The Anarchism of Jesus Christ: The Sermon on the Mount as a Left-Libertarian Manifesto And the Early Church as an Anarchist DRO “The LORD of hosts is with us; The God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah Come, behold the works of the LORD, Who has made desolations in the earth. He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire. Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!” —Psalm 46:7-10 The very essence of Christ’s social message is anarchy. Anyone that understands what anarchism is and that is also familiar with the social teachings of Jesus Christ is bound to conclude that Christ’s message was anarchistic. Anyone that does not believe that Christ was an anarchist either (1) does not truly understand what anarchism is or (2) does not understand the message of Christ. The social gospel of Jesus Christ was not just distributism, but anarcho- distributism! The sociopolitical message of Christianity is left-libertarian anarchism. The only people who can honestly deny this claim are those who are ignorant—ignorant of the message of Christ, or ignorant of the teachings of anarchism, or ignorant of both, but ignorant all the same. Ignorance and unbelief are the only legitimate reasons that a “Christian” can give for rejecting the ideas of libertarian anarchism. Nearly every political philosopher that has come out as a proponent of anarchism has defined anarchy as something like this: a social order that rejects “legalized” aggression against non-violent and peaceful members of society. In other words, anarchism is a voluntary social order that rejects the imposition of arbitrary rules upon individuals through the coercive means of organized violence and the threat thereof. Anarchy is a social order where all of the legitimate functions that are currently monopolized by the State (i.e. defense of persons and property, dispute resolution, enforcing of fair contracts, protection from invasion and crime, issuing of a medium of exchange or money, etc.) are fulfilled by voluntary associations and organizations apart from the State’s monopoly system. While the particulars of economic theory may differ among individual anarchist theorists, the definition of anarchism is quite simple and basically agreed upon by all of the main anarchist theorists, by those on the far right and by those on the far left; and this point can be easily proven with a few quotes. Murray Rothbard, the greatest proponent of right-wing anarchism, writes: “I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual…. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.”1 And Alexander Berkman, one of the greatest proponents of left-wing anarchism, writes: “That is the difference between managing things and governing men; between doing something from free choice and being compelled. It is the difference between liberty and constraint, between Anarchism and government, because Anarchism means voluntary cooperation instead of forced participation. It means harmony and order in place of interference and disorder.”2 Benjamin Tucker writes: “This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.”3 And Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first writer to apply the term anarchism to his own views, wrote: “As a variety of the liberal regime I have mentioned anarchy—the government of each by himself, self- government…. politically, the idea of anarchy is quite as rational and concrete as any other. What it 1 Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State (http://mises.org/journals/lf/1975/1975_01.pdf) 2 Alexander Berkman, The ABC of Anarchism, Chapter 21 (“Is Anarchy Possible?”) 3 Benjamin Tucker, Individual Liberty, Ch. 1 means is that political functions have been reduced to industrial functions, and that social order arises from nothing but transactions and exchanges. Each may then say that he is the absolute ruler of himself, the polar opposite of monarchical absolutism…. anarchy is the ideal of the economists, who attempt strenuously to put an end to all governmental institutions and to rest society upon the foundations of property and free labour alone.”4 Mikhail Bakunin asserted that the anarchists intend to: “bend all their efforts toward reconstituting their respective countries, in order to replace their old constitution—founded from top to bottom on violence and the principle of authority—with a new organization based solely upon the interests, the needs, and the natural preferences of their populations—having no other principle but the free federation of individuals…”5 Peter Kropotkin wrote: “In a society developed on [anarchist] lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international, temporary or more or less permanent—for all possible purposes: production, 4 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, The Principle of Federation, Part 1, § 2, 4 5 Mikhail Bakunin, Federalism, Socialism, and Anti-Theologism consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defense of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever- increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary— as is seen in organic life at large—harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.”6 Hence, Rothbard notes that “the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market.”7 Anarchists may disagree about the best way to organize a free society, but they are all agreed that it ought to be organized on a voluntary basis—no political or economic system should ever be imposed on people through brute force!8 The message that Christ delivered in the Sermon on the Mount seems to me to be a message that is in line with left-wing anarchism. The implications of the doctrines espoused by Christ in that sermon are anarchistic. If one takes Christ’s message seriously, then something like the anarcho-pacifism of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi naturally follows. Furthermore, the early Church seems to have served as an anarchistic dispute resolution organization (DRO) and the necessity of such anarchistic organizations among Christians follows from the fact that several of Christ’s sayings in the Sermon on the Mount actually amount to prohibitions against 6 Peter Kropotkin, The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910), entry on “Anarchism” 7 Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State (http://mises.org/journals/lf/1975/1975_01.pdf) 8 Even anarcho-communism is totally voluntary in basis. Cf. Alexander Berkman, The ABC of Anarchism, Ch. 20 (“What is Anarchism?”): “No, I am not a Bolshevik, because the Bolsheviki want a powerful government or State, while Anarchism means doing away with the State or government altogether…. Yes, the Bolsheviki are Communists, but they want their dictatorship, their government, to compel people to live in Communism. Anarchist Communism, on the contrary, means voluntary Communism, Communism from free choice.” participating in secular courts and judicial affairs. The Christian social order is theonomic anarchy—a voluntary society built upon the ethical framework of biblical law. The Christian community, the Church, constitutes God’s people. The Christian community ought to exemplify the Kingdom of God on Earth; consequently, all legitimate Christian communities ought to be organized as anarchist societies. And we do see this in all true Christian communities, where the local church functions as a DRO, there are monasteries and communes established on an anarcho-communist basis, and the faith is spread through persuasion rather than coercion. First, I would like to analyze some of the sayings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount. Christ starts by saying: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth…. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy…. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”(Matthew 5:5, 7, 9- 12) Jesus starts his most famous sermon by praising the meek—i.e. the gentle pacifists who are not aggressive. He warns that the non-aggressive person will be persecuted for his beliefs and way of life, but consoles the meek by asserting that they will be rewarded for their righteousness in the afterlife. Christ continues: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whosoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”(Matthew 5:21-22) After already having praised non-aggressive and meek individuals, Christ goes on to condemn not just aggression but the very attitudes and actions that lead to aggression—He condemns anger, cursing, and insulting of others. These things always precede aggression, yet Christ has condemned them. A little later, Christ adds: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”(Matthew 5:38- 39) Christ is advocating an almost absolute non-violence here. It can be argued that he is exaggerating in order to emphasize his point, but the message is still clear! How can you reconcile this message with the violence of the police state, aggressive wars, and arbitrary laws that are enforced by violence and the threat of violence? If the Christian is truly supposed to “turn the other cheek,” then how can any Christian justify the cop who brutalizes, kidnaps, and imprisons non-violent individuals for having marijuana in their possession? How can you justify the cop that will arrest the tax-evader who has done nothing wrong but has only tried to keep the government from stealing his hard-earned money? A system of police that uses aggression, violence, and the threat of violence against non-violent individuals in order to enforce the arbitrary decisions of demon-possessed politicians is totally incompatible with Christian ethics. The fact remains that if the so-called “criminal” has not committed aggression against anyone, it is a crime in the sight of God for the cop to initiate aggression against him, regardless of whatever arbitrary “rule” is written down on a piece of paper by a godless politician in Washington DC! Christ says: “And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”(Matthew 5:41-44) There are several things to note about this passage. Firstly, there is a call to charity and mutual aid. Furthermore, we are called to love our enemies. We are called to a higher level of perfection. It may sound trite but the saying is apt: I’m pretty sure that when Jesus said “love your enemies,” he didn’t mean drop bombs on them. The aggressive foreign policy of the Trotskyesque neo-conservative movement is simply out of accord with Christianity. The American “Religious Right” is not a group of fundamentalists; it is a group of wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are a bunch of Satanists in Christian garb. They are not fundamentalists—they reject the fundamentals! They are hypocrites and heretics. He continues his sermon: “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”(Matthew 5:46-48) It is apparent that Christ regarded the tax-collectors as being among the most despicable people in society. He constantly denigrates and disparages the tax-collectors and uses them as an example of the kind of person that you must strive to not be like. Christ’s teachings condemned the system of taxation, which is precisely why “the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk” by asking Him, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”(Matthew 22:15, 17) The Gospel text clearly indicates that the question was a trap that was cleverly devised by the Pharisees in order to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities. They knew that Jesus was against paying taxes. If Jesus had been for paying taxes, it wouldn’t have been entrapment! Christ goes on, instructing us on how to pray, saying: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven… for Yours is the kingdom and the power…”(Matthew 6:10-13) We are told that Christ is “the Great King” and “the Prince of Peace.” (Cf. Psalm 47:2 & Isaiah 9:6) He is not a war-monger like the secular kings. In His kingdom, “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them.”(Isaiah 11:6) Isaiah paints a picture of Christ as a great libertarian leader, who will come “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”(Isaiah 61:1) As Christians, our allegiance is supposed to be with God’s Kingdom of pacifism. We are not supposed to be chauvinistic American patriots! Now we are about to get into the fun part. This is where I will show you that Christ was an anti-capitalist and that the early Church was anti-government and had a very anarchistic structure. I will show you that the early Church exemplified the main principles of left-wing anarchism—e.g. mutual aid, anarcho-communism, anti-capitalism, and the rejection of government courts in favor of anarchistic dispute resolution organizations (DROs). Christ said: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also…. No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Capital.”(Matthew 6:19- 21, 24) Christ was opposed to the unnecessary accumulation of capital. He advised his followers that they ought not to build up treasure upon the earth by accumulating capital. He was, therefore, an anti-capitalist. If “you cannot serve God and mammon [Capital],” because a man cannot “serve two masters,” then it follows that you also cannot serve God and Caesar! You cannot serve God and government! It is precisely for that reason that, when the apostles were arrested, they refused to obey the law and instead declared, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(Acts 5:29) The authorities had commanded them to stop preaching, but in an act of civil disobedience, the apostles proceeded to preach anyway! The civil disobedience of the apostles was the prototype of the civil disobedience of later anarchists like Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, and Mahatma Gandhi! Then Christ says: “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”(Matthew 6:25-34) This passage is profoundly countercultural. We live in a capitalistic society, a society based around the accumulation of capital. We are willing to subject ourselves to slavery in order to accumulate capital. We give up our liberties: we lose our right to come and go as we please, our right to say whatever we want, and much more, all for the sake of accumulated capital from wages. As noted above, Christ condemned this approach. We drudge on in wage slavery, subjected to a hierarchical managerial system. We are not our own masters because we are the have-nots and we are willing to let ourselves be subjugated in order to get some capital from the haves! Christ tells us that we should not keep on working and struggling in order to provide for our own futures. We are to put our faith in God. This is not to say that we ought not to work; but it is to say that we ought not to allow work to become our purpose in life. In our capitalistic system, everyone is defined according to their job. When you meet another person, you ask, ‘What do you do?’ The really important things like “What do you believe?” and “What are your values?” are totally neglected! We define people according to their “careers.” Is not a man more than his career? We define ourselves according to our jobs, according to this trivial matter of how we go about accumulating capital! Isn’t life about more than money? Aren’t there many more important things out there? (Cf. Matthew 6:25) If Christ had delivering this message in modern times, he might have worded it more like this: Stop drudging on in this system of wage- slavery! Stop allowing your job to make you so miserable. Place all your cares upon the Lord and enjoy your life. Live like a free man and stop allowing your employer to enslave you! Christ has set us free, yet we are living as if we are still in bondage. Finally, I want to focus in on something that Jesus had said a little earlier in that sermon: