Examples Of Early Christian Anarchism: Private Courts

[Sola_Fide]

Paul commanded Christians to create their own private system of justice:

1st Corinthians 6:1-6

If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

RJ Rushdoony comments on this:

We know from 1 Corinthians 6 [paraphrase] that Paul said: "Don't go to the civil courts. They're ungodly. Create your own courts." And they did. They were so efficient that after a while pagans were coming to the church courts and saying: "Adjudicate our problems for us. It takes years to get a case heard in the civil courts and it bankrupts us and then we don't get justice. Would you do it for us?" When Constantine became Emperor, he called in the bishops and he said, "The courts of the Empire are failing. We have cases that have been in the courts forty years with no justice. I want you men when you go out in the streets to wear the garb of a Roman magistrate by my orders so that the people of Rome and of the Empire will no that they can come to you for justice. Well, that's where the bishop's garb comes from. Unless a bishop has heard me lecture on the subject, he doesn't know where his own bishop's robe originates.

[tod evans]

I'd be more inclined to refer to this as early Christian justice.

Refusal to use government funded courts isn't anarchy in my book.

Especially if good people in an area band together seeking justice in time tested means..

[Sola_Fide]

I'd be more inclined to refer to this as early Christian justice.

Refusal to use government funded courts isn't anarchy in my book.

Especially if good people in an area band together seeking justice in time tested means..

Really? I would certainly regard private voluntary courts as anarchistic.

[tod evans]

I tend to view every segment of the corrupt and bastardized "Just-Us" system including its courts as the epitome of anarchism, ruling without being subject to the very laws they're supposed to enforce.

Private courts seeking justice don't strike me as anarchistic.

[Sola_Fide]

I tend to view every segment of the corrupt and bastardized "Just-Us" system including its courts as the epitome of anarchism, ruling without being subject to the very laws they're supposed to enforce.

Private courts seeking justice don't strike me as anarchistic.

I see where youre coming from. Well, in any case, we have from Paul an explicit rejection of statism and an endorsement of voluntary arbitration.

[Christian Liberty]

I see where youre coming from. Well, in any case, we have from Paul an explicit rejection of statism and an endorsement of voluntary arbitration.

Yer we still have Romans 13 (ugh...)

[Sola_Fide]

Yer we still have Romans 13 (ugh...)

Romans 13 is not a prescription for government, its just a recognition of God's predestinating decree.

[Matthew5]

I tend to view every segment of the corrupt and bastardized "Just-Us" system including its courts as the epitome of anarchism, ruling without being subject to the very laws they're supposed to enforce.

Private courts seeking justice don't strike me as anarchistic.

But that's not what anarchism is. The example that Sola gave was a group of people choosing to operate outside the civil government. Seems that action would be more like anarchy than the "epitome" you claim civil courts to be.

[BetterCallSaul]

awesome sola-fide.

[Origanalist]

But that's not what anarchism is. The example that Sola gave was a group of people choosing to operate outside the civil government. Seems that action would be more like anarchy than the "epitome" you claim civil courts to be.

The anarchism you speak of and most peoples perception of anarchy are two completely different things.

[Matthew5]

The anarchism you speak of and most peoples perception of anarchy are two completely different things.

One must be careful, especially on RPF, to equate anarchy with a stereotype of chaos, lawlessness, and violence.

[heavenlyboy34]

But that's not what anarchism is. The example that Sola gave was a group of people choosing to operate outside the civil government. Seems that action would be more like anarchy than the "epitome" you claim civil courts to be.

This^^ And thanks to SF for the OP. ~hugs~

[Sola_Fide]

One of the ways that Christianity changed the world (I'm talking about true Biblical Christianity, not the Roman Catholic Church-State) is that it de-divinized the state.

The ancient pagan concept of the state was that it was the Savior...in the state only was salvation. True Biblical Christianity changed that by declaring that salvation came from outside of anything in this world. It was the most radical concept that was ever introduced in history and it turned the world upside down.

The pagan tendency to view the state as savior is still with us, and sadly Christian counterfeits like Roman Catholicism still promote this.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yer we still have Romans 13 (ugh...)

That's been dealt with a number of times on the forums.
Chuck Baldwin- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/08/c...-of-romans-13/
Jim Fedako- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/02/j...ho-capitalism/
Lloyd Kinder- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/l...and-romans-13/

[Feeding the Abscess]

The anarchism you speak of and most peoples perception of anarchy are two completely different things.

The exact same could be said if you replaced 'anarchism' with 'free market'.

[heavenlyboy34]

One of the ways that Christianity changed the world (I'm talking about true Biblical Christianity, not the Roman Catholic Church-State) is that it de-divinized the state.

The ancient pagan concept of the state was that it was the Savior...in the state only was salvation. True Biblical Christianity changed that by declaring that salvation came from outside of anything in this world. It was the most radical concept that was ever introduced in history and it turned the world upside down.

The pagan tendency to view the state as savior is still with us, and sadly Christian counterfeits like Roman Catholicism still promote this.

Sorta...but not really.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/m...nd-capitalism/

[...]This brings me to the second great influence of the Catholic scholastics — the natural law, natural rights theory. Certainly natural law was a great hindrance on state absolutism, and it began in Catholic thought. Schumpeter points out that the divine right of kings was a Protestant theory. The natural law, natural rights theory, also came down from the scholastics to the French and British moral-philosophers. The connection was obscured by the fact that many of the 18th-century rationalists, being bitterly anti-Catholic, refused to acknowledge their intellectual debt to Catholic thinkers. Schumpeter, in fact, claims that individualism began in Catholic thought. Thus: "society was treated (by Aquinas) as a thoroughly human affair, and moreover, as a mere agglomeration of individuals brought together by their mundane needs… the ruler's power was derived from the people… by delegation. The people are the sovereign and an unworthy ruler may be deposed. Duns Scotus came still nearer to adopting a social-contract theory of the state. This… argument is remarkably individualist, utilitarian, and rationalist…."2 Schumpeter also stresses Aquinas' defense of private property. Schumpeter particularly mentions the anti-statist spirit of the scholastic Juan de Mariana, 1599. He also treats their adoption of the market price as essentially the just price, utility theory, subjective value, etc. He says that while Aristotle and Scotus believed the normal competitive price was the just one, the later Spanish scholastics identified the market price with any competitive price, e. g., Luis de Molina. They also had a gold standard theory, and opposed debasement. Schumpeter also says that de Lugo developeda risk-theory of business profits, which, of course, was only fully developed at the turn of the twentieth century and later.3

While the 18th-century natural-rights theory was much more individualistic and libertarian than the scholastic version, there is a definite continuity here, too. The same is true for Rationalism, reason having been the main device used by Aquinas, and reason having been fought by Protestants, who place their theology — and their ethic — on a more emotional, or direct Revelation, basis.

We may sum up the Case for Catholicism as follows: (1) Smith's laissez-faire and natural law views descended from the late Scholastics, and from the Catholic Physiocrats; (2) the Catholics had developed marginal utility, subjective value economics, and the idea that the just price was the market price, while the British Protestants grafted on a dangerous and ultimately highly statist labor theory of value, influenced by Calvinism; (3) some of the most "dogmatic" laissez-faire theorists have been Catholics: from the Physiocrats to Bastiat; (4) capitalism began in the Catholic Italian cities of the 14th century; (5) Natural rights and other rationalist views descended from the Scholastics.[...]

[heavenlyboy34]

The exact same could be said if you replaced 'anarchism' with 'free market'.

and "capitalism".

[Theocrat]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, Sola_Fide. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that anarchy (in any form) is okay.

[Matthew5]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, Sola_Fide. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that anarchy (in any form) is okay.

Anarchy as described in this thread means our relations to other men. So it's not oxymoronic, we still claim devotion to God and recognize Him as authority in our lives. Not all anarchist shun 100% of all earthly authority either, most believe it should be a voluntary choice. For example, as an employee in a free society, I choose to be under the authority of my employer.

I suppose one could say that anarchy and Christian are terms that are inharmonious, but not an oxymoron.

[Sola_Fide]

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, Sola_Fide. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that anarchy (in any form) is okay.

I definitely agree with you that it is distinguished from the atheistic, atomistic anarchism that is popular today. For instance, Christianity prescribes the family structure, and the atomistic anarchism is not compatible with that. In fact, the rejection of the family is the reason that those atheistic and atomistic conceptions will always lead back to statism. Also, because God's eternal court is rejected, man's court becomes primary. Man looks to the collective as his calling box for values. Atheism calls collectivism into being.

But where I disagree with some (most) of the Christian political theorists I respect is that they interpreted some passages to mean that a state was prescribed in Scripture, and I don't see it that way. In fact, if a state was prescribed, it would neccessarily violate the commandment against theft.

The Gentiles lord it over each other, but it is not the same with us. As a matter of pragmatism, we should pay respect to a government, but it's existence is no more prescribed by the Bible than slavery is. Slaves should obey their masters, but slavery is not a prescription. If you can find your way to freedom, you should, as Paul says. It's the same with the state. We should obey the governing authorities, but their position is not prescribed.

[Theocrat]

Anarchy as described in this thread means our relations to other men. So it's not oxymoronic, we still claim devotion to God and recognize Him as authority in our lives. Not all anarchist shun 100% of all earthly authority either, most believe it should be a voluntary choice. For example, as an employee in a free society, I choose to be under the authority of my employer.

I suppose one could say that anarchy and Christian are terms that are inharmonious, but not an oxymoron.

Notice that I made a hyperlink for the definition of "anarchy" because I'm referring to the word as it's known in common, English language, not how anarchists have redefined the term to suit their own ideological interests (just like progressives do when defining themselves, to make their ideology palatable to the masses). I believe in voluntary associations for citizens in a commonwealth, and yet, I am not an anarchist. To believe in the legitimacy of civil government does not rule out the possibility of voluntary associations in society, especially from a Biblical standpoint. They are not mutually exclusive in a Christian paradigm. But once again, anarchy, as it is commonly understood in English parlance (and more importantly, in Scripture), is unbiblical, and thus, it should not be linked with Christianity.

[Theocrat]

I definitely agree with you that it is distinguished from the atheistic, atomistic anarchism that is popular today. For instance, Christianity prescribes the family structure, and the atomistic anarchism is not compatible with that. In fact, the rejection of the family is the reason that those atheistic and atomistic conceptions will always lead back to statism. Also, because God's eternal court is rejected, man's court becomes primary. Man looks to the collective as his calling box for values. Atheism calls collectivism into being.

But where I disagree with some (most) of the Christian political theorists I respect is that they interpreted some passages to mean that a state was prescribed in Scripture, and I don't see it that way. In fact, if a state was prescribed, it would neccessarily violate the commandment against theft.

The Gentiles lord it over each other, but it is not the same with us. As a matter of pragmatism, we should pay respect to a government, but it's existence is no more prescribed by the Bible than slavery is. Slaves should obey their masters, but slavery is not a prescription. If you can find your way to freedom, you should, as Paul says. It's the same with the state. We should obey the governing authorities, but their position is not prescribed.

The Bible teaches that civil authorities are righteous and necessary as ministers of God to execute civil justice. There are many passages in the Bible where that clearly is the case. Their position is prescribed, but the form is not. That is where I disagree with you.

[Christian Liberty]

That's been dealt with a number of times on the forums.
Chuck Baldwin- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/08/c...-of-romans-13/
Jim Fedako- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/02/j...ho-capitalism/
Lloyd Kinder- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/10/l...and-romans-13/

I've read Baldwin's, and his interpretation definitely doesn't allow for anarchism, although his interpretation (I agree with him, for the record, at least intuitively) is far looser than most Evangelicals.

I'll read the other two now.

"Christian anarchism" is an oxymoron, Sola_Fide. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach that anarchy (in any form) is okay.

You're probably not defining anarchism the same way he is, but it could be argued that pre-monarchistic Israel was "Anarchistic" in a sense.

But where I disagree with some (most) of the Christian political theorists I respect is that they interpreted some passages to mean that a state was prescribed in Scripture, and I don't see it that way. In fact, if a state was prescribed, it would neccessarily violate the commandment against theft.

1 Samuel 8 (And also common sense, why should government ever get more than God?) is clear that any taxation at or above the ten percent level is clearly theft (Which is also why I reject the common interpretation of "Render unto Caesar"... logically Caesar can have no right to any amount of money which it would be tyrannical for him to take) and tyrannical. But is there anything in the Bible that says ALL taxation is theft? I understand why you'd say that, but is there a Scripture for it?

The Gentiles lord it over each other, but it is not the same with us. As a matter of pragmatism, we should pay respect to a government, but it's existence is no more prescribed by the Bible than slavery is. Slaves should obey their masters, but slavery is not a prescription. If you can find your way to freedom, you should, as Paul says. It's the same with the state. We should obey the governing authorities, but their position is not prescribed.

Under what conditions should Christians reject the authority of their government? Obviously when a command of theirs directly contradicts a command of God's, but do you believe there's any other situation in which that is justified?

Since you're both an anarchist (Obviously not in the atheistic or family sense) and a Biblical literalist, I'm curious what your take is here, since I get the "Obey the Authorities" mantra all the time and I'm curious if a pro-civil disobedience position can be defended from Scripture.

Notice that I made a hyperlink for the definition of "anarchy" because I'm referring to the word as it's known in common, English language, not how anarchists have redefined the term to suit their own ideological interests (just like progressives do when defining themselves, to make their ideology palatable to the masses). I believe in voluntary associations for citizens in a commonwealth, and yet, I am not an anarchist. To believe in the legitimacy of civil government does not rule out the possibility of voluntary associations in society, especially from a Biblical standpoint. They are not mutually exclusive in a Christian paradigm. But once again, anarchy, as it is commonly understood in English parlance (and more importantly, in Scripture), is unbiblical, and thus, it should not be linked with Christianity.

Rothbard's term is "Anarcho-capitalist" and while there's variation there, what basically anyone on LewRockwell.com refers to as "anarchy" is a rejection of state-authority. Not necessarily a rejection of ALL organized authority.

While I'm not an ancap, I am very sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism. I have no sympathy for anti-family viewpoints, if you can understand the distinction.

[Christian Liberty]

BTW: I just read all three Romans 13 articles: Lloyd Kindler's is exceptionally interesting and I definitely want to check the Greek there...

[Sola_Fide]

The Bible teaches that civil authorities are righteous and necessary as ministers of God to execute civil justice. There are many passages in the Bible where that clearly is the case. Their position is prescribed, but the form is not. That is where I disagree with you.

How can civil authorities be righteous if they steal?

[Matthew5]

Notice that I made a hyperlink for the definition of "anarchy" because I'm referring to the word as it's known in common, English language, not how anarchists have redefined the term to suit their own ideological interests (just like progressives do when defining themselves, to make their ideology palatable to the masses). I believe in voluntary associations for citizens in a commonwealth, and yet, I am not an anarchist. To believe in the legitimacy of civil government does not rule out the possibility of voluntary associations in society, especially from a Biblical standpoint. They are not mutually exclusive in a Christian paradigm. But once again, anarchy, as it is commonly understood in English parlance (and more importantly, in Scripture), is unbiblical, and thus, it should not be linked with Christianity.

I'll let you slide on this excuse. I think anyone who's been at RPF as long as you have should know better that anarchy is used as Voluntarism term rather than a stereotype or legal definition. But I'll reluctantly give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Matthew5]

Was just pulling up the book of Samuel and FF beat me to it. The Theocracy that existed before then was certainly closer to anarchy than the monarchy the people craved. And how about that warning of the effects of statism?

[Sola_Fide]

But is there anything in the Bible that says ALL taxation is theft? I understand why you'd say that, but is there a Scripture for it?

Exodus 20:15

You shall not steal.

...

[Sola_Fide]

I've read Baldwin's, and his interpretation definitely doesn't allow for anarchism, although his interpretation (I agree with him, for the record, at least intuitively) is far looser than most Evangelicals.

Check this guy out:

The Reformed Libertarian
http://reformedlibertarian.com/

[Christian Liberty]

...

Does the Bible define all taxation as theft though? I mean, I understand what you're getting at, but I'm curious if the Bible actually says what you're saying it says here. Especially since there are certain verses in the Bible that do seem to condone certain degrees of taxation.

Check this guy out:

The Reformed Libertarian
http://reformedlibertarian.com/

Will do.