Pentecostal Anarchy (Acts 2:1,4)

In a few weeks I and hundreds of millions of other Christians will celebrate the Feast of Pentecost.  Many traditionalist Christians call this the date in Christian history as the day the Church was born or the day when the Holy Spirit came upon the Church.  But what if Pentecost is really about the beginning of the anarchist movement to implement Christ’s Commonweal of Love (the unkingdom of God)?

In Genesis 11 we find the parable or metaphor of the Tower of Babel, where God supposedly divided the world by creating languages, races, and nations.  Until that point in history, “the whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary” (Gn 11:1, NET). In the Hebraic reading of this event, it was God who thought it wise to, as the NET Bible says, disperse the Nations at Babel: “Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other” (Gn 11:7).  But is this not a convenient spin on the reality that a few powerful and greedy people came and created racism and division by dehumanizing people different than them.  Why blame God for this oppression of people?  That I do not know, but maybe a people who had been scapegoated and oppressed for so long simply didn’t know any other way than to scapegoat some else as well, even God.  But God didn’t create races, and race didn’t create racism–racism created race.

What God did do, in actuality, was work through Christ on the Cross and with Spirit-filled people to overcome racism and division and the curse of the State, beginning with the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost, 1CE.  “Now, when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:1, 4, NET). The so-called curse of Babel was reversed, and the Commonweal of Love was inaugurated. St. Paul understood this radical reversal when he said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Ga 3:28, NET). We are all humans; there is no race; there is no need for nations or borders; we are all in this together.

So, what happened?  Why has the Commonweal of Love not been successfully implemented in the two thousand years since its announcement?  Well, for one, the Church, the people of God who were charged to lead this revolution of love were co-opted by the State and now are part of the problem.  And I agree with Mark Twain that, “It’s easier to fool people, than convince them that they have been fooled.” Just look around, Israel vs. Palestine, Kurds vs. Turkey/Iraq/Syria, Dutch Belgium vs. French Belgium, Protestant vs. Catholic Northern Ireland, and these are just a few off the top of my head.

When will see that it is the Nation-State, the real Tower of Babel, which reinforces racism and violence, and which is the idol that needs to be removed from our midst.  “The government—or the State, if you will—as judge, moderator of social strife, impartial administrator of public interests, is a lie” (Anarchy by Errico Malatesta, 1900: 15).

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Jesus the Anarchist and the Commonweal of Love (Acts 4:32)

As I have been reflecting on Jesus as the prototypical anarchist and examining if he had an anarchistic program or not, I have come to three general conclusions. This is a summary of what I have been saying over the past several months in this blog.

The Commonweal of Love
Jesus announced a new age, and a new movement of people, most often referred to by conventional or so-called orthodox Christianity as the New Covenant.  I understand this new covenant to be an anarchistic one because it is clearly connected to the teaching of Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant: “But I will make a new covenant …. I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people. People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me. For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” (31:33a,c, 34).  This new covenant is marked by three realities: (a) no more need for external law; (b) no more exercising of power over others, and (c), no more subjugation to guilt and shame, but a setting free to become fully human.

It may be stated that Jesus spoke more often about the principles of the Kingdom of God rather than the New Covenant, which would seem to fly in the face of anarchy. Nevertheless, the two are intricately intertwined in Christ and his teaching.  The reason Jesus spoke often in monarchical language was not because he wanted to start a violent revolution and place himself as king, but merely because Kingdom was the most commonly used term to describe a society of people in his era. Jesus had no interest in being a king (Mt 4:8-10; Jn 6:15). Jesus, instead, was promoting a new anarchistic society through this new covenant in his blood, which for a while I was calling the un-kingdom of God, but I am now calling the Commonweal of Love.

The reason I am now calling it the Commonweal of Love is twofold.  First, Jesus calls us to a new way to love, a new interdependent way of life based on radical love. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you…” (Mt 6:43-44). This love is a repudiation of all sorts of isms—nationalism, racism, sexism, etc.— and proclaims the reality that God is perfect love (1 Jn 4:8).  Second, Jesus calls us to radical community which could be known as a Commonweal in that it calls forth the commonality of all humanity. “[I pray] that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me” (Jn 17:21).

The first Christians understood the movement of the Commonweal of Love in such a deep way that they acted radically in accordance with one of its primary principles: that property did not belong to them, but to all. “The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common” (Ac 4:32). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said that property was a no-thing, and whether it was “widely distributed” or it was “concentrated” it always failed to produce peace and communion (Letter to M. Blanqui on Property, 1840/2011: 141).  Thus, the only thing to do with “owned” property was to divest oneself of it, as the first Christians did.

The Repudiation of Power
Jesus’ preaching was prophetic against the religious, social, and political domination systems of his day.  When his followers wrongly believed that Jesus was going to seize power and that they would share it with him, Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Mt 20:25-27). To the religious elite he publicly confronted them by telling his followers, “Do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them” (Mt 23:4).  Jesus went on to say that they should have no earthly leaders, because God, the Spirit in Christ and in us, is the only leadership we will need. “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ” (Mt 23:10, NASB). Clearly, Jesus’ preaching and actions showed forth the start of new way of being for oneself and in relationship to the world.

Walter Wink writes, “Jesus denounced the Domination System of his day and proclaimed the advent of the reign of God, which would transform every aspect of reality, even the social framework of existence. … it set in motion a permanent revolution against the Power System whose consequences we are still only beginning to grasp today” (2013: 185).

Anarchist scholar Mohammed Bamyeh said, “The basic anarchist conception of evil locates it … in the capacity to exercise excessive power.  Evil is the outcome of an excessive concentration of power in a few hands, anywhere” (2009:35).  Jesus’ ministry was a clear confrontation of these powers.

The Cross & Resurrection (Confronting the Powers)
Thus, Jesus’ whole ministry of healing, forgiving sins, and preaching social justice and love was his activism, his anarchistic confronting of the religious and political oppressors of his day. The cross and resurrection further enacted his confrontation and victory over the powers of domination.

Elizabeth Johnson in her review of liberation theology notes that, “In one real sense the crucified Jesus is a victim arrested, unjustly tried, executed.  But he is far from passive. Far from legitimizing suffering, the cross in a liberation perspective shows victims that God is in powerful solidarity with them in suffering, and opens the possibility of their own engagement, both interiorly and exteriorly, against the forces of oppression. The risen Christ embodies God’s intention on behalf of everyone who is oppressed; in the end, the murderer will not triumph over his victim. … Christ is seen to be in league not with dominating powers who cause so much suffering, but with those who suffer, as the ground of their hope.  He is the Lord as the crucified one who liberates. [He becomes] Jesus Christ, Liberator” (1990, 91-92).

What it means to be in Christ is to appropriate a cross and resurrection lifestyle, a confronting of the powers, a willingness to die for yours and others freedom, and to know that you will be resurrected if you chose this life.  And as Christ is the resurrected Anarchist liberator, he calls us to fulfill his Great Commission to go and make anarchists of all peoples(Mt 28:18-20).

Jesus the Anarchist calls us to a new spirituality of radical love and communion, a nation-less, but intersubjective and interdependent way of being in the world, thus beginning the implementation of the Commonweal of Love.

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

References

Scripture quoted by permission. All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are takenfrom the NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.”

Bamyeh, Mohammed A. Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009. Print.

Johnson, Elizabeth A. Consider Jesus.  Waves of Renewal in Christology. New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1990. Print.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph. Property Is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 1840/2011. Print.

Wink, Walter. Walter Wink: Collected Readings. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013. Print.

Resist! Christian Anarchist Style (Ja 4:7)

Christian anarchy is an inner discipline, a radical spirituality if you will. It is focused on how the Christian is progressively true to him or herself in the immediate world they find themselves in. Bamyeh says, “To the extent that we live still, our sense of our humanity resides in the knowledge that we are who we decide to become.  Anarchy begins and ends here, from intelligent practice of becoming on earth” (2009: 8).  This process isn’t only true self-discovery, but also resistance to everything that we ought not be. For those are the things we must resist!

Christians are to be agitators for ours and others freedom, resisting everything and everyone who oppress us. But what keeps us from doing that is the devil. St. James exhorts us to “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Ja 4:7).

This devil is real in both the spiritual and material sense in that he/she/it inhabits and wreaks havoc in us and the institutions of the world.  But the devil attacks us individually primarily from the inside out.  As INXS sang years ago, “Every single one of us/The devil inside.”  What devils must we resist as Christian anarchists in order that we and others have the freedom to become? Here is my top ten list:

1. Denominationalism: I believe that as long as Christians belong to institutional churches (and it should be understood that so-called independent churches or non-denominational churches are, in fact, denominations in themselves) they cannot truly be free in Christ. In institutional churches Christians will always be immature in that they will always look to others to lead them where only Christ can lead. Additionally, denominationalism creates a huge disconnect with the non-Christian world.  Jesus said, “[I pray] that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me” (Jn 17:21). We must work diligently to break down every denominational barrier, resisting the evil of tribalism that divides us.

2. Statism: Christian anarchists do not believe in Nation-States, as these are evil domination systems, even those nations in the so-called democratic West. Nations, like denominations, reduce human dignity in that they create borders separating those who are in and those who are out. Nation-States demand trust and allegiance (really the American Pledge of Allegiance is not that much different than the Nazi salute, Sieg Heil). The Psalmist reminds us, “Do not trust in princes, or in human beings, who cannot deliver!” (Ps 146:3).

3. Nationalism: Like Statism, which comes in various political forms, nationalism is a (d)evil that creates an us-versus-them attitude, as if people from other nations were less human than those citizens of a given country. When Jesus came, though by birth from a particular nation (place) and religion (faith), his sacrificial death was for everyone in the human race: “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, …. (Jn 3:16).

4. Militarism: Out of statism and nationalism naturally comes militarism. As long as we have Nation-States with borders we will have war and preparation for war. But Jesus clearly and unequivocally calls us to a lifestyle of pacifism and to continually work for peace. All theologies which state otherwise are erroneous rationalizations based on a faithless fear of death.  Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God” (Mt 5:9).  This declaration of the true disciple was the precursor of the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah: “They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations will not take up the sword against other nations, and they will no longer train for war” (Is 2:4, NET).  Just because your nation may not be at war with another, nevertheless, every nation-state is, to a greater or lesser degree, training for war.

5. Sexism: For centuries Christianity was responsible for perpetuating the sins of patriarchalism and paternalism. Jesus in so many ways broke down barriers between males and females. Christian anarchists, especially males, have a responsibility to end gender discrimination.  St. Paul clearly saw that in Jesus, and his new covenant Commonweal of Love that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female–for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Ga 3:28).

6. Racism: Like the discriminatory devil of sexism is the sin of racism which is so rampant, but which can be resisted once we acknowledge it and repent. I know I have been racist and also have been the victim of racism (as a Puerto Rican). But as St. Paul says, “For there is no partiality with God” (Ro 2:11, NET).  God does not see race, color, ethnicity, religion, or creeds; God created, sees, and loves all equally.  Our call regarding racism, is to “be perfect, as your heavenly father/[mother] is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

7. Xenophobia: With the immense tragedy of the Arab Spring and ISIS testing the world’s ability to be human in welcoming refugees, it becomes clear where the devil is working in the hearts of so many Christians. These same self-avowing followers of Jesus would restrict those being systematically exterminated and subjugated from entering into their countries. We don’t even need Jesus the Anarchist to tell us what God has so clearly commanded: “So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt” (De 10:19, NET). We are called to love the one different from us and welcome them, and, more importantly, to love them.

8. Homophobia: In the US Church today there is probably no more contentious social war than the battle over homosexual marriage. This is, again, a matter for deep reflection and action, because it is the d)evil of division that creates homophobia in many Christians.  Those Christians who oppose homosexual marriage on religious grounds often deny homophobia.  Yet, this is what it is, because a phobia is directly related to the existential anxiety of loss.  This is the loss that some Christians believe will occur if they love homosexuals the way they are.  Jesus called his followers to love in a new radical way, a love of those even you disagree with; a new kind of love:  “I give you a new commandment–to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another” (Jn 13:34). One of the readers of this blog said that Christian anarchy could simply be understood as living out the Golden Rule: “In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets” (Mt 7:12). Applying this to LGBTQ community is never more important than now.

9. Consumerism/Corporatism/Capitalism: Sometimes the Bible is used as a tool by different political camps to lift up one economic system against another. Whatever your view point here is, there is clearly a call in the scriptures to resist becoming greedy. Greed is avarice and the oppression of others. That is why Jesus said “[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the [Commonweal of Love]” (Mt 19:24). Seeking to be rich, to see people (or yourself) as consumers, to rely on corporations to hold the keys to labor (wage slavery) is sinful, and a denial of your own and others freedom.

10. Fascism: Fascism is defined as “a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.” Though this election cycle has produced a vibrant conversation about the potential for fascism in America, I believe it is already occurring in subtle and not so subtle ways. Whether you agree with my assessment or not, as Christians we must remember that Jesus said, “The kings of the Gentiles [peoples] lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves'” (Lk 22:25-26). Jesus the Anarchist calls us to service, not rulership.

———————————————

These are just some of the beliefs and actions that divide, kill, and destroy our ability to become human, to live free in Christ. What other isms or (d)evils can you think of that represent the evil that Christian anarchists need to resist?

References
Bamyeh, Mohammed A. (2009). Anarchy as Order: The History and Future of Civic Humanity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Scripture quoted by permission. All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved.”

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

No Pro Deo et Patria (Lk 16:13)

The motto of the Army Chaplaincy (for which I once served) is Pro Deo et Patria, or For God and Country.  This motto is a clear violation of Christ’s teaching which says, “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and [Mammon]” (Luke 16:13, NET).

Mammon represents the seven princes of hell, or as Gregory of Nyssa and other fathers of the Church saw simply as the personification of evil, the devil.  Mammon then is the false god which enslaves people to the State which is about power, violence, and materialism.  Overwhelmingly, people in our modern world are possessed by this false god.

A popular motto for secular anarchists is No Gods, No Masters. I agree with this motto, but with the caveat that Christian anarchists have no religious gods or earthly masters.  The God that anarchist Christians profess is a God that makes no demands of people, and is not a master in the way the world understands masters.  The God of Christian anarchists is the good Spirit that created every one of us and lives in every one of us.  We each are called to serve the Spirit that lives within us (perfect conscience), which is our true self, and which leads us to do good and not evil, which instructs us as a spiritual teacher, and guides us to live in radical freedom and responsibility as anarchists. “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord’s Spirit is, there is freedom” (2 Co 3:17, NET).

God the Spirit, which we are made in the image of, instructs us to love neighbor, God, and self as one reality.  You cannot love God, self, and others if you are beholden to the State, capitalism, warfare, religious denominations, etc.  To serve the Christ, who is your truest self, is to be a Christian. If you are a faithful student (disciple) of Jesus, you will find yourself increasingly becoming an anarchist.  This is a paradox, but you cannot serve Christ, the all-encompassing Cosmic One, and Mammon, which is the personification of evil, the greed and oppression of the State, the power of religious denominations, and the materialism of capitalism.

Last Sunday was Palm Sunday, where we saw Jesus coming into Jerusalem as the anti-king who rides a donkey, wearing a crown of thorns and coming against the corrupt kings of this world who ride stallions with chariots, and who wear crowns of gold stolen from the people of God.  Jesus rebukes kingship (Religious Gods and Earthly Masters), willingly bearing His Cross, and calling us to serve the good (the Christ). Therefore, you cannot serve both the Christ, the anti-king, and Mammon, the kings and powers of this world, whether political or religious.

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Mere Christian Anarchy (Pr 13:7b, MSG)

In just the past few weeks I was informed that four of my neighbors were moving.  Aaron, next door, and Margie, next to Aaron.  Phil and his two-year-old son, right across the street, and Charlie and Ruth, two houses down.  My daughter’s friend Latasha is moving to another state in a few weeks, and my son’s friend Jonathan moved recently as well.  Many of my kid’s best friends have moved away over the past three years.  Yes, they will make new friends, and we will have new neighbors, but something is dreadfully wrong with this picture. The sadness that we feel is deep; and yet I know that I and my family should not think we are immune from suffering. But the notion of society, of being social beings, of being human, of being in community is practically gone.  Simple anarchism seems to me to be the only answer to right this wrong.

I could think like my old military friends who would often say, “It is what it is.”  But, again, there is something inherently wrong with families having to move so often just to make a living, or to be closer to family who have moved so that they could make a living, or to find safer places to live, etc.  The snow-ball effect of globalization is so entrenched in our society that there seems no way back.  I know we can’t go backwards, and I am not trying to be nostalgic for some idealized past, but globalization is killing community; it is making us economic and political slaves tightening a noose around our necks, choking the life out of us. And it is not just some impersonal “it” who is doing this to us.  “It” is me and you, who are acting like sheep as corporatists and statists are enslaving us without whip or chains.

Humanization is in inverse proportion to globalization.  The more we globalize, and the more we submit to the technological “man,” the less human we become.  We are losing not only our religion, but our humanity as well.

Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians have long been against globalization, but mostly because of some weirdly perceived future one-world-government headed by some strange mythical creature (2 Thessalonians 2:3–10 & Revelation 13).  It would be so very helpful if my Christian brothers and sisters would see the end-times monster, not as some future evil individual person, but as the systemic trend of the political-military-industrial forces creating globalization in our current end-times.

The Veteran’s for Peace organization I am a part of has a tag line that is interesting “Acting locally, recognized internationally.”  I would change that for Christian anarchists to “acting locally to impact the world.” I used the term “glocal” in my leadership book from a few years ago to express this notion, showing ways Christians can work locally yet have an international impact.  But this is not enough.

It is often thought that progress involves movement from the simple to the more complex, but progress (psychological, spiritual, religious, human) actually occurs when the complex is able to be understood and practiced more simply.  Progress occurs when we live our lives locally moving out towards others, rather than from the outside in. “True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the center to the periphery” (Donald Rooum, What Is Anarchism?).

I believe that the principle of “subsidiarity” as defined on Wikipedia is very helpful. Subsidiarity is “an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority” (Wikipedia: Subsidiarity). Dictionary.com defines subsidiarity as the “1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over; 2. (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level.” (The Roman Catholic social teaching on this is very convoluted, especially since they understand the State as a legitimate and responsible authority; see the confusing explanation of subsidiarity in the Catechism: 1883-1885).  Nevertheless, subsidiarity, in principle, coming out from the philosophy of Personalism works well within an anarchist construct.

Beyond the theory, the ache in most human’s hearts, in my heart, in this age of globalization is that real human relationships have been lost. Most humans, myself included of course, desire to be in deep, loving relationships, because this is our God-given nature. But we have lost the ability to engage in real relationships (even though we are more technologically connected), and more than likely don’t even know how anymore.  Thus, in so many ways, we need to reject the technological and globalized world and radically localize, to humanize ourselves and others again.

Our complex lives, our technological and globalized lives are not real.  We are externally and internally deluded.  The writer of Proverbs said, “a plain and simple life is a full life” (13:7b, MSG), and St. Paul calls Christians to, “aspire to lead a quiet life, to attend to your own business, and to work with your hands …” (1 Th 4:11, NET), and “so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people” (Ro 12:18, NET). Jesus also calls us, through the Parable of the Rich Fool, to the simple local life of freedom: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out – a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32-34, NET).

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Christendumb (Jn 18:36)

After just a few hundred years, as the Church grew rapidly despite intense persecution and without any political power, Christianity suffered its greatest blow to its credibility and viability as a movement of God’s authentic people.  In 313 the Church went to bed with Emperor Constantine and became part of the Kingdom powers of this world. The late Phyllis Tickle, encouraged by a new movement of authentic Christian faith in the 21^st century, remembered this situation all too well.  “[T]here is no question that Constantine’s preempting of Christianity in the fourth century was the great pivot point by means of which Christianity became a dominant institution” (2008: 161). This pivot point is commonly known as the beginning of Christendom (Christian + Kingdom), which I believe should be known as the era of Christendumb.

Why is it dumb for Christianity to be a kingdom? Didn’t Jesus announce and proclaim the Kingdom of God come to earth (Mt 3:2, 6:10)? No, not in the way we commonly understand kingdoms. Jesus was using the vernacular of his day to make his point, but he was not promoting developing a Christian kingdom, like the kingdoms of his, or even our, day.  Jesus when asked if he was a king replied, “My kingdom is not from this world” (Jn 18:36a, NET). What Jesus was actually proclaiming was what I am now calling the Commonweal of Love.

To put it simply, Jesus’s kingdom is not a kingdom at all, because it is not about power.  Kingdom’s, nations, empires, like the United States, are power-based domination systems.  The era of Christendumb was all about power, and even when the Reformation came, other denominations, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. went to bed with or were the state powers of their time.  They were, and still are, (de)domination systems meant to control others.

One of the scariest things about Donald Trump (his rhetoric is fascist, plain and simple) is that he claims that he will give Christianity power again if elected.  Religious leaders like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, Jr. have sidled up to Trump in the hope that they too will have power. The response of all Christians to Trump and all denominational authorities should be resoundingly, “We don’t want your power, nor do we need it.”

To put it more clearly, if Christians were to have power then they could fight and kill just like the immoral nations of this world, especially the United States.  But Jesus said, “If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders.  But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (Jn 18:36b, NET).  Jesus does not call us to have power, lest we fall into the temptation of the world towards domination and oppression.  St. Paul also proclaimed the strangeness of our commonweal of love and the pacifist attitude of Christians who live an alternative (anarchist) lifestyle: “For though we live as human beings, we do not wage war according to human standards, for the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God …” (2 Co 10:3-5a, NET). Our weapons are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Ga 5:22-23a, NET).

Christian anarchists, therefore, and all Christians for that matter, should have no interest in the powers – the States, Empires, Nations, and Denominations of this world.  They are abstract objects, no-things; they are like deceptive idols (see Habakkuk 2:18 and 1 Corinthians 12:2).  Christians are inaugurating the new commonweal of love because “our citizenship is in heaven…” (Ph 3:20a, NET).

Mohammed Bamyeh said, “… the fundamental starting point in a consistent anarchist conception [is a] … duty toward humanity” (2009: 30).  “Fundamental to anarchist thought therefore is apprehending human reality in a non-abstract manner.  This perhaps is why anarchy has historically been oriented to local community, where human bonds are both experienced in everyday life and negotiated there as well.  Anarchists therefore do not belong to nations” (2009: 37).

That our citizenship is in heaven, i.e. the “kingdom” of God as Jesus preached it, is the real lived out, commonweal of love. The commonweal of love is experienced in the local “places” of relationships wrought in the Kairos time of the immediate reality of our lives.  Christian anarchists do not belong to nations; we belong to Christ and the world, where we live and breathe as a no-nation under God.

References
Bamyeh, A. Mohammed (2009). Anarchy as Order.  The History and Future of Civic Humanity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing.

Tickle, Phyllis (2008). The Great Emergence.  How Christianity is Changing and Why. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Anarchist Sacraments (1 Co 10:16)

What Is A Sacrament?
God, who is spirit, mediates God-self to us, soulish people, in diverse ways through the material realm. Humans are not abstract spiritual beings; we are concrete soulish people, made up of spirit and flesh.  Christians are not to be dualist, binary thinking people who see their bodies as bad and temporary and their spirits as good and eternal. God created us from the good earth, and we will all return to this good earth, only to be resurrected from the dead in the life after life after death (see N.T. Wright).  In the meantime, God ministers amazing spiritual grace to us through material “stuff” called sacraments.

Joseph Martos notes that in the Catholic tradition, sacraments are “outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace” (2001: 109).  These signs are encounters with Christ in a real and tangible manner.  Often in the minds of Catholics, unfortunately, these encounters are understood to be limited to the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

However, a wider and more post-modern view of sacraments was well proposed by the recently deceased Protestant theologian Marcus Borg who said a sacrament is “a mediator of the Spirit.  A sacrament is anything finite and visible, through which the Spirit becomes present to us.  Now, in the broadest sense nature can be a sacrament, music can be a sacrament.  Virtually everything in human history has, for somebody, been a means whereby the Spirit has been mediated to them.  The purpose of religion is to mediate the sacred” (2002).

The Anarchist Church
The Universal or Catholic Church exists as that religion which mediates the sacraments to the world. This Church is made up of “religious” people who mediate sacraments one to another.  Thus, the Church (each of them in the local sense) is the Sacrament of God to the various communities they find themselves in. The visible Church should be understood, in its fullness, especially as anarchists, simply as a regular gathering of at least two people who believe in Jesus (Mt 18:20).  This simple church is the Church.  As the eminent Catholic theologian Hans Kung has stated, “[T]he local Church does not merely belong to the Church, the local Church is the Church” (1967: 121).

This local and whole Church, additionally, as it began, was not, nor was it ever intended to be a hierarchical, monarchical institution. The primitive Church was fiercely egalitarian, and each person in each local body was entirely involved in the sacramental life of the Church. Again Kung notes, “The community at Corinth to which Paul wrote was a fellowship of charismatic Christians in which each had a responsibility, a specific responsibility according to his charism, and in which no one … carried an exclusive responsibility for the rest” (1967: 515).  Furthermore, Kung states, “there is no evidence anywhere of a monarchic episcopate in the primitive period, not even in Acts…” (1967: 515-516).

The Scriptures certainly bear this out. St. Paul, it seems, gave the responsibilities of the sacraments to the whole body of believers: “Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Co 10:16, NET, author’s underlining).  The sacraments were not something that an apostle or a bishop or a priest was supposed to do.  It was the people, the regular people, who celebrated and consecrated the sacraments.

Hans Kung said, “The entire Church is given the power to baptize; every Christian has the power to baptize (and to teach). The charge of forgiving sins was also laid upon the Church as a whole; … every Christian is fundamentally empowered to take an active part in the forgiving of sins. And finally even the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, …, is a charge laid upon the whole Church” 1967: 485).

Richard Gaillardetz, another Catholic scholar, said, “For Paul … social stratification was a departure from the will of God and an offense against the eucharist.   The New Testament knew no formal distinction between church leadership and the rest of the community” (2008:174).

Presiding Over The Sacraments
Thus, in the early church, there were no pastors or sacerdotal priests as we know them today.  Each local church (mostly houses) operated as an independent (autocephalous) and egalitarian body of Christ. The presider over the Eucharist ritual was chosen among the people, by those who were a part of that local church, not as a permanent position (that came much later), but as a facilitator.  The presider was the not the consecrator or celebrant of the sacraments; the whole congregation was the consecrator or celebrant of the sacraments.

Additionally, any person presiding over the communal sacramental ritual was not expected to be any holier than anyone else in the congregation—the whole Church is holy. Therefore, the efficaciousness, or the imbued grace, within the sacrament was not dependent on the one administering the sacrament.  There is a pithy Latin expression which embodies this truth: ex opere operato.  Ex opere operato means “by the work worked,” and as Martos explains, “that as a sign of what was happening, a sacramental ritual was independent of the holiness of the minister” (2001: 109).

Anarchist churches then ought to rotate the presider or president of the sacrament, when the sacramental ritual is more efficiently administered by a single person. When the sacrament, such as baptism, can be done communally, then the ritual words should be recited or enacted by the entire church. The anarchist Christian ought to understand himself or herself as a sacrament to the world, a sign of God’s grace, as a member of the Church embodying Christ as the primordial sacrament of God.

———————————————————-

As an action of anarchist protest against the power of the institutional church, on Worldwide Communion Sunday every Christian should violate the immoral teachings of their respective churches which separate believers by eucharistic faith. Catholics and Orthodox should attend Protestant churches, and Protestants should attend Catholic and Orthodox churches and receive communion. This should be done in honor of Christ’s teaching and as a direct action against the oppressive powers of the institutional church.

References
Borg, Marcus (2002). Religious Pluralism:  Seeing Religions Again (Lecture), University of California, San Diego; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHIv-c-Rpzw, 18:56 (YouTube video).

Gaillardetz, Richard R. (2008). Ecclesiology for Global Church: A People Called and Sent. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).

Kung, Hans (1967). The Church. Garden City, NY: Image Books.

Martos, Joseph (2001). Doors to the Sacred. A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Ligouri, MO: Ligouri Publications.

 

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Hermeneutics for Christian Anarchists (2 Tim 3:16)

In 1983, one of my college professors (I can’t be sure, but I think it was Sidney Helfent) used the word “paradigm” in such a way that I have never been able to forget.  He defined it not only as a theoretical model or construct, but as a unique “jumping off point” or “place of departure” for theory making.  Thus, a paradigm shift, a la Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, isn’t only a radical replacement theoretical model or construct, but first and foremost a new jumping off point—a unique way of seeing.

In hermeneutics, the art and science of literary interpretation, there are a variety of theoretical schools which have various principles which guide them.  But of key import, I believe, is the paradigmatic jumping off point of the interpreter, not only the principles of the hermeneutic.  Thus, what we experientially believe about God and the big idea of the Bible will inevitably shape the way we approach the task of interpreting various biblical texts.  Irrespective of the rules of the interpretative construct, all of our biases and experiences are brought to the task.  As interpreters we should first recognize and declare our experiential predisposition, so that our hermeneutic paradigm is clearly understood by ourselves and others.

For example, if your jumping off point for salvation history is that all people are born totally depraved sinners in need of a savior, then the Creation Story of Genesis, regardless of its poetic and parabolic genre, will likely be used hermeneutically to support the notion that sin has literally been genetically transmuted from Adam/Eve to all people. Thus, the story of Scripture is that the only way to save wretched humanity, God has to kill a perfect sacrifice, His Son Jesus, to atone for the sins of the elect.

But if your jumping off point is that God, who is Love, created us in love for loving communion, then the Creation Story of Genesis is first and foremost a love poem, not a literal story of the Rise and Fall of Humankind. The story line then might state that for some strange reason the humans in the love story reject their suitor. Nonetheless, God in loving pursuit of humanity sends Jesus to show us the way of perfect love and communion (the Cross and the Kingdom of God). Hence, ultimately, the story of Scripture becomes the definitive parable of the victory of Love.

This may be an oversimplification, but it is meant to be illustrative, not necessarily prescriptive.

The First Task
I believe the first task of the interpreter is to succinctly declare what they believe, experientially, to be the essence, or the whole, of the Biblical story, the jumping off point of the interpreter.  This is an ontological or existential task.  If the interpreter does not have a known paradigm, then he or she is likely not going to keep the big picture of the Bible in view when exegeting the various texts.  The interpreter, then, will also not be true to his or herself but likely spout off some standard drivel from one theological camp or another, or, worse, spin some inconsistent nonsense passed off as esoterica.

Now this jumping off point isn’t reductionist.  It is what has been discovered, experientially and cognitively, as the unifying whole, the major motif of the Bible, which encompasses the diversity of ideas and concepts within it. Charles Van Engen, I believe, may have been the first to use the idea of the warp and woof of Scripture, understanding that there was a tapestry of interconnecting themes that formed a unifying whole. He said, “… it is important for missiologists to deal with the whole of Scripture as a diverse unity, [thus] we are in need of a hermeneutical method that enables us to do that” (1993: 29).

It is my contention that the Christian-Anarchist exegete will discover the kingdom of God motif as the unifying whole made up of the warp and woof of scriptural themes and contexts, and the kingdom of God motif is best understood as a loving anarchistic society.  The organization of this loving society is what Jesus announced as the kingdom of God, what myself and other anarchists have called an un-kingdom, but what I am starting to call the Commonweal of Love. Thus, the overarching and ongoing story of the Bible is the Missio Dei, God restoring the Commonweal of Love.  The Commonweal of Love was started in the anarchistic Garden of Eden, and ends in the development of the anarchistic new Eden or the City of God.  Here is a graphic version (a work in progress) of such a tapestry inspired by Van Engen’s idea:

The Second Task
The second task of the interpreter is more of an epistemological one. It answers the question about how one can understand the Bible as being true, or what is actually “right” about God and the Missio Dei, and what is man’s often times “wrong” interpretations within the Scripture.  So, the second task is to parse the Bible’s culturally imprudent statements about God and salvation history from the transculturally prudent ones. This is the task that declares how one holds in tension the possibility that facts and truth are not exactly the same thing. It is a declaration of how one understands that “Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16, NET).

Thus, this task is not about those who believe or don’t believe in the accuracy of the Bible, whether one is orthodox or heterodox, or even if one holds a high view or a low view of Scripture. It is epistemological in that it asks if one’s philosophical lenses are essentially those of a critical realist or a naïve realist. (I would say that Christian anarchists would necessarily need to find themselves in the critical realist camp).

Thus, I generally agree with Marcus Borg’s understanding of this task.  He said, “[The lenses] I am advocating does not see the Bible as a whole as divine in origin, or some parts as divine and some as human.  It is all a human product, though generated in response to God.  As such, it contains ancient Israel’s perceptions and misperceptions of what life with God involves, just as it contains the early Christian movement’s perceptions and misperceptions” (2001: 27)

The history in the Bible then is truthful both because it contains actual or factual history that can be corroborated and metaphorical history that is the remembered traditions of the authors and their communities. Again Borg is very helpful here. “… the Bible is a combination of historical memories and metaphorical narratives” (2001: 44).

Hermeneutical Principles
Once the interpreter deals honestly with the preliminary tasks, which amounts really to his or her own honest and experiential understanding of the Bible and her stories, then the standard principles of interpretation should be used (and I say should because I am no man’s master).  Here are my top ten principles of Bible interpretation (not necessarily in priority order):

• Principle 1: What do you believe was the author’s intent? Is it consistent or inconsistent with the paradigm?
• Principle 2: Read the Bible as plainly as possible, but taking into account the figurative/symbolic nature of much of scripture.
• Principle 3: Always be aware of the context of the particular verse, section, and book.
• Principle 4: Use clear scripture texts to interpret parallel difficult ones.
• Principle 5: Discern the theological themes or implications of the text.
• Principle 6: Take seriously into account the language and historical setting of the text, and the type of literature or genre you are studying.
• Principle 7: Use a Christ centered approach to the text. What does the text really say about God? And ask yourself, “Is what is said about God what others, correctly or incorrectly, think about God?
• Principle 8: Ask yourself, “Is this text didactic (prescriptive) or illustrative (descriptive)? (It is dishonest to make a descriptive text the sole basis of a prescriptive teaching.)
• Principle 9: Hermeneutics is a public discourse. Though it may be done in private by an individual, his or her resulting interpretations ought to be compared dialogically with others.
• Principle 10: Interpretation without application is like faith without works: dead. Ask yourself, “How must I act in light of what I have learned to be true?”

Conclusion
Finally, I would say that an Anarchist Biblical hermeneutic is also transcendentally based on the human being experienced in the world, and not starting from a theology from above or a metaphysical approach.  The Christian anarchist approach is as Bevans explains, not “beginning with a world of objects, [but] beginning with the world of the subject, the interior world of the human person” (1992: 98).

References
Bevans, Stephan B. (1992). Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Borg, Marcus J. (2001). Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.  Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. New York, NY: HarperOne.

Van Engen, Charles (1993). “The Relation of Bible and Mission in Mission Theology” in The Good News of the Kingdom: Mission Theology for the Third Millennium. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

Human Nature, Christianity, and Anarchism (1 Co 13:12)

Is the universe orderly, or chaotic and in need of taming? Are humans born good and altruistic, or are they genetically inclined to evil and selfishness? Is it nature or nurture that determines the character of humans? These questions have been debated for ages, but for anarchists they are integral to understanding their ideology.

Judith Suissa notes that “many of the criticisms of anarchism as a viable political ideology … hinge on the concept of human nature” (2010: 24).  Though there is a spectrum of viewpoints within anarchism about the nature of humanity (as there is in Christianity), anarchism by its own admission must validate the possibility that humans have an innate desire to organize and live freely, peacefully, and cooperatively.  Thus, for anarchists to hold a negative view of humanity would seem to fly in the face of one of anarchism’s core beliefs: the possibility of living without a hierarchical authority or State.

Peter Kropotkin
Despite the myriad wars and violence between humans throughout history, that same human history also points to a clear truth that humans have survived primarily because of their conscious and instinctual desire to cooperate, to live at peace and in freedom with one another.  In his book Mutual Aid, Peter Kropotkin makes the case for a positivistic view of humanity, and that humans have evolved into conscious social beings destined to practice solidarity. “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all the vicissitudes of history” (Kropotkin, 1902: 223).

Statists, however, will likely claim that it is human’s natural competitiveness which makes our species so resilient, hence the need for institutionalized government and control over the self-centeredness of humankind.  Since, as the Statists might say, we are born with an instinct towards selfishness and competition, certainly we would have killed ourselves off if not for the restraining force of law and order imposed by some hierarchical authority.

Nevertheless, history has also shown that societies have existed and others exist today because of voluntary cooperation and not competition, without imposed hierarchical order.  Bernie Sanders spoke on TV the other day about his very democratic childhood growing up in Brooklyn, where there was so little parental control and supervision because kids were rarely allowed to be home before dinner. He spoke of the voluntary democratic collaboration between diverse children on the playground or in the streets.  I remember this as well when I was growing up in the Bronx, playing stickball or other games without imposed leaders or authorities commanding our obedience.

Thus, my wife and I don’t encourage our children towards competitiveness, and in our homeschool co-op we emphasize, as a sort of compromise, the use of the portmanteau co-opetition. Our kids learn when playing team sports the value of working together to do well, and not against the other team to beat them. There need not be winners and losers. Henry Gartland Rice wrote in an oft quoted poem about God’s idea of competition:

“For when the One Great Scorer comes
To mark against your name,
He writes – not that you won or lost –
But how you played the Game.”

I hear Kropotkin crying from his grave approvingly, “Don’t compete! — competition is always injurious to the species, and you have plenty of resources to avoid it!” (1902: 74-75).

I noted in another post that Kropotkin had an anti-religious bent, and that he downplayed the importance of the Judeo-Christian notion of “love of neighbor.”  He seems to believe that love is not the key to mutuality, but that there is in the conscience of man something deeper than love: “Love, sympathy and self-sacrifice certainly play an immense part in the progressive development of our moral feelings. But it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience—be it only at the stage of an instinct—of human solidarity” (1902: xiii). As Christian anarchists we don’t have to disagree completely with Kropotkin, but simply know that it is our concept of love which is at that “stage of an instinct” and which imbues the conscience of humans as a gift of our Creator.

Christian Views of Human Nature
Just as there is a secular debate over nature vs. nurture, there have been strong opinions in Christian circles over whether humans are born basically good and interdependent (as in contemporary Catholicism and progressive Protestantism), or are we totally depraved and genetically prone to sinfulness (as in Calvinism and Evangelicalism)?

However, it should be clear by now that the nature/nurture debate is grossly limited by the dualism and scientism of modernity.   Spiritual discernment says there are other possibilities; mysterious and potent forces are working in our hearts, not just in our minds, to do the good that is in each human.  This spirituality transcends the nature/nurture debate and creates the possibilities that even the worst sort of sinners can be redeemed by supernatural forces working in concert with the God consciousness in each of us—which is the working of the Spirit of Christ.

Nevertheless, I believe that all of us may have innate tendencies towards both selfless (good) and selfish (evil) behavior.  But humans, because of their God-given conscience, are continually being prompted by the Spirit within them to choose selflessness. And only as one might go against his or her own conscience do they choose selfishness (evil). Thus, we must nurture the goodness that is already in our hearts to the glory of God and to promote the common good.

(The philosophical basis for this kind of positivism may be found in less nihilistic versions of Existentialism.  Simone de Beauvoir opens her book The Ethics of Beauty with Montaigne’s poignant words “Life itself is neither good nor evil, it is the place of good and evil, according to what you make it.”)

The Bible & Human Nature
I believe the Bible portrays humans as having enough freedom to be fully responsible for our actions, feelings, and thoughts, but recognizing that our freedom is often limited, to a greater or lesser degree, by genetic, social, and cultural factors. The parables of the Creation/Fall story and the Book of Job are instructive in this regard, as well as the breadth of Scripture, especially in the history altering coming of Christ and impartation of the Holy Spirit on all flesh (Jo 2:28/Ac 2:17-18). Thus, we are free indeed, as Jesus said (Jn 8:36), but not unlimitedly so, because humans are finite beings. St. Paul said, “For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known” (1 Co 13:12, NET).

Yet, everyone us can transcend our current realities, but only in as much as we are open to make choices congruent with our freedom and responsibility to God and others. We can all participate in the process of our own becoming, not only for our own sake, but also, and primarily, for the common good.

Thus, the nature vs. nurture debate limits the possibility of moving towards creating anarchistic societies, because it does not take into account the working of God’s Spirit in the world of those who believe.  Christianity, and other spiritualties or religions, contribute another factor to the nature/nurture debate which is based on freedom, and that is the Spirit of Freedom’s interaction in our lives and the lives of those around us.  That is why we hear of people, over and over again, transcending their own realities, becoming what most believed they could not become—utilizing their freedom to dream and create new possibilities.  And that is why I can expect that because God’s creative image is implanted in each person, we are all called to work towards our own transcendence, to become fully free and responsible human beings.

Kropotkin’s notion of Mutual Aid describes, as I see it, a secular vision of the freedom and interrelatedness of God, self, and others.  The State and organized hierarchical religion limit this exercising of our freedom by assuming too much responsibility for our lives. Each unique, God-imaged, and dignified person must live out their freedom and responsibility to the fullest extent, and realize that as Simone de Beauvoir said, “Man is free, but he finds his law in his very freedom” (1948: 170).

References
de Beauvoir, Simone (1948). The Ethics of Beauty. New York, NY: The Philosophical Library.

Kropotkin, Peter (1902). Mutual Aid. A Factor of Evolution. New York, NY: McClure and Phillips & Co.

Suissa, Judith (2010). Anarchism and Education. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016

St. Paul and the Commonweal of Love (Ro 14:17)

I returned last Monday refreshed from a weekend in New York after meeting with my fellow clergy at our annual conference.  One of our bishops spoke about the sad state of the Church, noting how few Christians understand the spiritual reality of the Kingdom of God which Jesus proclaimed.  He quoted the biblical scholar Gordon Fee who said, “… it is fair to say that to miss—or to misunderstand— [the term the kingdom of God] is to miss Jesus altogether” (164).

Mostly the bishop spoke of out a conventional understanding of the kingdom of God motif, thus, sadly missing the main point as well.  Nevertheless, he did expound on one important scriptural truth of what the kingdom of God is really all about: The Spirit of God.  Jesus said to his detractors, “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (Mt 12:28, NET).  The kingdom of God is about the Spirit of God operating in the realm of our lives—in our hearts—, and not necessarily about earthly political rule and power.

This woeful misunderstanding of maybe the most important term in the Bible is why I have chosen to regularly use the term un-kingdom of God. Because, as I have repeatedly said, most people think of earthly political power and rule when they think of a kingdom, I hope to jar them into a new way to appropriate the real meaning of this term: The Un-Kingdom of God, which is the opposite of political rule/power, thus ethical anarchy.

Some believe that the confusion surrounding the terms The Kingdom of God/Heaven or The Gospel of the Kingdom is that Jesus and St. Paul seemingly use the term in different ways.  Jesus spoke of the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Kingdom of God/Heaven exclusively, whereas Paul used other prepositional phrases to describe the Gospel:  the Gospel of God, the Gospel of God’s grace, the Gospel of peace, the Gospel of His Son, the Gospel of salvation, but most often the Gospel of Christ.  This polarity between Paul and Jesus has been exaggerated by some (i.e., Jesus preached the Kingdom, Paul preached Grace or the Church).  I believe both Jesus and Paul preached the same gospel of the “kingdom,” but Paul used an array of descriptive terms to display the many beautiful facets of the gospel of that same “kingdom.”

Nonetheless, one of the most important (and there are not that many) Pauline uses of the Kingdom of God term occurs in Romans.  “For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Ro 14:17, NET).  Paul is saying that the kingdom of god is not an external thing, like the kingdoms of the world.  John Gill, in his commentary about this text, reiterates this truth that the kingdom is not about the State or the hierarchical church, but the inner disposition of the free Christian.  Gill, I believe, is connecting us back to Jesus’ clear teaching, “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Lk 17:21, KJV). It is the Spirit of God within all of us.

Though I have come to appreciate the shock value of the un-kingdom phrase, it is not unique to me.  Even though I came to it through my own discovery of Jesus as my un-king, I immediately found these terms already in use among other Christian anarchists, especially Mark Van Steenwyk, who claims to have first received it from a blogger named Jason Evans. (I must give props to those who deserve props, Ro 13:7).

It is not my desire to create more confusion, however.  I want to be clear in communicating the unique version of the kingdom that Christ was proclaiming.  Thus, I am considering dropping the use of un-kingdom and using and explicating a replacement term: The Commonweal of Love.  I know that, on the onset, this may be more confusing. And I am not attempting to be arrogantly neologistic. I am simply attempting to follow the advice that David Tracy gave to those attempting theology in the post-modern age.  Tracy saw the contemporary theologian exercising a metaphorical or analogical imagination to make the Christ event contemporarily understood and relevant.  He said, contemporary theologians will create poignant analogies through a “reflective and imaginative power [while] involved in the dialectical relationships of participation and critique” (410).

For me The Commonweal of Love expresses the radical societal nature of Christ’s vision, while expressing it within the most fundamental understanding of the nature of God.  Maybe it could be called The Agape Society or The Christhood (Christian-Neighborhood), or some other way to spark the anarchistic Christian imagination, so as to emphasize a new way of relating to others and living a truly free and responsible life in the world with God and others.  What has to be done, I believe, at the core, is to somehow help others, Christians especially, to begin to truly appropriate what Jesus was saying about the radical nature of the Kingdom of God which has come near.  This is the Good News.

I’ll close this entry with the words of the excommunicated and executed Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola. “Do you wish to be free? Then above all things, love God, love your neighbor, love one another, love the common weal; then you will have true liberty” (Gibert, 1895: 378).

References
Fee, Gordon (2000). Listening to the Spirit in the Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Gilbert, Josiah Hotchkiss (1895). Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers. New York, NY: Wilbur B. Ketchum.

Tracy, David (1981). The Analogical Imagination. Christian Culture and the Culture of Pluralism. New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing.

© Pablo de la Paz, 2016