“Anarcho-Theocracy”
The Only Biblical Form of Government
A Calvinist Defense of “Anarcho-Capitalism”
- Brief Outline
- Definition of Anarcho-Capitalism
- Statement of the Thesis
- Motivation for the Thesis
- Why This Thesis is Really Not That Controversial
- Presuppositions
- Prima facie Case for Anarcho-Theocracy
- Response to Objections
- Bibliography
Definition: “Anarcho-Capitalism”
“Capitalism” is widely understood to be the opposite of “socialism.” Capitalism delegates economic functions to the private (rather than the public) sector, relying on
the “invisible hand” of the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient way. “Anarcho-capitalism”
is a radically consistent capitalism, seeing all human action as an economic function, and therefore appropriately directed by market forces, not bureaucratic forces.
“Anarcho-capitalism” is the opposite of “state capitalism.” In the middle of these extremes are
most so-called capitalists who reserve several economic functions to the public or governmental sector: national defense, punishment of criminals, and resolution of contractual
disputes. Some capitalists would also include certain utilities (water, electricity) as necessitating a public monopoly. Anarcho-capitalists would remove all of these functions
from political monopoly and allow them to be provided by the free market.
Anarcho-capitalists, in short, advocate the abolition of the State.
Anarcho-Capitalist Bibliography
“Anarcho-Theocracy”
It is the purpose of this website to offer a Biblical (Calvinist) justification for the abolition of the State. As Calvinists we believe in the
Sovereignty of God. We believe that every individual, every family, every voluntary association, every business -- even every nation-state, every empire, and every other organized
criminal syndicate -- is morally (Biblically) obligated to bring every area of life under the jurisdiction of God
and His Word.
“Theocracy” comes from two Greek words, Theos, God, and kratein, to rule.
A Theocracy is where God rules, or governs.
Every human action and relationship should be “Theocratic.”
More on “Theocracy”
Statement of the Thesis
Q14: What is sin?
A14: Sin is any [lack] of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (Westminster Shorter Catechism)
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)
See if [the State] takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if [the State] benefits one citizen at the
expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Frédéric
Bastiat
The Law (1850) |
Our thesis is that actions which are sinful for individuals (such as theft, murder, and kidnapping) are also sinful even for those who
- call themselves “the State,” or who
- collect a carefully-screened “representative” sample of people (e.g., “eligible voters”) who will “vote” for them or “elect” them to become “the State,”
or who
- claim to have inherited the right to sin (tax, execute and conscript) from a relative (e.g., “hereditary monarchy”).
Stated another way, our thesis is that Christians should work to abolish any institution which claims an ethical right to steal, kill, or kidnap (such as the State, the Mafia,
etc.), and abolish such an institution in a way that does not involve stealing, killing, or kidnapping. The focus of this thesis, however, is limited to the State.
Stated another way, our thesis is that a group of people occupying a previously-unoccupied territory where no civil government exists are under no Biblical obligation to form
“the State.”
What Motivates This Thesis
Our desire to abolish the State is motivated by the fact that the State is (to adapt the words of Princeton professor A.A. Hodge in 1887):
the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and
political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.[1]
In particular, the State engages in more theft, murder, and kidnapping than any other group of people, including the criminals from which the State promises to protect us. The
State is, without close competition, the greatest thief and mass murderer on the planet. The 20th century, marked by the final destruction of Christian localism and the rise of the
secular State, has been the century of mass death on a scale unparalleled in human history. Details here.
The bureaucratic violence of the State depersonalizes all of our lives. Christian living becomes diluted in the face of “the
banality of evil” which the State engenders. Forgiveness and other distinctively Christian traits are “privatized”
and die the death of a thousand political and other more “realistic,” or “practical” qualifications.
Why This Thesis is Really Not That Controversial
“Biblical Anarchism” sounds like a shocking doctrine at first. But if you were to be
- transported back in time 1,000 years
- into a prosperous urban center
- among the greatest intellectual, religious, and political leaders of the day
- armed with a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution,
- and you politely suggested that people adopt the views of those documents concerning the civil magistrate,
you likely would have been executed by sundown. “The Divine Right of Kings” dominated political thinking
in those days, a doctrine which
- every priest and prince agreed was an essential doctrine of the Christian Faith,
- the abandonment of which would result in the destruction of the social order,
- a doctrine which has been universally repudiated in favor of the doctrine of “the
consent of the governed,”
- and is believed by virtually nobody in the 21st century.
The idea that vengeance is prohibited (even to those calling themselves “the State”) and the idea that civil
functions can be provided by the private sector, are ideas which are not as far removed from our thinking today as today's ideas are separated from Christians of the first
millennium after Christ. Our thesis (that the Bible does not grant ethical legitimacy to an institution which is based on vengeance and confiscation of property) will not appear as
controversial after surveying the evidence.
Presuppositions
Our thesis stands on two presuppositions which we will not attempt to defend.
Capitalism
Our thesis accepts as a matter of unchanging economic law the fundamental inefficiency of centralized government planning over free market decision-making. The reader can turn
to these works for a nearly complete defense of the concept:
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Yale Univ. Press, 1949, 885pp. + index
- George Reisman, Capitalism, Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 1998, 998pp. + index
- Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, NY: Basic Books, 1980, 383pp. + index
Mises in particular, and his Nobel Prize-winning student, F. A. Hayek, conclusively proved that without the price mechanism of the free market, socialist planners can never
allocate resources in the most efficient manner. Mises’ work has never been refuted. More works are found in the Bibliography
below.
Theonomy
This is the approach to Scripture taken by Calvin, Knox, and the Westminster Assembly (1643-47), according to M.G. Kline.[2]
The Theonomic thesis is defended by Greg
Bahnsen,[3] who argues for a basic continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and
advocates the abiding validity of the OT law “in exhaustive detail” (though recognizing the ceremonial and temporary character of Levitical and temple-related ordinances).
According to this perspective, Socialism is not just inefficient, it is immoral. Nevertheless, most adherents
of the Theonomic view are unwilling to condemn all socialism. Thus, although the basic Theonomic thesis is presupposed in our defense of anarcho-capitalism, it should
be noted that anarcho-capitalism is hotly disputed by nearly all advocates of the Theonomic
thesis.
Section VII (out of X) in Bahnsen’s book is entitled “Application of the [Theonomic] Thesis to the State.” Most people mistakenly assume that this particular application
of the Theonomic thesis to the State by Bahnsen is itself the Theonomic Thesis. The political views of the “Christian Reconstructionists” constitute only one possible “Application
of the Thesis to the State.”
Western Civilization is Christian Civilization. Calvinism is the most consistent form of Biblical Christianity. Admittedly, John Calvin affirmed the ethical legitimacy of the
State. But we believe that everything else Calvin said logically leads to
anarcho-capitalism. His followers were unsurpassed in their critique of statism and their ideas of Republican
representation and man's depravity gave birth to the American
revolution and system of limited government. The Founding Fathers -- even so-called “deists”
like Benjamin Franklin -- believed that American history was personally
shaped by the direct intervention of God. History has shown that Calvinism has been the greatest motivating force for the Christian Reconstruction of society. While not
everyone in society may call themselves Calvinists, their thoughts and institutions have been shaped by those who did.
We are losing what the Founding Fathers fought for. The house they built is being eaten by termites. To restore it, we must replace each plank of wood with Calvinist wood free
of all unBiblical termites. Those termites, we contend, are “archist” notions of the ethical legitimacy of
institutionalized sin which we call “the State,” notions which affect citizens as well as politicians.
A Prima-Facie Case for Anarcho-Theocracy
In a court of law the Prosecution must bring a convincing case against the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Defense attorneys don't have to call a
single witness if the Prosecution fails to meet its burden of producing a case which is prima facie -- “at first appearance” -- convincing. When a prima facie
case has been made, a person is reasonably and ethically justified in accepting that position until counter evidence is set forth.
Probably most church-goers have never read the Bible from cover to cover as they would a Harry Potter book. We contend that a person reading through the Bible is warranted in
believing that the State is evil. We will summarize the teachings of the Bible in such a way that a reasonable person would be forced to agree with us (that “the State” has no
moral legitimacy) until contrary evidence is brought forth.
We assume our jurors have taken Christian Ethics 101, and have heard Christ teach the duty to love one's enemies and eschew
vengeance and violence. Our first witness is John Calvin, in his comments on Romans 12:17-21. We could rest our case here, but after the recess we will
submit:
We will close by summing up the entire Bible, which never gives anyone the right to take vengeance:
The Prohibition of Vengeance
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
(Romans 12:19, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35)
The purpose of the State is to take vengeance. It was invented by those who would not wait for the Lord to repay. If it is sinful
for me to take vengeance, it is sinful for me to hire someone to take vengeance for me (a mafia hit-man), and it is sinful for me to “vote” for someone to take vengeance
for me. The State is therefore precluded by this passage.
John Calvin's comments on this passage are found here.
Even if the State were a completely voluntary association, which did not finance its activities by initiating force or threats of force against others in order to confiscate
their wealth, its fundamental purpose -- taking vengeance -- is sinful and prohibited to all human beings.
Jesus’ Command to be Anarcho-Capitalists
Our word “anarchism” comes from two Greek words meaning “no rule,” where “rule” is usually defined as “the State” or a political rather than market
system of social organization.[4] In Mark 10:42-45 Jesus commands His disciples to be “an-archists”:
- But Jesus called them to Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them;
and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
- But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
- And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
- For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.
|
The English phrase “to rule” in verse 42 is the Greek archein, from which our word “anarchism” is derived. For Jesus to say we are not to become archists
is the functional equivalent of a command to be “anarchists,” or as we would put it, “anarcho-capitalists.”
When most people hear the word “anarchist” they think of a lawless bomb-throwing bearded assassin. According to Jesus, the opposite of an “archist” is a “servant,”
not this caricature of an “anarchist.” Assassination and lawlessness are the antithesis of a Theonomic servant, and therefore the
antithesis of an anarcho-capitalist as defined in our thesis.
In fact, opposition to violence is at the heart of “anarcho-capitalism.” Socialism depends on the coercive and violent imposition of political policy upon the free market.
The anarcho-capitalist opposes all infringements of man’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and is unwilling to
excuse any initiation of force, even by “the powers that be.”
If Christians followed Jesus' command to be servants, and Paul's command (Romans 12) to eschew vengeance, the State would not come
into being.
In addition to the command to be a “servant” rather than an “archist,” Scripture firmly prohibits the essential functions
of “the State.” Four of these prohibitions are as follows:
Four Theonomic Prohibitions of Socialism
1. The Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28)
God commands human beings to “exercise dominion” over the earth. Socialists are inherently inefficient stewards of God’s earth, as capitalists have proven (see
resources above), therefore socialism violates this mandate.
Those who passively allow the State to perform vital social functions often do so as a means of escaping personal
responsibility for these functions, and also violate the Dominion Mandate. There is a strong correlation between socialism and immorality: as a society moves toward higher
levels of morality, it moves away from state socialism toward anarcho-capitalism.
2. The Eighth Commandment (“Thou shalt not steal”)
Suppose I want to install a security system in my home. I lack sufficient funds. May I put a gun to your head and demand that you provide me with the money I need for my
project?
- What if my father confiscated the property of your father, and I proposed to “succeed” my father in this capacity? (“Hereditary monarchy”)
- What if my friends all “vote” for me to do so? (“Democracy”)
The anarcho-capitalist believes that nobody—even those calling themselves “the State”—can legitimately confiscate the property of others. “Taxation”
is theft. And it is taxation which defines the State; private parties must rely on voluntary support for their endeavors.
The Westminster Larger Catechism - Exposition of the Eighth Commandment
Note: some anarcho-capitalists believe in self-defense. Others of a more pacifistic stripe are comfortable with a literal application of the Sermon on the Mount: “resist not
evil.” Both parties would condemn taxation as the initiation of force against another, regardless of how they would personally respond to the initiation of such force against
themselves.
Notice how these first two prohibitions come together in our current system of welfare. The “dominion-oriented” approach is seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He
sees someone in need, and reaches into his own pocket. He may not have been rich. He may have helped the needy at great sacrifice. He did not rob the next passerby to support the
victim of the first robbery. When a modern “liberal” sees a needy person, he does not take personal
responsibility and act at great sacrifice. He robs the next passerby (taxation), pockets half the money he takes for himself,
and hires someone to give the rest to the needy. The personal dimension of charity is lost both for the giver and
the recipient. One act of violence is compounded by another.
3. Prohibition of Manstealing (Ex 21:16; Deut 24:7)
Deprivation of liberty (conscription, regulation, imprisonment) violates the prohibition against kidnapping, even when carried out by
those calling themselves “the State.”
4. The Sixth Commandment (Thou shalt not kill)
The fundamental definition of the State is that institution which monopolistically enforces its desires with the ultimate political power: death, both in war and in capital
punishment. This power of death is symbolized as “the sword.”
Resistance to the State’s attempts to regulate or tax will also be met with the full power of the State. While the use of tanks and helicopters against the “Branch Davidians”
in Waco, Texas, to enforce payment of a small firearms tax might be said to be an “abuse” or inefficient use of the final political power, it is clear that the State will
escalate its use of force to match and then exceed any force used in defense against its aggression. In short, the State will kill in order to enforce its decrees.
The Westminster Larger Catechism - Exposition of the Sixth Commandment
The State as Criminal
Defenders of the State are quick to contend that society would be plunged into crime and violence without the State to hold
back the floodtides of depravity. But it is not merely the case that the State does a poor job of protecting us from criminals (as opposed to private security agencies), but The
State is the Greatest Criminal. Most capitalists and all anarcho-capitalists are quick to point out that it is the State,
rather than private criminals, that has caused most of the violence in the world. In fact, more bombs are thrown by “archists” than “anarchists,”
and more crimes against property are committed by “archists” than common “private sector” criminals.
Murder by any other name would be called “National Defense.”
Theft by any other name would be called “taxation.”
The bottom-line distinction between “the State” and private persons is the alleged morality of State actions which would otherwise be roundly condemned as immoral if
perpetrated by private parties. Our thesis is that Scripture provides no justification for these otherwise-sinful acts.
In spite of the fact that Jesus commands us to be servants, and the Law of God forbids us to be “archists,” most
Christians believe that the State is ethically legitimate, and affirmatively commanded by God. This idea flourishes only in ignorance of Biblical history.
95 “Vine & Fig Tree” Theses
The heart of our thesis is a survey of the State in Scripture. Just to be cute, we have divided our survey into 95 key events or commandments in the Bible which either show the
State to be immoral, or champion decentralized free market approaches to social problems. Along the way we discuss several other doctrines which are implicitly or explicitly
presupposed in the mainstream expositions of Romans 13, such as “the depravity of man,” the predestined decline of civilization before the Second Coming (eschatology), and the
“separation of church and state.” Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” world is possible today.
The Theses are arranged chronologically, as you would find them reading through the Bible. They are organized under the following heads:
Introduction
- View | Welcome to "The 95 Days of Christmas"
- View | The Importance of Luther's 95 Theses
- View | The Origin of These 95 Theses
- View | Introduction: Taking the Bible Seriously
- View | Thesis 1: Christ the Word
- View | Thesis 2: Christ the Creator
- View | Thesis 3: Creation, not Evolution
- View | Thesis 4: Omniscience, Predestination, and
Providence
- View | Thesis 5: "Self-Evident Truths"
View | Thesis 6: The Biological Basis of
Patriarchy
View | Thesis 7: The Dominion Mandate
View | Thesis 8: Patriarchy and "the
Extended Family"
Anarcho-Theocracy: The Original Society
View | Thesis 9: Patriarchy and the Sanctions of
the Covenant
View | Thesis 10: The Priority of Agrarianism
View | Thesis 11: Patriarchy and the Mountain
Conclusion: At no time before the Fall did God command men to form “the State”
B. Anarcho-Theocracy Before the Flood
Conclusion: At no time before the Flood did God command men to form “the State”
C. Anarcho-Theocracy Before Sinai
Conclusion: At no time before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai did God command men to form “the
State”
D. Anarcho-Theocracy Under Moses
- Pharaohs and Pyramids
- View | Thesis 29: Patriarchy and Resistance to Tyranny in
the Early Days of the Old Testament
- View | Thesis 30: As With All Angelic Activity, No State
Action Is Coincidental or Random
- View | Thesis 31: Ceremony, Ritual, Liturgy, And The
"Pedagogical Law"
- View | Thesis 32: Patriarchy and "Sacraments":
Passover
- View | Thesis 33: Patriarchs And "Elders"
- Patriarchs as "Elders"
- Patriarchs as Elders and Judges
- Is Exodus 18 a Mandate for "Civil Government?"
- View | Thesis 34: The Need for a Pedagogical Legal
Structure
- View | Thesis 35: Angels And The Pedagogical Legal
Structure
- View | Thesis 36: The Promised Land
- View | Thesis 37: The Temporary Character of The First
"Church Officers"
- View | Thesis 38: Patriarchy and the Temple
- View | Thesis 39: Patriarchy and Education
- View | Thesis 40: Patriarchy and Oaths
Conclusion: The Mosaic System did not contain a command from God for men to form “the State”
E. Anarcho-Theocracy and the Rise of the State
Conclusion: At no time before the time of Saul did God command men to form “the State”
F. Anarcho-Theocracy and Providence: The State
- God Sends EVIL !
- Angels and God's Throne of Government
- Stars and Idolatry
- The Politics of Star-Worship
- View | Thesis 46: Romans 8:28 and The State
- View | Thesis 47: God's Sovereign Ordering of Every State
- View | Thesis 48: The State Serves God by Sinning
- View | Thesis 49: The State As Sanctified
"Servant"/ "Deacon"/"Minister"
- View | Thesis 50: The State Does Not Serve God
Self-Consciously
- View | Thesis 51: Only One King Self-Consciously Serves God
- View | Thesis 52: Judgment of the State in Heaven and Earth
- View | Thesis 53: Moloch-Worship and the Nature of Idols
- View | Thesis 54: War, Capital Punishment, and "The
Sword"
- View | Thesis 55: The Throne of David
- The Power of the Sword
- "In the Name of the Law"
Conclusion: At no time in the Old Covenant did God command men to form “the State.”
The desire for a State was a rejection of God. God raises up evil empires to “serve” His purposes of vengeance, but the men participating in these acts of violence are judged
by God.
G. Anarcho-Theocracy and the Messiah
CONCLUSION: The Messiah came to establish His
Kingdom and crush rival empires to powder.
H. Anarcho-Theocracy and the Early Home-Churches
- View | Thesis 68: Extremism vs. Neutrality
- View | Thesis 69: Sons of God and Pedagogues
- View | Thesis 70: Judgment and the Church-Courts of Christ
- View | Thesis 71: The Apostolic Church and the Spread of
Power
- View | Thesis 72: Patriarchy and the House-Church
- View | Thesis 73: Patriarchy and the "Sacraments":
Baptism
- View | Thesis 74: Patriarchy and the "Sacraments":
"The Lord's Supper"
- View | Thesis 75: Self-Ordination
- View | Thesis 76: Salt and Statism
- View | Thesis 77: Political Authority and Kingdom Citizenship
- View | Thesis 78: Patriarchy and Resistance to Tyranny in
the Last Days of the Old Covenant
- View | Thesis 79: Taxation, Kingdom Citizenship, and
Overcoming Through Suffering
- View | Thesis 80: Violence
- View | Thesis 81: Vengeance
- View | Thesis 82: Creationist Anarcho-Socialism and
Darwinian Archo-Socialism
- View | Thesis 83: Pedagogy and The Powers
- View | Thesis 84: The End of Archists: The Pedagogues Judged
by the Church
- View | Thesis 85: The Last Days of the Old Covenant
- Salt and Statism
- Ghostbusters on Mars Hill
CONCLUSION: The Early Christian families, meeting in homes, were opposed by both “Church”
and “State.”
I. Anarcho-Theocracy in “the Millennium”
- View | Thesis 86: "The Millennium"
- View | Thesis 87: "Ruling with Christ"
- Angels and Autarchy
- View | Thesis 88: Salvation as Light and Social Healing
- View | Thesis 89: Edenic Restoration
- View | Thesis 90: The New Heavens and New Earth
- View | Thesis 91: The Unconverted In the "Millennium"
- View | Thesis 92: The Last Acts of Earthly Archists
- View | Thesis 93: The City of God
- View | Thesis 94: We are in Heaven Now
- View | Thesis 95: Perfection
CONCLUSION: God prohibits murder, theft, and deprivation of liberty, actions which form the
heart of “the State.” God nowhere commands men to form “the State.” The State, therefore, should be abolished
Objections to Anarcho-Theocracy
Any Christian proposing to abolish the State or to create a new society without a civil magistrate is met with passionate objections, as though eliminating political
institutions and replacing them with free market processes violates a clear command of Scripture. It is the burden of our thesis to answer these objections, by showing that God
nowhere commands men to form the State, and that the formation of the State is continually denounced in Scripture.
Romans 13
We focus first on the most universally-cited objection to Anarcho-Theocracy: Romans 13:1-7. Defenders of limited socialism rely on Paul’s language describing the Roman
Empire as “ordained by God.” Most commentators on the passage deny that Paul is speaking only of God’s predestinating decree. They contend that God affirmatively commands or
gives ethical approval to the existence of the State. Where these commands are cited by the commentators, we will answer them.
For the most part, however, no such commands are cited by the commentators. Our contention is that there are no such commands. James Benjamin Green, in his Harmony of the
Westminster Standards, has rightly noted that in Romans 13:
It is not meant that God directly ordained the state by saying to man, Thou shalt set up a government or organize a commonwealth.
Our analysis begins here: www.Romans13.com
Interaction with the Commentators
“If men were angels we need not have a government.”
Madison's words in Federalist 51 are often cited against anarcho-capitalists, who are quick to respond:
“If men are devils we dare not have a government.”
Ironically, Madison's overall point was not that the government can be trusted (as opposed to the depraved masses), or even on the necessity for government, but the reverse:
that “power corrupts,” and the People must fashion a government with sufficient checks and balances to oblige the government to control itself. “A dependence on the people
is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
The Calvinist-sounding doctrine of “the depravity of man” is our presupposition. No man or men can be trusted with a monopoly of institutionalized force.
“But without a State to control the people, won't the masses break out into lawlessness and violence?” They are more likely to do so if
the society officially and publicly legitimizes force, which is what society does when it creates the State, which then models violence as an ethically legitimate response to the
frustrations of life.
The Founding Fathers were virtually unanimous in their belief that the State was dangerous and could not inculcate virtue and self-control: this
was the job of religion. The more we fear crime, the more we should strengthen those institutions of Gospel morality, and denounce the State, the Mafia, and all others who
initiate force or violence.
Further Considerations
The final objection against Anarcho-Theocracy which we will consider is based on verses which allegedly prescribe “capital punishment.” The Bible says: “Whoso
sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). How can we fulfill this command if we abolish the State? There are two responses to this objection:
- “Capital punishment” is not Biblically required in our day.
- The Bible does not require “capital punishment” (assuming its validity for today) to be carried out only by the civil magistrate. “Capital punishment” could be
effectively meted out under a state-less free market.
These arguments are developed here.
A related argument, sometimes based on the same passages, is that we need a government to “punish” criminals.
- This argument usually boils down to vengeance, discussed above.
- These passages have as their ultimate goal the restoration of the victim through restitution by the offender, not simply a vindictive, retributive
(albeit equitable) diminishing of the offender.
- The remaining passages are a form of procedural discipline which is not monopolized by “the State,” but applies in all other contexts as well, such as households
(children, slaves, etc.), schools, businesses, etc.
These arguments are developed here.
NOTES
[1] A.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, Phila: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1887, p.
280, quoted in R.J. Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education, Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1963, p. 335. Hodge was referring to the government-run school.
But all of government, as propagator of law, is an educator. See R. Lerner, “The Supreme Court as Republican Schoolmaster,” 1967 Sup.
Ct. Rev. 127.
[2] Kline, M.G., “Comments on an Old-New Error,” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. XLI, No.1 (Fall 1978).
[3] Bahnsen, Greg L., Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1977.
[4] Pure anarchism is an impossibility. There is always a source of law. Some who call themselves “anarchists” say they believe in no law at all. From a
Christian perspective, this is an impossibility. In a group of 50 such “anarchists” there will be 50
law-makers and (at least) 50 codes of law. Every such “anarchist” is really just a nascent archist.
When everyone is his own god, his own law, you have multi-archy, or poly-archy.
You may have chaos.
You may have terror.
But you do not have the absence of archism, which is what “anarchy” literally means.
“Anarchy” is best defined not as the absence of law, much less as chaos and terrorism, but as the absence of a “State,” a “political”
system, or a “civil government” (leaving as an open question whether this would lead to chaos or to greater
efficiency and order).
From a Christian perspective, “anarchy”—when defined as violence or the absence of legal sovereignty—is
not even a moral option. Obviously, Jesus Christ is the Christian's “Archist,” (Colossians 1:18; cf. Acts 3:15; 5:31; Hebrews 2:10; 12:2; Revelation 1:5) and His Word is our
“Archy” (He is the Word; John 1:1; I John 1:1; Revelation 19:13; cf. also Hebrews 3:14; 5:12).