Anarchism and Christianity by Jacques Ellul

7/28/2019 Anarchism and Christianity by Jacques Ellul

1/11

Jacques EllulANARCHISMANDCHRISTIANITY

Tha t anarchism and Christianity are the most irreconcilable enemies is so established that it seems strange to tryto reconcile them. Anarchism's war cry is "neither Godnor master." Anarchist thinkers have made antiChristianity, anti-religion, and anti-theism their fundamental points of doctrine. While one could say thatMarx's atheism (or anti-theism) is strictly subordinate sincehe deals with the question by neglect rather than by intention, the "against God" is of major importance to theanarchism of Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin. True,Marx analyzes religion at length and demonstrates thatevery revolution mUSt also be waged against religion's particularly alienating form of ideology. Nevertheless, this isnot the essential direction of his thought.

On the other hand it is self-evident that Christianity nOLonly respects authorities bu t also considers authorities tobe necessary. Everyone knows that Christianity is a doctrine of order l Certainly Calvin considered any order to bebetter chan anarchy, the most terrifying transformation of

JACQUES ELLUL is Professor of Law and Jurisprudence ar rhe Universiryof Bordeaux. His most recenr books published in the UnitedStares include The Betrayal of the West, Apocalypse, The Ethtcs0/ Freedom and The New Demons. Earlier works include TheTechnological Society, Propaganda, The Political Illusion andAUIOpsy 0/ Revolution. He is a member of the Editorial Board ofKalallogele. This article translated by Ruth Gdtsch and theeditOrs of Katal/agele.

a society. For Calvin the worst tyrant would clearly bepreferable to the absence of civil powers-a condition inwhich each would become a wolf towards the other and thesin of each would manifest itself against each and againstall, without a single limitation or check. That is, the belieof man as radical sinner completely contradicts the idea oan-archf. [Ed. note. An-arche, from the Greek arch;' thoriginating, primal or highest principle of order orauthority. Arch! moved into English in words archaic, ar-chitect, archangel, archbishop. The prefix an, in Greekand English, indicates a negation or reversal or denial othe primal, originating or highest principle of order oauthority. An-arche is the absence or overcoming of ordeor authority. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuriesanarchism assumed a political reference, indeed, became apolitical movement, discussed in this article.]

So there is rejeerion on both sides. For Christianity, amore determined rejection of anarchism than of socialismwhatever its tendency (and I do not have in mind only theidealistic, utopian. romantic socialism that pleased manyChristian thinkers so well). Scientific socialism. for example, continues to attract Christians: it too is a doctrine oorder and organization. It seeks ro attain jusrice. It caregreatly for the poor. When it speaks of freedom it is a wellregulated freedom. If the idea of the disappearance of theState is entertained by the extremists it's a minor point odoctrine-surely a small maner compared to the greaegalitarian transformation that has penetrated fully andeasily into the perspective of current Christian thoughtThe State will become moribund later on, much later onand so the doctrine of the disappearance of the Stare is nobothersome to Christians.

Conversely, socialism is ready ro accept a host of gooqualities in Christianiw-: love for others, search for justiceservice, a;l.d-the importance placed on a social plan (anno t merely an extraterreStrial o n e ~ ) . And socialists arready to recognize Christians as brothers and sisters on throad. "Those who believe in heaven and those who do nobelieve in it... ' After all, people can do the same thintogether even if they have different faiths. It works foChristians roo. It is the theory of "part of the road,caricatured a little: " ...since we both desire a society witgreater justice. fraternity and equality, let us travetogether on the part of the road that leads to it. You seour faith in God is not bothersome; it has no influenceall on our ideology regarding that sociqy we work towar(which is the same as yours), nor on the political means wuse to anain ir. We shall part company afterwards. whewe have achieved our objective, when we are in that sciety. Then we Christians will reaffirm the importancof faith in Jesus Christ."

KATALLAGET4


2/11

I is obvious that this arrangement is impossible between anarchists and Christians. When anarchists makethe destruction of religion virtually the centerpiece ofthe revolution (without which no revolution is possible),and the other cannot conceive of a society without preestablished order strictly maintained...well, what can bedone?

No dou bt the current trend of atheist Christianity makesthings easier If Christians have decided to kill God, onehalf of the journey is finished. The anarchists have little toadd, and should be quite satisfied. The good prophetJesus, pacifist and defender of the poor, never botheredthe anarchists. On the contrary Christians today not onlyabandon the hideous dogma of original sin-the radicalevil which is in us-but they construct another completetheology (i f one can call it that). This theology argues thatthe sole objective of the "God" (so-called, bu t this"God" does not live) of the Bible is the Kingdom ofHumanity-the realization, accomplishment, blossomingof our potential. This fulfillment is what, due to a culturalerror, has so far been called the "Kingdom of God".

That done, both parts of the journey are complete.Anarchists can accept Christianity, and Christians can participate in anarchy. The curious thing is that the connection fails to take place. This is because neither Christiansnor anatchism are attractive to each other, and because to day to be a socialist (or even a Marxist) and a Christianraises few if any eyebrows (at least in France). Today noone thinks of conjoining anarchism and Christianity.

I think there is a small complementary obstacle: foranarchism there is still the Church. Although this is not abothersome factor in the relationship between Christiansand socialists (one institution always gets along withanother institution; church and party: the same thing),here it is a "nonconforming good". [tr "obstacleredhibitoire, " a legal term meaning a taint in a productwhich renders the sale null and void.J Ie is true that someChristians are ready to make even this small sacrifice. Andwe know that an important faction is doing everything itcan to destroy the Church by demonstrating that theChurch is a wart on early Christianity which, along theway, it deformed totally. But this is not sufficient toreassure and convince the anarchists. It takes a long timefor a judgement like this to penetrate the mass audiences.5=hristians see a much greater obstacle: politics. TheChristians who are engaged in the theological overhaul towhich we have alluded are politically Leftist, even extremeLeft. But they do not really know what anarchism is.About twenty years ago, a sociologist who was making asurvey of the political leanings of French Protestants andwho knew perfectly well that I was an anarchist classified

FAU1890

me as a Rightisr, not far from the monarchists for that veryreason. To the" good" Left of the Marxists, anarchists arefalse brothers, dreamers, uo.sciemific people. Indeed,Marx condemned Proudhon and Bakunin. Anarchists areRightists because they hold freedom as their pivotal imperative (freedom being the virtue of the Right in France,perhaps elsewhere, since 1945). Anarchism has gilded itscoat-of-arms somewhat only to fall into Leftism and thusJe condemned by the serious Left. Organization is themark of the serious Leftist; it is the coherent tactic, whichpresupposes a chain of commands. It is efficiency. Howcould Leftist Christians not accept these criteria? Whereasanarchists ... No, disorder cannot suit Christians, for how'does one separate anarchy from disorder? Thus, rejected byboth traditional and Leftist Christians anarchism remainswithout any relationship to Christianiry.

With the Christian abandonment of God, the PersonalGod, with their reduction of Jesus to a historical model ofhumanity , with the advent of the reign of Humanity, withtheir expansion of humanity's power and the suppressionof the church, the final desolating thing is that nothing is!dt of Christianity bu t the name of Jesus. I shall notengage here in a theological debate on this affair. Myrefusal is not due to any kind of traditionalism on my part.It is due to a lack of seriousness on the part of thosetheologians who literally will say anything just to be infashion.

In what follows I would like to sketch another mode ofrapprochement between anarchism and Christianity whichI believe will abandon none of the biblical message. On,he contrary, it seems to me that biblical thought leadsdirectly to anarchism, and that this is the only "politicalanti-political" position in accord with Christian thinking.

15


3/11

O n e must fust uy to account for the cfluqueagainst Christianity, religion and the church brought bythe anarchists of the nineteenth century (resumed bytwentieth century anarchists without being either renewedor enriched!). Bakunin best summarized the question inhis book God and the State:

.. .God being everything, man and the real world arc nothing.God being truth, justice, the good, beauty, power, life, man isthe lie, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence and death. God beingmaster, man is slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth and eternal life by himself, man can do so only by divine revelarion. Buche who speaks of revelation speaks of revea.lers ...who will berecognized as God's representatives on earth ... and who of necessity exercise absolute power. All meo owe them passive andunlimited obedience, for no terremia.l justice can prevail againstdivine reason. God's slaves, men are also slaves to the church andro the scate insofar as the state is consecrated by thechurch .. . Christianity has undersrood and realized rhis be tter chanall other religions. That is why Christianicy is the absolutereligion, and the Roman Church the only consistent and logicalone.

[Excursus: One clearly sees here the point at whichBakunin is influenced by his cultural environment. Whathe reconstructs as a deduction from the general to the particular is in fact the fruit ofa completely invertedproce.rs:the Roman Church is the support o f the State. He arguesthat it is the most authoritarian and anti-liberal structureever: this is what he gathers /rom history. He calls on'history to prove the accuracy of what he says about God.Therefore Christianity (o f which Catholicism representsthe extreme) is authon'tanan andanti-liberal; and so are allreligions, of which Christianity is the most evident. Andfrom thence he passes to the Religion, andfinally to whatis the object of religions: God who is the authQn'tarianmaster and the inspiration of the whole... That is thedevelopment of Bakunin 's reasoning, wnz'ch he inverts tomake it phtlosophical and justzftOble.)

... The idea of God implies rhe abdication of reason and of humanjustice; it is the most decisive negation of human libeny ananecessarily borders 00 roan's slavery in theory as well as practice...

If God exists, man is a slave. Yec man can and must be free.Therefore God does not exist. I defy anyone ro get ou t of this circ1e .... The contradiction is: they (Christians) wane God an dhumanity . They obscinarely insist on combining cwo terms which,ooce separated, can never meet again withour destroying eachother. In onc breath they say "God-and-man's-freedom, Godand digniry, justice, equality, fraternity, men's prosperity"without caring abour the fatal logic by virtue of which God is ofnecessity the eternal, supreme, absolute master if He existS, andman is slave. Yet i f man is slave, neirher justice, equality, fraterni,ty nor prosperity are possible. They insist, connary co good senseand to all historical experiences, in depicting their God asanimated by the tenderest love for human freedom. A master. nomaner what he does and no maner how liberal he shows himselfto be, is no less a master. His very existence necessarily impliesthe slavery of all who find themselves subservient to him.Therefore, if God cxisted he would have only one means to serve

human freedom; to cease to exist. Loving human freedom, jealousfor it, and considering it to be the absolute condition for all weadore and respect in humanity,we quote Voltaire and say, "I fGod existed, he would have to be abolished."

To my mind, this is the best summary of anarchistthought on the issue of God and freedom.

[Excursus: I must be precise an d state that when I speahere of anarchism I refer mainly to the anarchism of thgreat classics, but also to the active groups of the JurMountain Federation and to anarcho-syndicalism. I do norefer to mhtlism, a rather deviant branch ofanarchism. don't wish to reject the nihilists an d the violent anarchistsbu t they pose a complementary (not central) problem ithe relationship between Chnsttanity an d anarchism. Thproblem ofviolence IS essentially a problem ofmeans, noofthe focal point ofthe question: an-arche, the absence oauthon!y.)

T0 this there should be added of course all the texts oProudhon on authority (God being the one on whom allauthorities rest) on the formula of laws copied from theDecalogue (containing the general idea of the revolution)and on the Church's role denying the freedom of inquiry.On the other hand, the entire scientific position taken bythe anarchists of the second half of the nineteenth centuryshould also be Laken into account. They sought to provethe non-existence of God, beginning with thedevelopments in science. (For example S. Faure, R.Reclus.)

But all this is relatively unimportant. What strikes me inthis anarchiSt affirmation against God, religion andChurch is its circumstantial, dated character. It seems tome that their reproaches and attacks are tied to preciseevents in the history of Christianity. At the center of Christian theology is the confession of God. Since the thirteenthcentury many Christian theologians have insisted on theattributes of God's power. God is, above all and exclusively, the All-Powerful, the King, the Absolute Autocrat, theradical Judge, the terrible One. When anarchism declaresI I neither God nor master, ., thzs God is the target. He is ineffect the one who precludes human freedom: we are butoys in God's hands; we have no possibility to be; we aredamned a pnori. One can understand that a doctrinewhich affums humanity's dignity cannot accept that. Inthe final analysis, it is the Creator who not only is at thebeginning but who regulates everything, who distributesboth the good and the bad, misfortunes and blessings.

I t is very mange that the Biblical God, the God oJesus Christ, could have been so deformed. Jesus, whclaims kinship with Yahweh chose the life of non-power

KATALLAGETE6


4/11

radically so. The God of Jesus chose to be revealed to theworld by an incarnation in the infant in Bethlehem'sstables. So the definition of the biblical God's incarnationin our time and space, our history, is love. From the Ex-odus, the action of this biblical God is liberation: God isabove all and foremost our liberator. If God condemns sinand the powers of evil, it is because they are alien to us. 10the Old Testament, where the power of God is often stark,this power is never, never mentioned alone: every proclamation of power is associated with and often encompassed by a proclamation of love and of pardon, an exhortationto reconciliation, and an affirmation that this power ofGod works in our favor, never against us. It is as false topresent the biblical God as the All-Powerful One as it is topaiot God as an old bearded gentleman sitting on douds.Yet when I say this I refuse to go through the same shennanigans of the death-of-God theologians, who annulninety-nine percent of the biblical text which, cultural ornot, does not cease speaking primarily of God. It is God'slife, not our experience, which is the center of the Biblicalmessage. I resuict myself here to rehabilitating the Biblicaltext from a classic theological distortion.

I shall not spend much time on a second point: the confusion between religion and revelation, or betweenreligion and Christian faith. All that is becoming knownwell enough. It is quite true that the anarchist critics ofreligion ("opium of the people," etc ....Marx's formula,which was much more strongly presented by the anarchists) are accurate about retigion. But they fail to touchthe essentials of the Christian faith.

Thirdly, it is accurate to say that in Christianity, 'in itshistorical expression of r e ] i g i o n - t h ~ All-PowerfulGod-became the support of established order. Hereagain we encounter an extreme deviation, due in part tothe institutionalization of the Church, which ceases to bethe assembly of the faithful, of people united by the soletie of love and becomes instead' 'organization" and consequently "power." This deviation is also due in pan todogma becoming dogmatism. It is a problem at hardemngon both sides. Truth possessed (which thereby ceases to betruth) leads to judgment and condemnation. Love institutionalized produces authority and hierarchy. Andalthough the Church was no doubt once a happy andjoyous consequence for people who-assured of theirsalvation-united to manifest God's love, it became astructure possessing authority and truth and claims torepresent God's power on earth. "No salvation outside theChurch" means, fIrst, that all those who acknowledge being saved by Jesus Christ assemble to return thanks (that is,outside of Him there are no people who live their faith!).This then comes to mean that all those who are outside thestructure of the Church are damned! A grave inversion.

Finally it is quite true that the Church became the supPOft of the establishment, of political powers and of social

FALL 1980

organizations. We all know those points when the Churchturns coat time and again to accomodate the reigningauthority and to become the strongest ally of any government-provided that that government has becomelegitimate in the judgment of the world. While this wasnot always true, it is true more often than. not. One alsoknows the monstrous uses made of Christianity by thebourgeoisie to maintain the social order and to keep theworkers subjugated.

A II these errors, deformations, heresies (oh yes!heresies!) and deviations bordering on anti-Christianityhave always existed as ways to interpret biblical revelation.They were accentuated after the Reformation, and becamedominant in the eighteenth century. In other words, thedominant event is the bourgeoisie's transformation oftheology, Church and Church-society relationship. Theanarchists' attacks on God, the Church and religion arestrictly correct, on condition that the God in question wasthe God remodeled by this very particular theology ofChurch-became-Power. and by the peculiar and capriciousassociation of Church and social and political powerfollowing the sixteenth century. This theology to supportthis Church-State relationship is in no wayan expression ofbiblical Christianity: indeed it is a contradiction. The rootSare, rather, time after time in the theological heresy of aGod conceived exclusively as the All-Powerful. The errorof the anarchists and of Marx was to believe that they wereface to face with Christianity itself, whereas they encountered merely its bourgeois metamorphosis. By adhering to this judgment they have overvalued those veryfeatures-be they in the early Church or during the Middle Ages-which coofum their point of view, instead ofconsidering them only one among many other possibilities. For example, the death of Ananias and Sapphira areevidence that the apostles were terrible dictators. The 10-quisition became the symbol for the medieval church. Theconstruction of cathedrals was seen as the symbol for theenslavement of poor people crushed by the clergy.Everything that was real regarding love and joy and Christian freedom the anarchists overlooked, joyfully. In otherwords, the anarchists-j ustly fighting against the Christiantotalitarianism and authoritarianism of the seventeenth tothe nineteenth centuries-had a totally false view of thefundamental reality of Christianity and the God of JesusChrist. Our task now is to rectify this anarchist error.

T he absence of God, atheism, is in no wayan essentialcondition of anarchism. The presence of the God of Jesus

17


5/11

Christ is the essential condition for the deliverance ofhumanity. Negating and banishing the God of JesusChrist is the failure of all of our so-called liberating revolutions, which each time ends with greater enslavement.When left to ourselves and not given a manifestation offreedom, an experience of freedom, and a poim of departure for freedom which radically transcends us, we inevitably produce our own slavery. Freedom conquered byhumanity becoming absolute is the ineluctable establishment of dictatorship. Only when we are related-that is,relative, not claiming equality to the Transcendent, are wetruly human. Only then are we bestowed the gift offreedom which relatives all our pretenrions and thereforeour efforts to dominate each other. But being relative, thatis, human, cannot occur unless we meet the Eternal not onour terms but on the terms of the Eternal. We can never,in other words, make ourselves' 'relative" to the Transcendent so long as we insist on the absolute proclamation ofOur Kingdom. We receive our humanity from theTranscendent, freeing love of the God ofJesus Christ. Weshall return to this point in our final section.

. /

The deviation from Christianity gave the:ac:archists anopportUnity for an accurate and telling critique. But theynever understOod that their attack was against a deviation,not the reality (even though sometimes a lived realityl) orthe truth of the biblical revelation. Rather, they challenged a socia-theological formulation of God and not theGod of the Bible and ofJesus Christ. I maintain that thereis the God of the Bible and ofJesus Christ.

II

We must now examine the other side. We beginwith the biblical data. What does the Old Testament teachabout political power?

On the one hand, political power per se is always cootested referring to Nations. The regular theme is: thesekings, they are gods, idols. They will be destroyed astestimony to their weakness. At the time of the Babyloniancaptivity, for example, when the prophets say that the people of Israel should work for the good of the society inwhich they now find themselves, there was no question ofsupporting the king of Babylon. The kings of Assyria andEgypt are considered instruments manifesting God'swrath; they themselves have no legitimacy whatsoever.Elisha is sem to anoint the new king of Syria; this meansonly that this king will be God's scourge to chastise Israel.This king in no way profits from any alliance with or sup-

pa n from Elisha. (Cf. my Po/itiCJ ofGod, Politics o fMan.)Never does the government of a foreign people appearlegitimate or salutary. At best the government is a necessi-ty. There is no alternative. The only relation to politicalauthorities is that of conflict. Nothing but persecution,war, devastation, famine and evil can be expected fromthese kings. Joseph and Daniel are the only two examplesof collaboration between a representative of Israel andthese foreign kings. But one should not forget that Joseph,who draws his brothers into Egypt, has by his success produced only the slavery of the whole of Israel! (It doesn'tmatter if the facts are accurate! We are studying here onlythe way Israel depicts political authority in Scripture. Thecomplete evolution must be considered: it is only afterreceiving a "favor" or after a temporary "alliance" thatIsrael is inevitably led into slavery, domination and ruin).The second example is Daniel. (The same observationobtains: it doesn't matter ifDaniel never existed and thatthe story is pure fiction: indeed that would make the narrative even more illustrative!) Daniel, great visionary andinterpreter of dreams is in favor of Nebuchadnezzar, butthe hazards of such favor are known: because he-does notbow before the king on the subject of faith, he is throwninto the fiery furnace (authority must make itself adored!).

[Excursus: [t must also be noted that Joseph, as well asDaniel, has been called into the presenceofauthority forvery ambiguous reasons: both are the k.ing's diviners. Theauthority considers them to have a relation to a mysteriouspower (andnot at allto the truth) andso considers them tobe capable of enlightening political authonfy throughmagic and sorcery. In other words, God's gift ismonopolizedand transformed into its opposite. PoNtica!authonty cannot recognize the true Godfor what He is. [tcan only use Him accidentally for its own reinforcement.What a strange spotlight on the alNance between Churchand State in the modern era.]

Darius throws him into the lion's pit: authority is indeed dangerous and devouring. To participate in politicalaction and reflection on the governmental level is an enterprise which necessarily endangers true faith, and otherwisecan lead only to the proclamation of the end of politicalauthority, to itS destruction. One must not forget thatDaniel prophesied nothing but misfortune to the variouskings he served. To each he announced the end of thereign, the destruction of the kingdom, the death of theking, etc. Consequently, Daniel is the negator of authorityeven while serving that authority temporarily.

KATALLAGETE8


6/11

One could say that all this can be explained by thefact that the people in question are "Nations" -enemiesof Israel, peoples no t elected by God, pagans andidolaters-and that Israel's wholly negative judgment onthese authorities was an obvious one.

So we must now examine the monarchy in Israel. I havewritten about the significance of the monarchy (Cf. particularly, "La conception du pouvoir en Israel," inMelanges en I'honneur de M. Brethes de la Grcssaye(1968).) Not to repeat this study, I shall indicate the mainoutlines and conclusions.

The principal text is certainly the institution of themonarchy in I Samuel 8. Prior to these events Israel was apeople without political organization, "governed directlyby God." Whenever necessary, God sent a "judge" as atemporary, charismatic, occasional chief. But Israeldemanded organization, a political authority, a king inorder to become more efficient, to be more--like'-o-therpeoples who had kings. Samuel fights - ~ o n g time toprevent this treason againSt God. But God ends up givingin to His people's disobedience, declaring, "By givingthemselves a king they have rejected me." The recital isvery detailed and complex, bu t it can be broken down intothree component pans: political authority rests on defiance; it is a rejection of God; it can only be dictatorial,abusive and unjust (Cf. II Samuel 8:10-18).

Political authority is established in Israel in conformitywith and imitation of the surrounding environment. Thefirst king is Saul, the mad, the delirious king. God, by Hisgrace and as an exception, chooses David to succeed Saul,and makes David His representative. But this is a single rayof light attesting to the fact that God can draw miraculousgood from human evil, for Solomon, admirably suited forexercising power, ends by being radically corrupted bypower. His accumulation of riches and women, his construction of independent political power, his creation ofcities, etc.. are considered the normal components ofpolitical authority. But they are also elementS ofSolomon's alienation from God and they finally producehis rejection, with clear indications that it was the exerciseof political power that corrupted this man who wasoriginally so wise, good and humble.

Finally, two distinctive features must be mentioned.The Chronicles' account of the succession of the kings ofIsrael andJudea give a very strange evaluation of authority.All those kings who, according to objective history, were"great" kings are systematically (and 1 insist on thissystematically: it is indeed the sense of the evaluation ofpolitical authority, even more significant if it does not correspond to the factS!) presented in the Biblical account asbad kings: idolatrous, unjust, tyrannical, murderous.These were the kings who set up better organization, madeconquestS and enriched the people. In other words, they

FALL 1980

exercised their power normally. The judgment of ' 'good"kings is reserved for those who, historically, were weak,lost their wars, were bad administrators, lost theirwealth" .This could signify either that the only authorityone can in the end accept is the weakest authority. or thati f a statesman is faithful to God he is necessarily a badstatesman and vice versa. The consistency of these biblicaljudgments is too great to be anything bu t extraordinary,indeed unique. No nation in the world has produced asingle chronicle or historiography expressing this orientation. Rather, it is always the successful king who iseverywhere rated great and legitimate.

A final brief comment: detailed analysis of the corona;'ion procedures and of the names used to designate thekings demonstrates that the king is never anything but theacting. temporary and accidental sign for the One who isto come. He is defined by this "co come". The king in coronation festivities has no importance. He is merely asurveying stake, a stone placed in a waiting position. Goddelivers political authority to the degree that it is thepreliminary image of the ultimate perfection of theMessiah and of the kingdom. Political authority never hasany value in and of itself. On the contrary, it is evendenied, challenged and condemned on each occasion itclaims to exiSt either as political authority or anything elseother than a sign of the One to come. Political authority,in other words, has no other value than that which it drawsfrom what is to come (an event that will cornel) and what itsignifies (which is unknown!) There is no validation ofpolitical power whatsoever in the Old Testament. On thecontrary, it is forever contested.

19


7/11

In the New Testament, two lines of thought can beseen: one favorable to authority (represented by thefamous text from Paul: "there is no authority except fromGod": Romans 13:1), and the other, much larger one,hostile to authority and represented by the Gospels andRevelation. It is very strange that, since Constantine, theChurch has, in an almost redundant fashion, based itS"theology of the state" on Romans thirteen and theparallel texts from the Perrine Epistles.

Jesus' attitude towards political authority in the Gospelsis a radically negative one. He himself refuses to exercise


8/11

archism, because they were persecu ted by or opposed by theology of political power" granted them in the history ofpoli tical authorities. Theirs was a fundamental stance. the Church. Rather, these texts seem to be warning againstEverything is /rom the beginning centered on the fact that \ the excesses of Christian freedom concerning politicaltwo political authon"t-ies combined to crucify Jesus. Howbetter express the radicalism of their oppostfion! If,however, One maintains that these stances are simply theresponses ofthe first century Christians to their' 'situationin the Roman Empire" -and nothing more thanthatl-then everything in the Gospels and in the life o fJesus must be considered situational! For example, histeaching On the Law, or the Parables On the Kingdom,etc., is strictly speaking situationall And the NewTestament-indeed the whole ofScnpture-is reduced toa guidebook ofideology andpoliticalpropaganda, not theHerald o f Good News (the Gospel) for everyone, Chnstand Caesar allke.]

In opposition to this, we have the texts of Paul's letterto the Christians in Rome and parallel texts in the NewTestament. But among the latter, we must distinguish between those texts which speak only of praying forauthorities (a service to render to them, perhaps linked tothe problem of exousiai, to prevent them from falling intothe hands of demons) and the authorities which demandobedience and submission. At any event, the only textwhich seems to offer an over-all basis for submission toauthorities is precisely Paul's letter to the Christians inRome, specifically the early verses of Chapter Thirteen.These passages, like so many of his writings, seem to me tobe Paul's answer to a particular circumstance faced by thecongregation of Christians in Rome. (We are reminded ofthe circumstances confronting Paul with the congregationin Corinth: eating meat sacrificed to idols, virginity, etc.)Of course, these texts from Paul, even though they are oc-casional, must be seen as bearers of a word of God. But notin a literal way, certainly not as Paul writes to the Christians in Rome in Chapter 13.It seems to me that these verses should be placed in themilieu which I have already described. Specifically: what isthe common attitude of the Christians of the first generation. To reject political authority (not merely the ' 'worship" demanded of Caesar) immediately l ~ a d s to therefusal, for example, of military service. Paul's verses seemto me a reaction againSt the extremist of the ami-politicalposition, againSt an-arche. Paul says "Don't exaggerate,don't take refusal to extremes. For authority ultimatelycomes from God who has reduced the magistrate to therole of servant, even i f the magisuate continues the claimas master."

The good in society. Paul is saying. is certainly notGod's word. All the same, it is not negligable. . . . and it isguaranteed by the]udge. Consequently, these words fromPaul do lo t seem' to me to offer a basis for ' 'a universal

FALL 1980

power. The Christian, Paul is saying, does not seek thesuppression of all power in all societies-granted theChristian is free, independent and critical of politicalpower. The Christian must always proclaim the limitedduty of political power-never accepting it as a divine institution, but also never judging it, as was done in Paul'slime, as solely the work of the devil! Granted that hiswords are in the context of a specific situation (Christiansin Rome in the first century), Paul gives us an orientationabout the ethics of freedom which remains valid, but notas a theological foundation of political power. Specifically,we know there was in the Christian congregations rejectionof military or any service to the Empire. It seems to me important that Paul does not mention this opposition inthese texts to the Christians in Rome when he writes aboutpolitical authority. Instead, he grants that Caesar (themagistrate) holds the sword. But he refuses to say thatChristians must or as Christians are able to hold the sword.To me, this means that the obedience Paul recommends topolitical authorities does not go so far as bearing the swordof the magistrate. That is, Paul accepts the general opinionof the Church.

Moreover, to this interpretation of Paul in RomansThirteen. we must add the reminders which K. Barth andF.J. Leenhardt have offered. The notorious verses ofRomans 13 must be read in the contexr of the letter of Paulto the Christians in Rome. That is, in chapter twelve, Paulspeaks of love, and gives in succession a number of applications. He closes the chapter speaking of love for one'senemies (if your enemy is hungry, feed him, etc.,,) andimmediately after the seven verses on authorities that openchapter thirteen, Paul returns again to the theme of love,showing how love contains all the commandments. Thenhe digresses about the end of time (13: 11-14) and returnsto love in chapter fourteen when he speaks of tolerance ofthe weak. That is, the verses on authorities are included inhis teaching on love. I would go so far as to summarizethem this way: "Love your enemies. Naturally, we all believe that the authorities are our enemies, however, wemust also love them." But as in each case that he studies(the Church, joy, enemies. the law, the weak in faith, etc.)he gives a specific reason for this love of the other, he doesthe same thing for the authorities and it is in this perspective that he writes the famous' 'there is no authority excepLfrom God." Incidentally, Paul's negative formulationshould be stressed, and not the formulation which haslater been given: omnis potestas a Deo (all power comesfrom God) which seems to express a principle Paul is notexpressing a principle. Therefore, this text, in my opinion,should be reduced to what it is. that is, not the last wordon the question of political authority. but an attempt toapply love in a Christian setting in which the authoritieswere hated.

21


9/11

II I

T h u s what one can draw from both the New theOld Testamems is a fundamental challenge wall politicalauthority. There is no legitimate political authority' assuch. Political authority and organizat ion are necessities ofsocialltfe but nothmg more than necessities. They are constantly tempted w take the place of God, for themagiStrate or king infallibly regards themselves as authority per se. This power must be contested, denied and constantly challenged. It becomes acceptable only when itstays within its humble status, when it is weak, when itserves the good (which is extremely rare') and trulytransforms itself intO the servaor of humanity (since it isalready the servant of God!). But the customary judgmemthat .the State is legitimate only when it is not tytannical,unjust, violent, etc. is thereby reversed. In reality the Stateis illegitimate and must be desrroyed unless it is the servant of all-and truly so, Qat JUSt as a rhetori,,,1imagef-and effeCtively protem the good of a11.

In this brief essay, I cannot run through the evidencethat documents th e complete reversal of the biblicaltestimony by the Church in history. Anyway, that's wellknown. That aside, the fact is that the characteristicbiblical teaching has never disappeared in the Church, ~ , n d this can be documented. res. the Church, transformed into a Power, taught the contrary. But throughout thehistory of the Church movements have appeared that weought EO realize as an-archistic because, beginning Wilhthe anchorites and up to Tolstoy and Berdyaev, they haveteaffirmed the impossibility of the State in a variety ofways. No doubt these movements seemed bizarre and wereconsidered so especially by the Church. But cbey allwitnessed to a profound truth about Christianity(sometimes by heresies exacerbated by the Church's opposition): as anarchists they were not the capricious protestors against rhis and that specific authority or this andthat particular political corruption. Rather, they were I'herepresentatives of the reaching and even of the word ofGod.

B erdyaev seems to have been the last (On The Slaveryand the Freedom 0/ Man, 1938; The Realm 0/ the Spili!and the Realm 0/Caesar, 1946) to show the incompatibility between the Gospel and the Scale. He demonstrates theopposition between the ethics of the Gospel and the ethicsof the State's power: when it is a choice between servingthe State or refusing it, then the State prodaims an ethicsthat is clearly contrary to the Gospel. Berdyaev shows theopposition between responsibiliry (the center of the Christian life in the world) and power. He underlines rhe cor

ruption provoked by political power. He accepts the wel1known formula: "Power corrupts, absolute power corruptabsolutely." The State's salvation and prosperity does norepresent the collective and stil1 less humanity'S salvationand prosperity-such an identification is an abominablfalsehood. Instead, the State's prosperity always impliethe death of innocents. "The law of the State is that in

"order to save the State even the innocent must be sacrificed ....The death of a single man from among the leasof me n is an event more important and more tragic thathe death of a State or an Empire. It is unlikely that Gonotices the death of the greatest kingdoms, bu t the deatof one man does not escape him.... " So Berdyaev.

T he connections between Church and State are onform of the relation of Christ's spirit to Caesar. But JesuChrist has pUt us against the wall and we must choose, notry co be reasonable, or conciliate! Th e Church time anagain has committed treason in relation to the StateBecoming partner to [he State it has turned the State intanother Church. Christianity's sin in history is to havrecognized and accepted the State, no matter what formthat State took and no matter who the incumbent authority. "Recognition of the divine authority of the kingtransformed into recognition of the divine authority of thpeople, later into the authority of the proletariatSovereignty and the divine character of power exist iequality!" " It is the sovereignty of the State that must bdenied." So Berdyaev.

I have written more than once that there is no fixeChristian position on political power. In reality, the salpolitical Christian position conforms to Revelation: thnegation of power, the total, radical refusal to accept itexistence, and the fundamental contesting of whateveform it takes. And I do not say this because of an orientation towards a kind of Spiritualism, or an ignorance opolitics, an a-politicism. Certainly notiOn the contraryAs a Christian one must participate in the world of politicand of action. But one must do so to reject il, to confront with the conscientious and well-founded refusal that aloncan put into question, or even prevent, the uncheckegrowth of power. Thus Christians cannot help bu t be onon the side of anarchists.

But then, do C h r i s t i a n ~ bring something peculiarthis partnership? Something specific? Are Christians lithe others, or do they-like the anarchists-have a paticular service to render? In effect, it seems to me tha

KATALLAGET2


10/11

Christians have an important role to play here, on threedifferent levels. First of all, anarchists live in il,lusionbecause they think it is possible to effectively abolishauthority and to eliminate successfully all the sources ofpower. They fight to win, to prevail. Chrtstians should bemore realistic. We live in a world which has always beensubjugated by power in one way or another. I know quitewell that this is not a sufficient argument. One can alwaysbegin a new epoch, it is not necessary to believe that whathas always been will always be. Right. But it is a leap intothe unknown. We can no longer believe today the absolutearticle of the anarchist creed of the past: the inevitability ofprogress. There is no necessary movement from an inferiorto a superior form of society. Nowhere is anarchism, thesociety of the free, guaranteed. There is every chance thatit will never be established. But then the anarchist, whentold this, Stops in discouragement and says, "Well, thenwhat's the use?" This is the point the Christian should in-tervene. When measured against the grace of God, allhuman action is strictly relative. Nevereheless, humansmust act-not for absolute success (which can only occur inthe Kingdom of God) but because love expresses itself inthe relative. "If you have been faithful in the small things,I shall give you the large ones. " That is the promise givento us.

Bur one must also understand that the love of man andwoman, for example does not reside in the grand, spec-tacular, ceremonial declarations. or in the magnificentgestures, or in the erotic paroxysms, bu t rather in thethousands of humble signs of concern for the other thatquintessentially express the truth that thou counts formore than 1. Therefore, we must not be discouraged if ouranarchist affirmations do not lead to the anarchist society,do not upset society, do not destroy all structures. Andthat toO would be a manifestation of power which couldonly lead to a very specific restructuring of the authority ofpower.

W hat does all this mean? Simply this: politicalauthority in its essence tends to grow indefinitely. It has noreason at all to limit itself. No constitution, no ethics, canprevent political power from becoming totalitarian. Itmust encounter, outside itself, a radical negation based onthe opposition of those intending neither to conquerauthority (and so undertake political activity) nor to exer-cise it for the good of others (and so be politics). It must bethose represent ing an intransigent moral conscience and aneffective force of opposition. The permanent struggle ofthis group.-which is not a class, not organized in advance,not a sociological entity-is itself the Struggle for thefreedom of others. There is freedom only with the winningof freedom. No authority can grant freedom to us.Challenging power is the only means to bring about the

FALL 1980

realization of freedom. Freedom exists only (0 the extentthat this rejection of power is scrong enough, and to theextent one does not allow oneself to be seduced by the idea,hat surely freedom will come tomorrow if. ..No. There isI To Tomorrow. Freedom exists Today or never. It existswhen we shake an edifice, produce a fissure, a gap in thestructure where for one moment we can find our always-menaced freedom. But to obtain even a small amount offree play in the imerior of the system one must manifeSttotal and radical rejection. Every concession to power per-mits the totality of power to rush in. That is why the anar-chistic position is conceivable. It maintains this free playwhich permits freedom. Bur we cannot delude ourselveswith the vain hope of completely destroying this powerand of reconstructing an ideal and fraternal society .... theday after tomorrow'

I already know the anarchist's disillusioned words,"So that's all it is! Only that." Yes/ "That's all." That isto say that, today, by our refusal, we will not permit thecrack to be totally refilled so that we can still breathe freeair. It is the passage from the anarchists disdainful "onlythat" to the "that's aU" full of hope which the Christianshould allow the anarchist to realize.

There is a second role Christians can play at the anar-chists' side. For most anarchists, people are by nature goodand are corrupted only by society or rather by power. If(here be criminals, it is the State's fault. Ie would seem,1ecessary to believe in this original goodness of humanityin order to have hopes of installing an anarchist society.We must spontaneously act for the good of all, we mustnot seek to encroach on the territory or freedom of ourneighbor, we must discipline our passions and our fury, wemust be willing to work voluntarily for the collective, wemust not disturb the peace ... otherwise anarchy would bewhat it is accused of being: simply a disorder, a frightfulwar of individuals. As far as I know, Bakunin is the onlyanarchist who.had the courage to pose the hypothesis thatwe are evil, and he drew from it consequences that arecrirical to his plan for the organization of society.

But one must take a further step. One must admit thatno t only can there be people occasionally who are nor ableto live in anarchy, but, on the contrary, that we are nor-mally unable to do so. One must stare from this reality,and here Christians should be the most realistic. It is notpower that leads the subject to wickedness. It is ourselveswho want to be slaves and thus rid ourselves of the difficul-ty of living and turn to authority. In so doing we encounter

23


11/11

-.

the appetite for power in the other. The desire to abandononeself and the will to power are exact corollaries. It is inthis setting of reality that anarchism should be p r o c l a i m ~ d . Again it is their word of hope: ,r nevertheless, in spite ofl""In spite of this reality about people, we want to destrd.ypower." Here is the Christian hope in politics. I

Assuredly this is not sufficient. That is, when face toface with the evil which is in us-not the moral transgressions of disobeying current morality, but the evil which is asickness Unto death and which leads us to be slave andtyrant-there are only two options. Either one organizes arepressive system which puts everyone in place, whicheStablishes patterns and norms of behavior, whichpunishes anyone who oversteps the boundary of the smallamount of freedom doled out. (That is, the justificationfor the power of the State.) Or, one works to transformhumanity-the Christian would say conversion-in such away that renders us able to live with others and serve othersas an expression of freedom. That is the expression ofChristian love, of the love of God for us manifested inJesus Christ.

Anarchists have clearly seen the necessity for such atransformation. They hoped to achieve it through education, through pedagogy, bu t that is clearly not enough

The anarcho-syndcalists hoped to achieve it through battle: the human qualities of virtue, courage, solidarity andloyalty are forged in combat against authority-a battle tobe waged with the weapons of truth, justice, authenticity(and I would easily add non-violence). Without theseweapons one pervens the fighter and fails to prepate himto enter the anarchiSt fraternity.

Yes . But there is need for a more profound motivation. These two pedagological mechods need to roOtthemselves in a more fundamental truth. A more essentialconversion is needed, from which all the rest becomespossible, and which permitS us to be courageous despite allthe setbacks.

This is precisely where the work of the Gospel is foundfor the anarchists: the Gospel's witness that there is apossibility for freedom-just where the most amorphous,servile of us, or the most tyrannical, victorious of us-seemto be immune to any change of any kind. For we too, slaveand tyrant, are loved by God in Jesus Christ and are notoutside the possibility of living in the truth God -disclosesbefore us. I believe that this contribution of the Christianfaith is essential to anarchism, for it reveals a unity in practice aJong with a conformation in theory. 0

;}-,

IIi

l&tLiS:-

Documents

Anarchism and Christianity by Jacques Ellul