Disclaimer: long philosophical discussion post

Christian anarchism is not a denial of authority; it is a denial of ultimate earthly authority. Christianity has always distinguished between authority that exists and authority that is morally final. Scripture teaches that all authority is derivative (Rom. 13:1), that only God’s authority is absolute (Acts 5:29), and that human authority is therefore conditional and provisional.

Many arguments against Christian anarchism assume an unstated premise: if authority exists, then it must be morally binding in all cases. Christianity has never held this view. To say “Christians must obey governing authorities, therefore anarchism is incompatible with Christianity” quietly smuggles in the claim that earthly authority has final moral legitimacy. That is precisely what Christianity rejects.

Romans 13 is central to this discussion, but it is often misunderstood. When Paul says there is no authority except from God, he is not saying that every command issued by the state is righteous, that rulers always act justly, or that the state speaks with God’s voice. If that were true, Scripture would collapse into contradiction. The same Bible praises Hebrew midwives for disobeying Pharaoh, shows Daniel defying imperial law, records prophets condemning kings, portrays apostles refusing state orders, and presents Jesus Himself executed by “legitimate” authorities.

Romans 13 is descriptive before it is prescriptive. It acknowledges that authority exists under God’s sovereignty, that order is preferable to chaos, and that the state has a limited role in restraining evil in a fallen world. It does not grant the state moral supremacy.

This is reinforced by the language Paul uses. The Greek word hypotassō, translated “be subject,” means to arrange oneself under or recognize an order. It describes posture, not unquestioning obedience. Paul does not say “obey in all cases,” nor does he deny the possibility of resistance. His concern is that Christians not mistake violent rebellion or needless provocation for faithfulness.

Context matters. Romans was written to a persecuted minority living under pagan Rome, suspected of insurrection and lacking political power. Paul’s message is effectively: do not become violent revolutionaries; do not bring unnecessary retaliation upon yourselves. That is very different from saying Rome has authority over the Christian conscience.

Paul even explains why submission is generally appropriate: rulers are intended to restrain wrongdoing and preserve social order. This is a functional description, not a moral endorsement. If rulers were always just, Paul would not later portray worldly powers as beastly, expose Roman injustice throughout Acts, or die at the hands of the same authority he describes in Romans 13.

Biblical submission therefore has limits. It means refusing violent revolt, respecting order, and avoiding self-righteous rebellion. It does not mean silence in the face of injustice, moral surrender, or equating legality with goodness. Paul himself models this tension: he uses Roman law strategically, appeals to Caesar, publicly challenges unjust treatment, and refuses to stop preaching when commanded to do so. This is selective compliance, not absolutism.

Jesus’ own teaching pushes in the same direction. He rejected political power, refused violent revolution, declared His kingdom not of this world, redefined authority as service, and explicitly undermined domination hierarchies. Christian anarchists do not argue for chaos or the absence of structure; they argue that no human institution may claim the loyalty, coercive power, or moral finality that belongs to God alone.

God does use governments, but use is not endorsement. Assyria, Babylon, and Rome were all instruments in God’s purposes—and all were judged. Christian anarchism simply refuses to sacralize the state, treat legality as morality, or confuse obedience with faithfulness.

The early church embodied this posture. Christians refused emperor worship, would not swear ultimate loyalty to Rome, often rejected military service, practiced mutual aid instead of state dependence, and accepted persecution rather than violent resistance. They did not seek to overthrow Rome; they simply would not give it their soul.

Whether Christianity and anarchism are incompatible depends entirely on definitions. If anarchism means rejection of moral law, accountability, or responsibility, then it is incompatible with Christianity. But if it means denying ultimate earthly authority, prioritizing voluntary cooperation over coercion, obeying God over institutions, remaining skeptical of concentrated power, and practicing nonviolence and enemy-love, then Christianity does not merely allow it—it points toward it.

Arguing otherwise implies that the state can overrule God in practice. That is a far more dangerous theology than Christian anarchism.

Catholic Bible suggests "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God."

NIV Bible says "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Submitting, being subjected to, and being a subordinate to, does not mean blindly following rule.