A year or so ago, I discovered the writings of Vernard Eller on the World Wide Web. I was particularly taken with his essays on "Christian Anarchy." I don't do well with most writings on philosophy, and I must admit I got pretty bogged down in some of what Eller had to say. Still, I felt that he was getting at something particularly important to folks who consider themselves Christians, so I worked extra hard to understand what he was trying to get across.
In popular usage, the term "anarchy" is applied to disobedient - usually violent - acts or movements against society. Eller insists that anarchy has been given a bad rap, partly by those who label themselves anarchists and who do seek change through violence, but mostly because the term has been misunderstood and incorrectly applied to people and movements that are really not anarchic, at all. He defines anarchy as neither for nor against some power or authority, but simply NOT that thing. Using his own coined term "arky" to refer to any power or principality competing for our time and allegiance (government, political party, school, church, social standards, advertising, etc.), Eller explains:
"'Anarchy' ('unarkyness'), it follows, is simply the state of being unimpressed with, disinterested in, skeptical of, nonchalant toward, and uninfluenced by the highfalutin claims of any and all arkys. And 'Christian Anarchy'--the special topic of this book--is a Christianly motivated 'unarkyness.' Precisely because Jesus is THE ARKY, the Prime of Creation, the Principal of all Good, the Prince of Peace and Everything Else, Christians dare never grant a human arky the primacy it claims for itself. Precisely because God is the Lord of History we dare never grant that it is in the outcome of the human arky contest that the determination of history lies." (Christian Anarchy, Chapter 1)
The message I get out of continuing to follow Eller's rationale is that followers of Christ should never think of themselves as, say, Republicans or Democrats; Baptists, Methodists or Catholics; liberals or conservatives; Black, White, Oriental or Hispanic; or even American, Indonesian, or French. To do so removes us from full contact with the will of God because God does not subscribe to any of these "arkys." To be anything but a Christian is to dilute God's power in us, and consequently in The Body of Christ (all Christians functioning together).
The phenomenon of Christians associating themselves with the philosophies of a particular political party illustrates the problem and the danger. While one party may superficially seem to represent "Christian values" more than another - particularly if they vocally proclaim themselves "Christian," "moral," or for "family values" - an objective look at their entire agenda, at the spokespeople for that agenda, and at they way they present that agenda to the world may reveal some decidedly "un-Christian" aspects. (I'm not letting the "other" party off the hook, here. While I personally think they come out doing more "Christ-like" things than does the self-proclaimed "moral" party, more often than not their agenda is cause-oriented, not Christ-oriented. Neither can truly be Christian.)
One of the reasons that Christians label themselves politically, denominationally, or otherwise is to add definition to their beliefs. As one person said to me, the Bible leaves too many "gray areas." It doesn't give the answers for everyday life. Belonging to a particular group, or espousing a particular philosophy, gives some concreteness, as well as a sense of community. Sounds nice, but what if removing "the gray" also moves us away from God's will?
The problem with Christianity is that it is full of "gray areas" - and it's supposed to be that way. Old Testament law had an extremely rigid set of requirements and prohibitions. With Old Testament law, you always knew exactly where you were - or, at least, where you were supposed to be. Jesus replaced the rigidity with a framework of concepts and attitudes (Be-attitudes, as somebody said in a song), with the Holy Spirit as our daily guide to living within the framework. But concepts are hard; do's and don'ts are easy. They don't require a brain, or imagination, or compassion, or even God (since there's nothing God can tell us that isn't on the list of do's and don'ts). Lots of rules may make for a strong "religion," but Christianity (if really embraced) isn't a club we belong to; it's a way of life. We do things (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) because they seem the "right" things to do. The "gray areas" are only gray to us because we don't know the right action or response until the time comes to make it. That's where believing God's promises and trusting the Holy Spirit come in.
Christians in general are uncomfortable talking about the Holy Spirit, but I don't see how you can discuss Christianity and omit the role of the Holy Spirit. Non-charismatics tend to write off the subject because they may never have really thought about the Holy Spirit except in terms of weird "gifts" and manifestations. Many Pentecostals and charismatics have never got beyond the "showy" aspects. Philosophically, few of us are willing to let a supernatural force run our lives. But doesn't the whole concept of God - although the most natural force there can be - seem supernatural? Isn't Jesus beyond what the average human would think of as natural? Yet, Christians do believe in God and Jesus; why balk at the Holy Spirit? Jesus said he would send God's Holy Spirit to lead and guide. I think what we have to do is trust that things really will work that way if we expect them to.
Understanding Christianity has become much easier for me since I realized that, really from the moment that Jesus spoke the words and gave the promise, somebody's been trying to hijack his message for their own purposes. They aren't necessarily bad purposes, but each time, they [Peter, Paul, Catholics, Martin Luther, Baptists, Pentecostals, Moral Majority, Conservatives, Liberals, social justice advocates, even environmentalists] thought we needed some better interpretation, or some rules and regulations to supplement what Jesus said. I think that's why, beginning in the book of Acts and continuing right on to the present day, we get all these weird messages that pastors try to explain or explain away, like: women keep silent in church, take good care of your slaves, be opposed to abortion and homosexuals, God is on America's side, and we should favor small government and the death penalty. It's also why we get "liberal" elements deciding that something is wrong with you if you don't endorse all the issues, programs, and "freedoms" they think a Christian should support. The sad thing isn't just that these things come up and become a part of the (worldly) "Christian fabric," but that Christians are so quick to buy into a lot of them despite what Jesus himself is recorded as saying.
It helps me to remember that the Bible is history, set down in three parts. The Old Testament shows God being rejected over and over again. The four Gospels give us God's way of reconciliation with him. The New Testament sections following the Gospels show the beginning [history is still going on, of course] of what we did with his message. I think we're usually taught that everything in the New Testament is RIGHT, as well as TRUE. If we believe that, then we are forced to believe that God wanted Paul, Peter and others to modify Jesus' messages. If I accept that, then what do I do with Jesus? Am I supposed to believe he is my savior, but not believe what he very clearly told me to do, and replace it with what Paul [or my pastor] tells me is right? [Do you understand what I'm saying? Paul wasn't a bad man, and he wasn't trying to overthrow Jesus' teaching. He was "doing the best he could" to keep order in the church, just like a pastor today might make a ruling that women can't wear slacks to church because it is "unseemly," whatever that means. On the other hand, I think there are some "bad men" (and "bad women") who are not above manipulating us and the gospel message for their own purposes.]
The other thing that helps me is to remember how Jesus handled issues and people while he was here on earth. He spoke a lot about "right" and "wrong," but notice that he hadn't developed a Hierarchy of Sins, like we have [like, #1 serial killing, #2 rape-murder, #3 child pornography, etc.]. Obviously, he doesn't think any of those things are good, but he makes some statements that lead me to believe that he thinks a chronic liar or cheater might be as bad as a serial killer. After all, a serial killer might actually kill five people and make mental anguish for fifty more, but the liar or cheat can go on and on ruining lives, destroying faith, keeping people apart from one another and from God. Jesus says some uncomfortable things about murder and hate being closely related, as are adultery and thinking about adultery. Taking an example I've used in some of my writings, what differentiation would he draw between the serial killer and the serial drunk driver who could well be a serial killer? [These are some of the things that come into my mind when I consider the subject of capital punishment - see below.]
Something I see about Jesus is that he didn't treat the same situation exactly the same each time it came up. He dealt with the individual, and what the individual needed at the time. Certainly, he didn't approve of prostitution and gambling and carousing, but he treated the people as people, not as some kind of walking sin. That approach takes a whole lot more love, compassion, and Holy Spirit guidance than does a denominational list of "Do's and Don'ts." That's why I can't condemn [for example] abortion or homosexuality. It doesn't make me PRO-abortion if I believe there may be cases where God may approve of abortion. I don't understand homosexuality, and my personal feeling is that it probably wasn't meant to be God's best, but I can't see Jesus pronouncing an inflexible condemnation on the practice. How can I?
What about capital punishment? Politically-based Christians seem to feel it is perfectly all right - maybe even mandatory. Yet my reading of the New Testament makes me believe that God through Jesus has prohibited it. I think the way that many Christians justify it is by buying into a "party line" without serious Holy Spirit communication, or because they have bought into an Old Testament-type Hierarchy of Sins such as I mentioned above. But if Jesus was as down on the hater as he was the murderer, then how do we give ourselves the right to decide who deserves death? I am all for tough law enforcement, and I wouldn't mind seeing some groups of criminals get prison with no possibility of parole and a real limitation on some of the things we call "civil rights," but I don't think Jesus left life-taking [whether you call it punishment, execution, the wages of sin, or whatever] as an option for Christians to consider.
Another "arky" situation: I've never thought creation vs. evolution was that big a deal, but I was trained as a scientist and so the subject always seems to come up - in essence, how can I believe both "science" and God? It's a phony question because we have absolutely no idea whether God created everything spontaneously, or whether each of his "days" was hundreds of thousands of years long. He could have done either, just as easily. The similarities we see between species and groups of species might be signs of progressive change; on the other hand, the similarities might occur just because the same Creator created everything. We know that genetic mutations are still occurring, and most of them aren't human-caused. That is really all that evolution is about, anyway. [I get impatient with scientists who look for "big bang" theories or other non-God ways to explain our world and universe. There is no way that the orderliness we see in our own bodies and in the world around us could have come about spontaneously. On the other hand, I remember the guest pastor at one of the churches I attended who insisted that dinosaur bones had been placed on earth by Satan - that "everybody knew" dinosaurs hadn't existed because the Bible didn't mention them, that the earth was only 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs were just a Satanic "trick" to make us believe in evolution. (No, this wasn't some crackpot cult; it was a "mainline" denomination.)] So, God created everything - the only question (and it seems a non-issue to me) is whether he did it in seven days or in lots and lots of days. To take it further is not only to get into non-productive arguments, but also separates Christian from Christian for absolutely no reason.
Are we true anarchists - committed wholly to God as the one and only right way - or have we allowed our Christianity to be hijacked? Have we confused and diluted our allegiance to God by aligning ourselves with other "principalities?" Only the Holy Spirit can tell us.