grr. anarchy makes sense to me philosophically, but Romans 13:1 makes me pause
Discussion
Personally, the foundation of my Christian Anarchism is recognizing that all people are images of God, and in Eden, we were given all the rest of creation to rule — but not each other. “Do not steal” and “do not murder” apply to everyone, and as the first is exactly what states must do to exist and the second is what they usually end up doing at some point (often to enforce the first), they’re not of God.
There’s a lot more to be said about this and I hope you fall down the rabbit hole!
The Libertarian Christian Institute is a great resource; check out this article addressing Romans 13 from there:
https://libertarianchristians.com/2022/10/24/proof-texting-political-authority/
The guy I quoted in the original post has a very good podcast, even with several episodes addressing Romans 13 in particular. Here’s just the first one:
True
Also, “Christ is King” is one of those things you hear so frequently they’ve lost some meaning. Fresh in its time, it was more clearly understood that if Christ is King, no one else can be.
This is why the establishment Jews that were in power at the time were killing Jesus’ contemporaries (Matthew 2:1-18) and trying to convince Rome that the Christian movement was a threat (John 19:12), and why the chant when Pilate offered Jesus’ release was “we have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15)
It’s true that the Christian movement recognized Jesus’ authority and that that is a threat to Roman authority, just not in the way it was being pitched. Usually that kind of thing goes along with a violent insurrection. But the kingdom of God was to grow in a different way, through service and love.
More on how states are a rejection of God’s authority: 1 Samuel 8
when a religious book makes you question the concepts that make sense you, it's a good time to take a moment and consider which of those two things you should be skeptical about.
not to mention that it's inconsistent with other stuff, like Samuel 8 and "i bring a sword" and "render unto caeser"
the fiction that it is "God's Word" is a doctrine, it is not plausibly referred to in the text itself. the "God's Word" doctrane was introduced by the catholic church. it is not native to christianity unless you narrowly define that as what the romans who devised the catholic church said it was. which is not actually literally in the text.
i think just by itself samuel invalidates this doctrine. but don't mind me. i'm just some outcast philosopher and scholar.
