preach, but simply that if and when they have done so, this has apparently not been noted and praised by other Christian anarchists.

77 Indeed, if the criteria are kept broad enough, many more could be added, since as Allen writes, “It is remarkable how many heroes of our cultural and moral tradition were committed to the revolutionary ideal of social development achieved by interior commitment rather than exterior coercion.” Allen, “Introduction,” xvii.