Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep955: Christian Anarchism: Dr. Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

Episode Date: March 17, 2022

Alex is Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Loughborough University (U.K.) and is the author of Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel which is the topic of our conversation.  Alex is officially French, Greek, and now also British. He grew up in Brussels and has lived in England almost continuously since 1997. He therefore feels like a European foreigner everywhere. He completed his academic studies at the University of Kent, covering disciplines such as Economics (BA), International Relations and European Studies (MA), and Politics and Government with some Theology and Religious Studies (PhD). He worked for both the University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church University prior to joining Loughborough in 2010. His research and teaching interests include political violence, pacifism and nonviolence studies, anarchist studies, political thought, politics and religion, and critical security studies. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/subjects/politics-international-studies/staff/alexandre-christoyannopoulos/ Alex’s article on the war in Ukraine: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-nonviolent-resistance-is-a-brave-and-often-effective-response-to-aggression-178361 Other writings by Alex: https://sites.google.com/site/christoyannopoulos/publications-by-theme Theology in the Raw Conference - Exiles in Babylon At the Theology in the Raw conference, we will be challenged to think like exiles about race, sexuality, gender, critical race theory, hell, transgender identities, climate change, creation care, American politics, and what it means to love your democratic or republican neighbor as yourself. Different views will be presented. No question is off limits. No political party will be praised. Everyone will be challenged to think. And Jesus will be upheld as supreme. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Okay. Hey, friends. My guest today is Dr. Alexander Christoyanopoulos. Hope I got that right. Dr. Christoyanopoulos, he's a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Leftboro University. He completed his academic studies at the University of Kent, covering disciplines such as economics, international relations and European studies, and politics and government with some theology and religious studies for his PhD. And he is the author of the book, Christian Anarchism, a Political Commentary on the Gospel, which is a focus of this conversation. I absolutely enjoyed this conversation. A lot of the stuff that Alex is talking about are categories that I've been thinking about for many years now.

But his area of expertise just brings a lot more precision and nuance to these categories. So I very much enjoyed this conversation. It will be challenging for hopefully all of us, but challenging in particular to those of us who are unfamiliar with Christian anarchism or have maybe certain preconceived notions of what that is. And he clarifies a lot of that in this conversation. All right. Hey, friends. I'm here with Alexander. First of all, how do you pronounce your last name?

I could give it a stab, but I'm going to have you just set it straight from the beginning. I'm used to it being slaughtered. Don't worry. If you break it down it's three it's easier Christo Yano

Poulos so Christo Yano Poulos but it's fine to mispronounce it yeah thank you that was good I'm going to stick with Alexander how's that

and you can call me Alex as well it's easier Alex okay Alex well thank you so much for being on the podcast I yeah a mutual friend of ours

Brian Brock turned me on to your work so I'm holding if you're watching the video your book Christian Anarchism, a Political Commentary on the Gospel. Hold it up there. And I haven't finished it yet. I've been reading it periodically. And it's just such a great work. So thank you for that. with what is Christian anarchism? Because I can imagine a decent percentage of people listening might even be freaking out right now, like, whoa, whoa, what? We're just going to, wait, we just want chaos in society and no rules and burning trash cans. And what does this even mean? So help us to get our minds around what Christian anarchism even is.

Yes, no, good. First of all, thanks for the nice words. There is a lot to unpack with this. So Christian anarchism ultimately means what you want it to mean. But what I tried to mean with it was what a lot of people who have written about it have meant with it, which still includes a number of different sort of slants on it, if you will. But ultimately, slants on it, if you will. But ultimately, the filter, if you want, determining what went in and what didn't was anyone that argued that Christianity somehow defined should amount to or amounts to some form of anarchism somehow defined. So Christianity might be quite exegetical, how defiant. So Christianity might be quite exegetical, an interpretation of Jesus's teaching and example, or it might be the way we relate to one another, informed by, you know, our faith kind of thing. It can be a number of different things, and anarchy can be, or anarchism, in fact,

there's a difference there. Anarchy, I suppose, is a state of of society not chaos will come to that anarchism might be more the ideology or the thinking that you know this is what we should get to or or a position from which to critique things so it might be a critique of the state or or the actual practice of an alternative to the state in the way we relate to one another so it can be quite broad it can be different things and ultimately um I suppose I quickly realized when I started this research that there were quite a few different authors who had written about what you might call Christian anarchism, but that didn't necessarily know of one another or build on one another. and I basically published that, was to, as I put it in there, to weave together the different threads according to which Christianity should amount to anarchism, to try and put together a stronger argument for that interpretation, if you want. So actually, maybe it's worth noting in passing that the PhD was titled

Theorizing Christian Anarchism, a Political Commentary on the Gospel. The word theorizing, of course, is one that the publisher didn't like, insisted on me dropping, but the thesis is otherwise the same. I mean, I tuned it down in the text as well, but apart from that, it's the same sort of argument. Now, that might help explain, since you've been reading it a bit, why, well, in a way, it is a kind of theorizing of Christian anarchism that I try and do. So I didn't go out and interview people. I could have done. I didn't. I just looked for what was written, I suppose, in support of Christian anarchism. So that started with Tolstoy. I mean, we might go to who it includes in a minute, but it kind of broadened

to others. Now, anarchism is a commonly misunderstood term, of course, we commonly associate it with violence and chaos, and would you say burning and no rule. And it's, of course, a misinterpretation that all anarchists often find themselves frustrated by. So it's not without explanation why people associate it with that. The term anarchism was coined in the 19th century. In fact, it was already a term that existed as something slanderous. An anarchist was someone who did favor chaos and the like, or who was naive enough to think that we could govern ourselves, or that human beings could govern themselves peacefully without government or a state.

Now, the first positive use of the term, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, famous anarchist, comes in the 19th century. And the people who associated themselves with the term were, let's be clear, originally mainly sort of working class movements, people who came out of the socialist tradition really broadly conceived and who argued that the kind of change that people wanted on the left, I suppose, then couldn't be achieved through the state, that the state was a lure or something dangerous, that it would end up just reproducing structures of oppression, repression, etc. So there are people who, at least originally, seek, I suppose, socialist political change or left-leaning communism. I mean, there are anarcho-communists. It gets complicated, but let's call them as part of a broad socialist tradition, at least originally. But who, yeah, distrust the state or are wary of working through the state in order to achieve any such improvement. Now, some of these anarchists at the end of the 19th century take on the method of the dynamite of throwing bombs and assassinating members of the elite.

Let's be clear. Someone did some research. In total, they only kill about only they kill about 300 people. But you know, on the scale of some of our bombs that we witnessed today, this is this is a lot less. But still, these are victims, etc. And there was a bit of a wave of anarchist violence from sort of 1880s to the First World War and the association, the common association today of the term anarchism with kind of bomb throwing and violence is very much to do with that period. And the authorities of the time were very keen to conflate the terms, in fact, anarchist and

terrorist and the like. But already then, the vast majority of people weren't in favor of that method. And certainly ever since, it's only a very tiny minority of anarchists, just like with any other ideology that would, I suppose, favor violence in order to achieve the political change that we're after. And by the way, I think it's worth saying, you know, burning tires and breaking windows might be a form of violence, violence against property, if you will. But I'm not sure it's more violent than the violence of the police person clobbering you because you've done that against the window, right? I mean, let's get a sense of proportion. What do we mean by violence here? But yes, the term is typically sort of associated with violence burning in chaos. Oh, it very much isn't about chaos. It's a way it's I mean, anarchists,

I suppose, think that we can govern ourselves without the structure we typically associate with the state today. It doesn't mean rulelessness or not not abiding by certain principles and ways of doing things. But those ways of doing things are much more democratic, much more, I suppose, egalitarian in some sense, kind of equal dignity to all, everyone's included, you want to try and reach decisions by consensus. So it's not chaos at all. But it's a different form of governing ourselves as a community, if you will. Sorry, long answer, but yeah, no, that's helpful. So I mean, the word itself, if you just take the root meaning, just means what, like no ruler? Or, I mean, or... or yeah our key is a funny suffix it's the same it's similar to the latin prefix priors in prince principle principality but it's so it's

it's it's uh our key is is is both the ruler or in some sense, some sort of principle, which kind of confuses things. Now, typically people say it basically amounts to saying no rule or no government. This is where I suppose I want to sort of complicate things a little bit further, if I may. Anarchists aren't only against the state. And I should perhaps confess that in the book, I very much focus on that. You know, the anarchism of Christian anarchists is very much focused as a critique of the state. Most anarchists today would certainly argue that anarchism is more about opposition to various forms of dominations and hierarchies, including the state, but not necessarily only so. So there's a long history in the anarchist movement of criticizing churches, a strong anti-clericalism, including among Christian anarchists for reasons we might come to later.

But also gender, racial hierarchies, I mean, hierarchies between species for some people, you know, so hence some anarchists being kind of vegan, etc. And so, and in particular these days, and this is where, again, it's another thorny issue you might get to, for most anarchists, it absolutely includes a critique of capitalism or neoliberal capitalism. Now, I know there's a phenomenon called anarcho-capitalist, especially in the States. You might want to come to that in a minute. But for most anarchists, capitalism is a structure of oppression and domination underscored by the state,

and it's something to be denounced and moved away from as well. So anarchism isn't just critiquing the state. And I just want to sort of note that, because when we just say, what does the word mean? If you look at the origin of the word, people say, oh, no state, no government. Yes, that's part of it, but it's not the only part. And I'm guilty of, I suppose, reproducing the assumption that it's the only thing in the book itself, because it's very much focused on that. What would be, I've got so many questions, I want to try to stay a little bit

focused, but what would be, when they critique capitalism, what's the response to – I think it's a historical fact that some of the most bloodthirsty regimes we've seen that have led to the death of millions and millions and millions of people have been socialist systems like it do we have an example of a socialist system where it hasn't led it led to some form of almost fascist you know basically the same thing that you're trying to critique sometimes even on a worse level do they just say well it still is better on paper it's just there's been bad people at the helm of these movements or so there's a lot to there's a lot to say about that too now first of all it's not like the only alternatives out there are sort of totalitarian socialism or capitalism. We mustn't confuse, I suppose, capitalism with democracy or even a functioning economy. The question is how that economy functions. a functioning economy. The question is how that economy functions. Most anarchists would even concede that some form of what you might call private property is acceptable. That is, for

example, the worker should be entitled to, I suppose, ownership of the product of their labor. That's totally legitimate. The issue especially becomes raw when you're talking about land and owning land. This land is mine. This huge space is mine. That little village over there of peasants who can't feed themselves. You can't use my land, even though it's obviously land that you could use. I want to keep it for hunting. That is deeply problematic for most anarchists.

Like the selfishness behind property ownership. Yes, I suppose the vulgar accumulation of property to some extent, but also in particular, the idea of land as something that you own. Land isn't a product of your labor. You might labor the land. I suppose you could rent it from the community in some way. There's various ideas circulating out there, but it's different from you know the product of your labor you know something that you've cooked okay with products from the land but you've cooked it so maybe you're

i don't know you're selling it or you're giving it in exchange to people that that's not necessarily something anarchists have a problem with so you know you can have a functioning economy you can have you know um you can have democracy, even kind of more direct democracy than what we have today. And that's not necessarily a problem. Now, at the other end of your question, first of all, the Nazis weren't socialists. I know in the term it says national socialism, but equally, you know, a lot of regimes, communist regimes during the Cold War described themselves as democratic in ways that we might dispute. Russia is a democracy, we might dispute that. So is Syria today.

I mean, just because they adopt a term doesn't mean that, I suppose, the supporters of that ideology would acknowledge or the ideology being captured there would acknowledge that it's one of theirs. Now, yes, let's call them state communist regimes, totalitarian socialist regimes,

such as Stalin's or Mao's, were particularly bloodthirsty. But Hitler was too. It wasn't really socialist. It was more kind of Nazi or fascist. I mean, there's a better term than socialism. Socialist models that aren't bloodthirsty, there's plenty. You just look at, I don't know, Scandinavia today or various regimes where there's more redistribution.

There's still, by the way, there's still a form of capitalism, but a more socialist leaning one, if you will. I mean, they're less free market and less fair than, say, the US today or even the UK. So, you know, there are examples there. and to kind of close the loop on your question anarchists would precisely say that they had warned you in the 19th century that reform socialist reform if you want or communist reform through the state will result in a dictatorship of the kind that you get with stalin etc it is not through the state that you're going to get that change, not top down, but together, bottom up as a community working together directly with each other in a direct democracy

kind of way. That's the way you're going to achieve the kind of balancing of liberty and equality, by the way, that anarchism very much stands for. So we're often told that, you know, these things can't be held together and communists or socialists value equality over liberty, whereas democrats and capitalists value liberty over equality. Anarchists have all along argued that both of these things are equally important and should be held together. And they're very much passionate defenders of both. Okay. Let's focus, I guess, now on more Christian anarchism because we're talking kind of broad

brush anarchism. And as you say in your book, a lot of traditional anarchists would consider it incompatible with Christianity because here you have a God, an authority figure and everything. And I think you explained it really helpful that it's kind of the nature of the authority that's being rejected by anarchism that if you apply that to Christianity, not Christendom, but like actual, you know, Yahweh-centered Christianity, like the leader at the helm, God, the creator, is not the kind of leader that is being rejected by anarchism. So, yeah, what are some distinctive features of Christian anarchism? And I just, I hear 90% of my audience saying, what about Romans 13? What about Genesis 9? Aren't we

supposed to be a, you know, submit to the state and so on and so forth? And maybe we can get to that later, but I know that that's, people are probably just longing for you to address what seems to be kind of like, you know, like, no, we need to be, you know, a group of people who are submissive to the state. Obviously, if they ask you to, you know, break Christian conscience or do something evil, then we say no to that. But if the, yeah, anyway.

But that's quite important. Exactly how much, I mean, but yes, it's exactly how much can it ask. But yes, no, good, excellent questions. Again, huge questions. And sorry, I mean, but yes, it's exactly how much can it ask. But yes, no good, excellent questions. Again, huge questions. And sorry, I get carried away. Don't stop me. You're fine. So one famous slogan associated with anarchism is no gods, no masters.

One famous slogan associated increasingly, more recently in fairness, but I think it captures it quite well with Christian anarchism is no king but Christ. Yes, I love that. Now that's, of course, yeah. But it's, of course, particularly problematic for other anarchists. Okay. So, by the way, I hope I'm still connected because I can see the image breaking up. You're fine. Yeah. My internet can come in waves and so it might slow down.

But yeah, you're fine. Okay, fine. My end. A lot of anarchists are critical of the church, including Christian anarchists, because they consider it as another pillar, if you want, of domination and repression. I mean, and for Christian anarchists, a lot of Christian anarchists are critical of the church for, in their eyes, burying the rather radical revolutionary teaching of Jesus under layers of rituals and dogma that they think are problematic. Again, something we can unpack if you want, but just to say that some Christian anarchists are critical of the church too. But quite a few anarchists aren't just critical of the church, they're also critical of the very propositions, if you want, advanced by sort of religion. They're critical of religion as such, and they're anti-religious, not just anti-clerical. That's especially pronounced

in contexts like, I suppose, France and Spain and Italy and Greece, where the church has been historically quite powerful and perhaps less open to, you know, new exegesis, new interpretations of the Old Testament, of the, sorry, New Testament, precisely. Now, that means that when you, when I find myself talking about Christian anarchism, I do get different reactions depending on who I'm speaking to. So especially if I'm speaking to Protestant audiences, people might sometimes say, okay, explain, you explain a bit, they go, okay, I could see that, you know, you can, I can, I can wheel out a number of passages. And again, we could come to that if you want. And it starts making sense, because it's fairly consistent throughout Jesus's teaching. An example that, you know, nonviolence is quite critical. I mean, to name the two main things,

it's about, it's about nonviolence, therefore also rejecting the violence of the state, but also being critical of this, of idolatry, the idolatry of the state, or the idolatry we perform through the state. These are the two main currents, if you want, of interpretation. So people can kind of see that, whereas if you mention it in, you know, French, let's call them comrades for a minute, or Spanish ones, or Greeks, people go, what? No, that's a contradiction in term. You can't possibly be a Christian anarchist. And I think the way I like to put it is like this, is if for you it is essential in order to qualify as an anarchist that you reject religion, then Christian anarchism is a contradiction in terms it's not possible. But if anarchism for

you is defined around the criticism of the state and various structures of domination, then you can be a Christian anarchist. That is an anarchist whose anarchism is rooted, but comes from a particular understanding of Christianity. I suppose the other angle to whether the term should exist is from a Christian perspective, if you want. You could argue that it's a redundancy rather than an oxymoron. It's a repetition of terms. You shouldn't need to say to qualify Christian with anarchism, because for Christian anarchists, anarchism is the politics of Jesus's teaching and example practice. You need to sort of say anarchism on top of it. But yeah, now, so that means that, of course, for quite a few anarchists, the very notion of Christian anarchism is problematic.

It's ambivalent. And yes, for many of them, it's no gods, no masters, not no kings, but Christ. But for quite a few Christian anarchists, it's because of how they interpret the, yes, revealed teaching of Jesus, in a sense, that they translate that politically here and now into kind of anarchist position. So yes, it's an awkward one, but that's kind of the way it gets navigated. Now, we could come to various passages if you want, but hopefully that answered that question at least. That's good. Yeah. So I guess the big one for me is, or not so much for me, but I think the misunderstanding is like, okay, so should

Christians obey the laws of the land? Should I observe the speed limit? Do I have a right to plant a tree on my neighbor's property? Because say if I didn't really think private property was a Christian value, what does it mean to live within the system? Are we to be rebelling against the system because there's no king but Christ? And if Christ didn't tell me to drive 65 kilometers an hour, then I don't need to obey that law. It's a man-made law. It means nothing to me. Or is there kind of a quiet subversiveness to where we have a confident indifference, in sense to how the state's trying to rule things. But we're just fundamentally not given our allegiance to the state. And these are quite,

as people say, you sound like a Christian anarchist president, or you don't sound like one. I'm trying to sort of, and I don't need a name necessarily, but there is a lot when I read your book and I read other things, Jacques Ellul and others, I'm like, man, I resonate with so much of what they're saying. So, yeah, that's where I'm trying to sort out kind of where I'm personally at on this whole discussion. Yeah, no, totally. Fair enough. And again, these are really interesting questions.

Let me start with saying this. I like to sometimes pause and note that, to quote Landauer, the state is, how does the quote begin? The state isn't some sort of, I forget how it goes, but it's not just something out there. The state is us. The state is what we do to one another. The state, he says, is a relationship. It's a way we do to one another the state he says is a relationship it's the it's a way we relate to one another the state is populated by human beings so let's just start maybe by noting that precisely this it's just about how we relate to the state it's how we relate to one another through and and and with the state being part of our relationship or the way we relate to one another if you see what i'm saying so the question of how you react to it once you once you once you subscribe to the to the argument that christianity at least amounts to critique of the state because the state is violent and we shouldn't be violent to one another because the state is a form of

idolatry and and and and god asks us not to do that. The question then becomes, what do you do about it? And here I think, again, judging from the arguments I've read, and I should say there's very little in the book that's mine. It's basically the voices out there that I bring together to try and get them to speak together and make the case as strong as possible for for christian anarchism and and when you bring these voices together this is fair to say i guess a spectrum of of possible actions ranging from and let's let's go straight to jesus's examples from um rendering um sorry from from turning the other cheek to the overturning of the tables. But beyond that, I think you're beyond the illustrations given in the text of what's allowed, right? So at the one extreme, it's not not reacting.

You're still reacting when you're turning the other cheek. You've been insulted. The way you react, I mean, you can go into the text, is not ignoring the insult. I there has been an insult but you're kind of saying we'll have another go then or i'll walk the second mile or here's here's the coat the cloak as well it's so it's a reaction that sort of subverts um the original intention to some extent because you refuse to be insulted you're almost you you've noted that something's been done there, but you're trying to go beyond the usual kind of opposition and almost welcoming the other into reflecting on what's just been done. I mean, yeah.

At the other end, you've got the overturning of the tables, which Christian Anarchist will point out is not violent, as in violence against human beings. There is a whip in one of the texts. It's the text that's got the cows and the sheep, I think, it's probably used for the animals. There isn't any evidence in the text of violence against human beings. But yes, there is, you know, Jesus is upset, den of thieves, etc. He's overturning the table. So, you know, and the Christian anarchists I've read about, to the extent that they then kind of, you know, decide on how to act and react to

particular context, you know, precisely, their actions range from, yeah, from turning the other cheek to overturning the tables, or to put it the way the Catholic workers like to put it, I like that saying, comforting the afflicted and deflicting the comfortable, caring for one another, caring for the lost sheep, caring for the downtrodden, but also speaking out when there is injustice. Now, so let's be very clear, like other sort of more secular forms of nonviolent action, if you want. It's not about just passively letting injustice happen. There's a reaction. But that reaction is nonviolent.

That's quite clear. It's difficult to argue that you can be Christian and violent as far as Christian anarchists are concerned. Jesus is pretty consistently rejecting violence and preaching forgiveness again and again, even unto his very death. other things that are imposed on us by the state. Let's remember that Christiana and Anaceli, you know, sort of unaware that the idea is to live together in society. We can come together and agree on particular rules or ways of doing things that are hopefully revisable. You know, if I take issue, well, let's sit together and argue, should we do this differently? The way we do things now is we, you know, we vote every few years, and then these people go on and do things for us, apparently in our name. They don't consult us on everything that they do. And I suppose what we get

is some sort of approximation of democracy, but it isn't really democracy. There are much more vibrant ways of doing direct democracy, and where also it's not just the majority that imposes its will on the rest, but where you try and coordinate things together, again, by consensus where possible. So is the right limit 65 miles an hour, 55? I don't know, but I do know because there's plenty of scientific evidence that driving fast becomes dangerous to fellow human beings. So perhaps we want to come together and find ways of not doing that too much,

because it kills and that's not something we want. Now, so it's first of all, not like these things wouldn't be an issue in an anarchist society. Of course, we need ways of organising things together, but again, hopefully directly accountable and democratic. The question is then what do we do given that our context is the one that it is here, right? We have states, they make rules, we get to vote now and then, sort of. And here, I'm supposed to get to Romans 13 or Render unto See, the two main passages 13 or render unto Caesar, the two main passages sent, you know, logged over to Christian anarchists. What about that?

And, well, start with render unto Caesar. I could go through the episode, but it's, you know, there's a dialogue. They're out to trap Jesus. And eventually, you know, he gets them to produce a coin. He doesn't have one. Caesar's face is on the coin. In the Roman world, one's face on something denotes ownership. I mean, today, the notes I wear, you know, I carry on me, have the queen on it. It is her property. I'm not supposed to burn it because it's her property. That carries on

to some extent. But he says in that case, render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. We often forget that bit. Now, the question then to follow elul is what belongs to whom well coins public monuments that kind of thing is caesar's he wants it back give it back to him but life belongs to god and so a lot more belongs to god and is therefore kind of god's to ask or and and then then you get to you know what is he asking of us? Well, that's the New Testament, etc. Yeah, so in Romans 13... So real quick, with the render unto Caesar, he's not promoting some kind of like, give your allegiance to the state

or even celebrate the state. It's kind of like a... It's almost like an indifference almost like yeah his face is on the coin sure have your stupid coin um all of creation belongs to god so let's make sure we have our priorities straight would that be kind of i mean i don't want to read too much into what he's saying but he's he's not he's not really endorsing the state at that point which is how some people take it but i i exactly he's certainly not saying you know stand up put your hand your hand on your heart and pledge allegiance to the state you know there's

none of that because that would be a form of idolatry which is the other main thrust of sort of christian anarchist critique by the way so absolutely um exactly as you say. So, and that's similar in Romans 13, in fact. Now, Romans 13, first of all, these chapters didn't exist in the original letter, right? This is Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome, the heart of the empire. They've asked him what to do about this. There's insubordination. They're being repressed. They're being, as in, you know, and this is proper violence against them. They're asking, what should we do? And he's basically counseling them away from violent insubordination. Romans 12 precedes Romans 13. Again, the chapters are imposed later. If you read them together, there's a buildup from loving, now what is it? I can't, I forget now, friends and then family and then enemies and

then that's when the state comes in so submit unto those higher powers because in a sense what you're doing there is turning the other cheek i mean in a way what he's doing is an exegesis of jesus's sermon on the mount uh an application of it for the christ of Rome. So yes, submit unto these authorities, at least up to and until what they're asking of you goes against, obviously, what God is asking from you. And that's when there's going to be a clash. And in that case, it's pretty clear you submit to God's will, as it were, what he's asking of you, rather than what Caesar is asking. I mean, there's a lot more we could say, but let's just briefly, those two passages are the two main ones, as far as I'm concerned, that, well, for one, Tolstoy,

the main Christian anarchist writer often cited in anarchist texts, doesn't deal with, but Ellul and Eller and others deal with, and therefore together, I think they help shore up, if you want the case for Christian anarchism. But they're also the main ones that come from the New Testament. You can bring in all sorts of bits from the Old Testament. But if I go Tolstoy on you on this, I'd say, well, that's not Christianity as such. I mean, it's not the New Testament, the New Covenant. You can, I mean, yes, OK, there are echoes. But in so many ways, Jesus reinterprets a lot of the old law.

Again, I know that's a huge debate. But for Tolstoy, if you're a follower of Jesus, it is Jesus who you follow. And he's been pretty clear on what to do. Tolstoy even doesn't have much time for Paul, who is, again, someone who comes after Jesus rather than Jesus himself. So, sorry, there are a lot to unpack. Well, yeah, I've done – because the work that I've done that related to this is primarily on nonviolence. So I would be an advocate of absolute Christian nonviolence. And this is why this conversation is so interesting, because it's very much an extension of that topic.

And so obviously I've had to deal – I don't know if I had – to say I've had to deal with Romans 13. I've never been particularly troubled by Romans 13 because it does come after Romans 12. I don't want to repeat everything you said, but it's, you know, the ethic given to the church comes in Romans 12. The only command in Romans 13 is not to carry out the violence of the state, not to celebrate it, but to submit to governing authorities. But it's the – some people read Romans 13 as God sort of celebrating or endorsing the state. But that's not what's going on there. When he says – when he calls Rome a servant of the Lord, he's tapping into a deep prophetic tradition where Assyria, Babylon, Persia are all called servants of the Lord. are all called servants of the Lord, meaning these wicked empires. Well, let me, God is so sovereign that he could even use wicked empires to do his bidding. Like he'll send Assyria to punish the Northern kingdom. He'll send Babylon to exile the Southern kingdom. These are God

carrying out his, he's not celebrating Assyrians skinning people alive and burning down. It's not God's, but he's so sovereign. He could even use these wicked empires to carry out his will. So I think Paul's, if you understand the Old Testament context of Romans 13, there is zero celebration of the state. There's an elevation of God's sovereignty to work through sinful structures, but they're still sinful structures. They're very, and I always tell people let's make sure we balance out romans 13 with revelation 13 where now the same empire is called a beast who is empowered by the dragon you know um so there is no celebration of the state here first of all everything i'm saying is that does that make me a christian anarchist

or because when i talk like this people saying yeah you're basically Jacques Ellul, you know. Yeah, yeah. I can see why they'd say that because what you're saying resonates with what they'd be saying. So, yes, I don't know if that – I'm not going to say whether you're a Christian anarchist. It's your decision. But certainly what you're saying is very much the kind of thing that they're saying. So, yes. And two things further to that. First of all, the one passage from the Old Testament that Christian anarchists, those that I have read,

who have written therefore, keep coming back to, it's the one that they cite above all the others. They cite a few others now and then, but it's the most frequently cited one is 1 Samuel 8, which is precisely the story where basically the Israelites give up on God or rather say, we still want to be like other nations. We've heard your warnings. We don't know that it's dreadful. We still want that. And God says to Samuel, all right, well, give them what they want. And from then on, God does use those sinful authorities, including to do his work, but they're not exactly brilliant. They don't get a good reading through prophets and right up to Revelation. So exactly as you said. Furthermore, there's a nice little challenge, I think, for Christians who read Romans 13 as an endorsement of the state.

I can't remember which Christian anarchist notes it, but it, and it's the following. If, if you read that as, as God approving of the state, then you're going to have trouble, um, saying that it's doesn't, that it doesn't also approve the Nazi state, the authoritarian state that you mentioned before, the sort of state communist states, because he doesn't make a differentiation there. It's, it's the authority we like to think, oh, no, but we don't mean now, we mean the US of A, or we mean the UK. Well, it's not clear that you can say that based on that text. So suddenly you find yourself having to tease yourself out of those implications. Yeah, Christians in China and Northa tend to read romans 13 a little differently or russia or um yeah it is there's is very much a thick american lens that

u.s christians read that passage through and and and but we gotta remember he's talking about caesar nero was on the throne at that time which was was close to being a first century Hitler kind of figure. So I think the problem I see in the text is more like, wait, submitting to these horrible kind of dictator type people. Paul seems to be kind of saying, hey, no violent revolution, no violent revolution. The problem I see is almost opposite of what some Christians see. I'm like, well, wait a minute. Okay, no violent revolution, but surely revolution should be in the air here. Now that's not possible for a first century church with a few thousand people, but I mean, yeah, I don't know. If we're going to make a contemporary

application, if you read it through the lens of people who are currently living under very oppressive regimes, I could see the text being difficult from a different perspective. Yes, exactly. And then before I say that directly, also to say that, of course, been numerous doctrines and explanations articulated by members of the church to explain why, no, no, not Nazi Germany, but yes, USA, etc. But all these kinds of arguments

are precisely what a lot of Christian anarchists bypass by doing this very Protestant move, in a sense, or Reformation move of going to the text and saying, well, what does that say? Well, I can't see all of what you've articulated, similarly with the just war tradition, which comes later on, etc. But in terms of what it means, I mean, this is, I think, part of what attracted me to this in the first place. And it's this very paradoxical method of, I don't know if it's resistance, but it's a response to injustice, to violence, to suffering.

And it's to forgive and submit nevertheless. I mean, it's what Jesus says we should do. And he does again and again, again, even when he's arrested and he's on his way to being crucified. And he's on his way to being crucified. But and so you could say, well, if you're advocating that to people today in Ukraine, in Russia, in China, in Xinjiang, wherever, you know, surely that it just means they get exterminated. This is where I think you're refusing to acknowledge or maybe you're not. I don't know if you're not aware. It's too strong words, but let's put it differently. This is where I think the people who advocate this kind of method, secular orian by the way would argue that there's something else at play you don't as a human being because it's human beings do that to one another

you don't eat that easily go on slaughtering every single proponent of a of a of a movement that is opposed to what you're doing, but refuses to resist you violently. This is what Gandhi perfected. Gandhi inspired in part by Tolstoy and others. It's a method of nonviolent response that in the end seems to turn the heart, if not of the actual oppressor, at least a lot of their supporters. There's a transformation at play. By treating your enemy or your opponent who's about to slaughter you with love and forgiveness, I mean, you might get slaughtered along the way. By the way, resisting violently doesn't prevent you from getting slaughtered along the way too. But hopefully, it means you capture, in a sense, the moral high ground.

You use that as a strategy. That's, again, what Gandhi perfected and so many have done since him and his movement, in fairness. He's not alone, of course. Leading to this evidence that we have by now, so if I can go into that briefly, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan famously published in 2011 a book-length study that basically concludes that if you look at the last hundred years or so of violent and non-violent movements of resistance and kind of code them for whether they were successful, partially successful, or unsuccessful, they've got over 300 examples. Well, overall, the results are pretty clear cut. Although both violence and nonviolence fail more often than they succeed, let's be clear, nonviolence fails twice less often or succeeds

twice more often, if you want, than violence does. And it also seems to lead to sort of an aftermath that's more respectful of human rights and democratic values, etc. When you resist violently, if you succeed, the regime you tend to impose tends to be much more problematic. So and part of how they explain this is precisely that, you know, if you act violently against an opponent or a group, you're typically going to pull the supporters of that group together because they'll feel that fear. They can see the violence that your lot are doing on them. If you want, the spinners on the other side will be able to say, look how evil these people are.

Look how violent they are, terrorists, et cetera, enemies. Whereas if you act nonviolently, it pulls these pillars of support apart. It makes it harder to justify. It makes it harder to dehumanize you. And I think that's partly what, you know, I don't know if it's exactly what Paul is getting at or Jesus doesn't say those things in the text we have, but I think they basically what they've done is they, I don't know if they've put the finger, but they're illust that method and it's one it's a it's it's a sort of method of resistance that in that is paradoxical because you're submitting you're forgiving you're being loving but you're still resisting and it's to it's also to do with what a lot of anarchists talk of as prefiguration you're prefiguring in your action

the kind of behavior you want to see again you, you're being loving and forgiving. You're not dehumanizing. So, yeah, sorry. I get carried out. As you know, Walter Wink has done work on the non-reasonous passage. And I think he's coined the phrase, you know, militant nonviolence. Or even Martin Luther King had that idea too, that I am aggressively militantly opposing the forces of evil, the means by which is nonviolence, both because for him, this reflects the Christian

value, but also, as you said, it's been proven to be more effective. I think he even said, King said, people know what to do with a violent response. They don't know what to do when the person stands nonviolently resisting evil nonviolently. And he demonstrated that in his own life. I feel like I have to ask the question because of what's going on now with Russia and Ukraine. I don't know if I was even planning on going here. But I've been getting this question. And, you know, as somebody who advocates for nonviolence, what do you do when you have things like what's going on? And I'm not even sure everybody fully understands what's going on. There's so much news narratives and propaganda and stuff. But, yeah, what would a Christian anarchist say?

Like what would their response to Russia and Ukraine be? If we want to turn in that direction? It's a fair question, Preston. I actually happen to have written a short piece for this thing called The Conversation, which is a sort of news outlet for which only academics write in, if you will, but then it can get reproduced. And it's a short 100 1000 word piece, but then it can get reproduced. And it's a short 100, 1000 word piece, precisely reflecting on or asking whether, actually, no, stating that nonviolent resistance can be just as effective as violent resistance. I've put it that way, even in that context. So now, let's get something straight. It's, it's not for me or you or others to sort of lecture people on the front line and tell them, you know, how they are to react. I mean, we can point to examples.

We can inspire. You can try. You can argue. But ultimately, I don't know how I would react if, you know, if my community was being bombarded. So I just want to acknowledge that. It's easy for me to say I sit comfortably here. I mean, all right, there's a nuclear potential threat, but it's some way down the line. I'm sheltered here, whereas it's harder over there now.

But there are examples in Ukraine and in Russia of resistance that is nonviolent. So especially in the first week of the conflict, for example, there were examples of sort of Russian civilians walking up to a tank that was advancing and basically getting it to walk back, you know, although it would have to roll over them. Otherwise the driver doesn't do that. They drive back. There are examples of what is it that the Ukrainian authorities directed all Ukrainians to sort of or encourage them to take down all road signs to confuse the enemy, right, to sort of make it harder for them to move about in Ukraine.

In Russia, there are plenty of people protesting despite considerable personal risks. I mean, yesterday, I don't know when your recording goes up, but yesterday evening, there was this news presenter in Russia. You might have seen her. Oh, I saw that, yeah. The set at the back, you know, with a placard saying, and she was screaming a few things along the way. I gather, I didn't see the clip, you know, no to war. This is propaganda.

We've got to act against it. Now she's going to lose her job. She's going to be in serious trouble. So, again, it doesn't mean no suffering. Right. but you've instrumentalized the suffering because it's against yourself in a sense um now so that's why it's hard to sort of tell people you know stick to non-violence because violence will still probably come your way but once again i suppose my question is are we sure that reacting violently is somehow better at promising sort of survival and no violence against yourself? No, I'm not sure. So obviously what's going on in Ukraine is not just nonviolent resistance.

There are examples like the ones I mentioned. There's, of course, plenty of very violent resistance nevertheless. And that's what also complicates the picture with a lot of examples, historical examples we can look at, because very often there's both a violent and a nonviolent wing pursuing some particular change. But so what would a Christian, what would a Christian anarchist advocate? Well, I go back to Tolstoy, the Russian who lived in Tsarist Russia, repressive Russia. He said, do not do violence. You know, you and yeah, I mean, Tolstoy is a funky a weird kind of christian anarchist

because he's a weird christian he doesn't so you know he has very rationalistic understanding of christianity so he doesn't necessarily believe that just because he thinks christ is god but he just thinks it's kind of the rational teaching now or what is reasonable to be done so but but he would say you know do not resist violently because if you do so, you're only perpetrating the cycle of violence, etc., etc. So that would be the Christian anarchist line, I suppose. And I want to affirm everything you're saying and just repeat for myself. Like, I don't know. I don't have, I'm not like a war theorist.

I'm not a political scientist. Here's I guess my theological response is the Christian ethic of nonviolence is designed for exiles living in Babylon. It's not designed to speak to, okay, what happens when Persia invades Babylon? What should Babylon do? Working in these very biblical categories, the New Testament gives us a blueprint for how exiles are to live and respond to their identity when the nations war. The nations will always war. They're going to war, they're going to do this, but they're the nations. Our fundamental identity is as an exile among the nations, not as a Babylonian. So I just don't, I don't know. I guess one pushback is, yeah, but in the prophets, you do see the prophets

critiquing other nations on moral grounds. So they don't just say, well, I don't know, those are the nation. Like they actually do call out the nations. And so there is, I think, a bit of tension in scripture here. What do you think about that? The Christian ethic of nonviolence just isn't even designed to speak to. It doesn't have, it's not designed to speak to kind of, yeah, what this nation should do against this other warring nation. It's designed to help inform the Ukrainian Christians and Russian Christians how to live out your Christian identity in the midst of national conflict. Is that fair? Is there something there that I'm missing?

I think it's fair because these are questions that people ask themselves today, whether they're observing the conflict for a while or whether they're in it now. So of course, I don't mean to say that just out of politeness these are good questions so first of all two things first of all it was never meant to be easy jesus doesn't say it's going to be easy taking up your cross and following him is going to be difficult it will divide there'll be plenty of suffering if if you consider yourself a Christian and your life is quite easy, are you really doing what Jesus is asking? Which compromises have you made? Now, look, it's always easy to say you can always do more.

And I appreciate that what Jesus is asking is demanding. But many of us maybe settle a bit too early um and for the slightly more comfortable process now okay now so first of all it's not supposed to be easy now secondly and this is again something as i kind of elaborate a bit on the in the book because others have done so maybe we shouldn't be attached and this is particularly challenging, maybe we shouldn't be attached to being effective, to it working. There is an argument that maybe if you want the community of Christians or Christian anarchists, same thing from a Christian anarchist perspective, might just be a community in the margins that is critiquing like the prophets of old, the current way of doing things, the current order, the Babylon's and whatnot, but isn't too attached to its critique somehow necessarily working.

You're still speaking the truth. You're speaking truth to power. You might be persecuted. You might not succeed in convincing others to join you, by the way, from that perspective, to convert to Christianity, properly understood, and therefore Christian anarchism, if you really want to go full on. part of the problem and it might be precisely one of the things that tempts a lot of people into being a bit more forceful and a bit more violent perhaps potentially or compromising with violence because we want to get that change because we feel the injustice so it's not to deny that there isn't an injustice you know there's plenty of injustices out there and it's not like there's no response but it's a it's in many ways it's a very heroic response because it's precisely one that isn't sure it'll work um despite what i said earlier but i do think the evidence so far seems to over the last century seems to suggest that non-violence is not only arguably more ethical but also potentially it seems more effective as well as from a christian anarchist

perspective more faithful yeah yeah i've often said it's you know the main question is what is the way to live faithfully not how to it's exactly what you said not perceived effective i always say perceived effectiveness because what is once we talk about effectiveness i still want to define effectiveness theologically as a christian not some you know our american value system or whatever, like, like, yeah, but faithfulness, not perceived effect effectiveness is, is the main, the main concern. Um, yeah. Oh, I had another question. Shoot. Um, I do have a, a, well, I want to ask you about voting for those of us living in a democratic society where that's a thing. Um, cause well, I had another question related to what we're

talking about, but let me go ahead and take a detour here. When I talked with my friend Jay Newman, who talked about Christian anarchy is like six, seven months ago. And he said he believes it's a sin to vote because voting is a sign that you are giving your allegiance to one side of the Babylonian part political regime or whatever. And I was like, I see his point and I push back. I was like, I find it hard to say it's a sin to vote. I could see the logic of it, but I don't know. Yeah. What are your thoughts on that? Is that within Christian

anarchy, is that a common theme that even any kind of, I mean, obviously something like pledging allegiance is something that's like, yeah, that's, to me, that's, and I, gosh, this is going to offend some people, but I've been public where I stand on this. If I say I pledge allegiance to the flag, I feel like I'm lying. It's not where my allegiance lies. There's some fundamental things about the country I live in in particular, but probably most, if not all, most countries that my allegiance is not there. Also, I submit to governing authorities. I pray for leaders.

I honor people because they're created in God's image. But my allegiance is religious language. I don't pledge allegiance to anybody but Christ. So to me, that's where it's like, yeah, I could definitely see that. But a sin to vote, that seems a little harsh to me. But what do you think about that? No, I think it's a tricky issue as well. I did listen to that podcast. I thought the discussion was great, and Jay made some good

points, I think. Now, so sort of acknowledging them, really, but trying to counter them to some extent. And I can even start with a secular anarchist argument because before i bring it back to christianity to some extent it's a debate among secular anarchists too you know do you vote so for example when you know yeah well when it's trump v biden do you vote when it's when it's johnson v corbin over here do you vote of course, anarchists are under no illusion that the state will save us. If they vote, they don't vote with a passion or with an expectation that things will be dramatically better. They certainly don't lend their consent to that system. And, of course, the counterargument is that by voting you are effectively legitimizing that way of doing things.

And that's a good point. But I think what the anarchists who do vote would argue is that sometimes, you know, not everyone gets to vote. Not everyone gets to vote in the representative democracies that continue to have all sorts of imperialist power projections on loads of other people beyond their boundaries. So you vote in the U.S. The U.S. is the world's biggest military power. You know, not so long ago spent more than half of what the entire world spent on the military. This is just the Pentagon because terrorists.

So it has consequences. And therefore, sometimes maybe voting for some options rather than others helps reduce some of the harm that is perpetrated through the state, whether it be violence or whether it be by, I don't know, safeguarding some sort of social security or safety net that means that people who, you know, who find themselves out of a job in the current and sinful world, if you want, don't end up dying on the street, but at least have some support. Now, so it's not, if you do vote, if you subscribe to the

argument, and I'm not going to decide it for you I'm just going to acknowledge that that range of position exists in Christianity too if you want to frame it in Christian language what is it that allows for more love to your fellows for a kind of Jesus-like ethic of care and mutual support and sometimes the choices are significant. Sometimes the two or three or five candidates do provide a rather different agenda. Now, does that mean that it's not sinful? No, I'm not sure.

But I also think that the kind of question I think is a good one, because I think you can ask it about voting. I think it gets a lot harder if you're asking about whether you can become a police person for example yeah or a tax collector there are different degrees of yeah of compromises if you want and and it gets harder i think to argue for the compromise down down a particular path so yeah i like the idea i like what you said about just anarchistic So yeah. lens. So like, which Babylonian leader am I going to vote for? If you put it that way, it's like, just remember, they're still Babylonian. They're still fundamentally after power, and they will do what it takes to maintain power. They don't care about you. They don't know your name. They care about power before anything else. And that puts them at fundamental odds with where my allegiance is going to go. Maybe I think this Babylonian leader might

implement a better Babylonian society. Maybe. But even that is, we're basing our viewpoint on so much billions and billions and billions of dollars of propaganda so for us to think like oh no this leader is going to be better for this i don't know you don't know i don't know nobody knows like it's well i like this one better this guy's you know has a tweets bad things and this one lies and it's like the whole thing is just make sure you're not putting your allegiance there putting your faith there um could one embody better values than the other sure i guess but you know yeah no i exactly and and look voting especially where you are for example or over here to some extent where it's really basically two parties um yeah it's such a binary choice and and and the and the the options that they officially ask you to subscribe to by

voting are already predefined for you right the political program to the extent that there is one and even then there's very little way of kind of calling them to account if they don't do the kind of things that you asked i mean we live in such imperfect democracies let's say this by the way so some people like to say anarchism utopian How could you possibly live in such a society? Well, do we really live in a democracy? Isn't democracy also a utopia that we've only started to sort of work our ways towards? If we do think that democracy is a good thing, do we really have it? There are ways. I mean, I don't feel that I have much input in the way things are done, even when I do vote today. done even when I do vote today. Okay. And so at the sort of at the anarchist end of doing democracy, anarchists are for democratic ways of decision making, the vast majority would be but

it's it but we decide things together, we debate them together, we try and reach consensus, we can return to our decisions, revise them. It's not just a case of basically empowering particular people and their mates and the people who've paid for them, who will get what they want as a result, to basically go on and do what they want, enrich themselves, impose all sorts of structures of violence, et cetera, upon us. So part of the question, I think, is about kind of what kind of society

we live in and whether there are ways in which you can try and make it a little bit. We can try and result in a bit less suffering out there. But, yes, I think the other part is also what you said before. And I guess it ties to idolatry here from a kind of Christian perspective. I do not. You do not vote with passion. Right. This is the Pledge of Allegiance stuff that you were saying before, for example. So there's an indifference to the state from a Christian anarchist perspective.

Yeah, you're there, but it's not that that I'm interested in. It's the people around me. It's caring for the downtrodden I come across. It's caring and helping one another, et cetera. And I don't think that you're a god who's going to do that for me. I'm curious to get your take. Here's the one I would say the critique I've received that I think is a really good one, one that I'm still – I'm not sure exactly how I would respond. I like to respond slowly to good critiques just because I don't want to react.

And if it's a good critique, then it's a good critique and I need to just wear it. react. And if it's a good critique, then it's a good critique and I need to just wear it. The critique I've received, primarily for people regarding my nonviolence would be, well, nice, easy for you to say when you're white and privileged, and especially in the US context, it's easy for you to not just kind of be indifferent towards legislation and decisions by the government because it doesn't affect you. But for people that are specifically African American have had 400 years of Babylonian legislation, whatever you want to call it, that has been significantly oppressive. And, you know, as Martin Luther King said, yeah, legislation doesn't change the hearts of people, but it can keep them from lynching me. And I think that's pretty important too you know so what would you say about that

that there is a reason why many not all but many African Americans in particular in America are pretty invested in the politics of the day because they're more directly affected by that have you wrestled with this and I know in your UK context

it is maybe it's different than the US.s context but yeah yeah the uk has been a force for good in the world sure no yeah um you know no colonial past yes i didn't mean yeah fair enough plenty to look at in the mirror over here as well i mean of course it's different but but actually it's not that wildly different but yeah sure no i hear you and again i think this is something you discussed with jay in in the earlier podcast and and i think that i think you're right i mean that it it i'm sensitive to the critique that pacifist is pacifism is an easy position for sort of white male middle classes to hold. Now, first of all, by the way, the earliest, the most visible early affirmations of nonviolent civil resistance that was often rooted in

religion over a hundred years ago thereabouts were Gandhi and his movement, Martin Luther King and his movement. They were not white. They were opposing colonial projects and their aftermaths. And if anything, they kind of show, I suppose, the more comfortable white Christians, what Christianity perhaps could or should amount to if warned a bit more, a bit more courageously. I'll throw in one more. I mean, South Africa and Desmond Tutu and others. Yeah. Yeah.

Plenty more. And it's, it has spread all over since, but actually it's a method that's been used all around the globe and often with religious roots, by the way, not just Christian, but,

but often, yeah, sometimes so sometimes not. So, um, so, and that's what I think ties back to what I was saying before, which you just put, you know, just as well and even better with the American context in mind. Sometimes voting can improve certain things for certain communities. And therefore, especially if you have the ability to do so, it's easier for you than some other communities. And maybe you should, you know,

easier for you than some other communities and maybe you should uh you know sort of at least cast that vote if it uh helps alleviate some of the suffering some other systemic racism some of the forms of discrimination but by the way uh your white lot mine as it were are partly responsible for at least our ancestors etc so that i think is. And if I can kind of digress slightly and make, but related, I think, to this is the following. The question of voting isn't an obvious one to answer based on the New Testament, because it doesn't really feature in there. what to do with capitalism, for example, isn't an obvious one, because it's not front and center of the New Testament, or even just the Gospels. What I think makes the force of the Christian anarchist interpretation is that on the two main thrusts, the kind of rejection of violence, preaching love and forgiveness instead, and the rejection of idolatry and the state as idolatry, etc. On both of these themes, and especially the nonviolence, the theme is pretty consistent in the gospel and in the rest of the New Testament to some extent,

too. And you can find ways in which it's prefigured in the Christian sense of the term now in the Old Testament to a significant extent. So I think that argument is quite unequivocal, quite hard to sort of push back against. I mean, the various churches have done beautiful little gymnastics to sort of bring us away from it. But it doesn't wash if you read the text and stay honestly with it, I think. And that's why I think the book I ended up writing, echoing those voices, again, they're not mine, really focus on those two aspects of statehood, if you want want the violence of the state and the idolatry of the state there's less focus on capitalism there's less focus on i suppose there's no focus in the book on gender discrimination racial discrimination because these things aren't explicitly addressed in the text so you have a bit more work to do to sort of extrapolate from that text an interpretation of what we are to do

here now that's what interpretation is what we are to do here now that's what interpretation is about that's what you know that's why i mean in the muslim tradition there's so much basically exegesis itch t had interpretations uh you know for the communities today because it's not all written over there what do you do about you know i don't know genetics and whatever else voting so there's more work to be done. But I think there are ways of doing this that remain, you know, more or less honest, which work with what seems to be at the core of the of the text that is supposed to be, you know, almost your manifesto from a Christian anarchist perspective. And so I think voting isn't as obvious and clear cut, you know, and so definitely,

idolatry is clearly condemned, definitely violence is clearly condemned. But there are ways in which you can vote that, well, for one, reduce violence on fellow human beings or make it less likely they might go on and do what they want once they're in power. But so I just wanted to acknowledge that part of the difficulty is that it's not easy. It's not addressed explicitly much in the text. Yeah. Well, here's what I don't, in the American context, especially in the last four or five years, voting can also cultivate an unhealthy tribal identity to where you mentioned the binary system. And this is the problem with the two-party system, I think. And again, who am I? But practically, I've seen it, especially in the last few years, that if you're identified with this tribe, then the other tribe is now your enemy. I've told the story before on the podcast, so I apologize for the redundancy to some people listening. But I had a friend who was a Christian who was kind of witnessing to a neighbor of hers and trying to get her to come to church. And finally, the neighbor was going to come, but then at the last second, she couldn't come. So, and my friend, the Christian, you know, went to church and she was so thankful. She didn't, her friend couldn't

come. This is a friend seeking, like kind of wondering about faith and now she wants to come to church. And she said this, she says, I'm so thankful she couldn't come to church because my friend is a Democrat and she would have felt incredibly shamed and denounced and dehumanized and seen as evil, really, based on the Sunday sermon message. That is so sad on one, first of all. And secondly, it's a byproduct of seeing elevating or even participating in your kind of tribalistic identity. Because in our polarized context, whatever tribe you belong in, the other tribe is your enemy. They're wrong, they're evil, they're bad, they're stupid, we mock them. And I see it very much on both sides. And so that's where if somebody votes, there has to be some kind of measured indifference so that you don't see somebody who voted the other direction who's also sharing bread and wine at the table with you as your opponent, your enemy. Like that's – if voting fosters that, then maybe we shouldn't vote.

Yeah. Yes. No. Yeah. Yes. No. Yeah. Look, to some extent what you get in the way American politics is so polarized now, British to some extent, post-Brexit, et cetera, is kind of precisely what you get when you have a long run-up of a politics of dehumanization divisive language etc although i suppose if i want to qualify it this is the i suppose the political scientist observer whatever lecture coming coming through this it's not necessarily christian but i mean um i don't know that that that what makes each side hateful in the u.s and this is me venturing into US politics from afar,

perhaps foolishly. I'm not sure that what makes the other side hateful is necessarily equivalent. It might, there's definitely, by which I mean, a lot of what you guys call the left, which we would consider barely center in the US, a lot of what was disliked from that camp about Trump and the Trumpian version of republicanism was a politics of divisiveness, was a kind of crass, vulgar, racist, that kind of very divisive politics. Whereas I think what's problematic, I get the impression what's problematic with, I suppose, the more liberal position from the Trumpian perspective isn't necessarily, well, I mean, OK, by then they get, the right gets dehumanized. of the comfortable classes that have enjoyed it for numerous decades and that have left behind numerous communities

that are now identifying with someone who's willing to upset things, even if his language isn't one that they necessarily always agree with. But on both sides, there's definitely dehumanization, but I'm not sure it's of the same kind, if that makes sense, even if it's felt just as strongly. And yes, part of the issue is precisely the kind of ongoing dehumanization of the other side. There's no attempt to try and understand why others voted the way they did. I, you know, I do vote often, not always.

And sometimes I come across people who voted in ways that I find shocking, but I don't necessarily therefore spit at those people hatefully. I find shocking, but I don't necessarily therefore spit at those people hatefully. You know, I try and understand how is it because I happen to think that sometimes communities vote against their best interest. How come? So here in Britain, most of the communities that voted for Brexit, I can tell you now I'm pretty confident, you know, are going to be the ones that are most hurt by the process of Brexit. It's already begun.

It's going to continue. So it's awkward. Why would they do it? But I think that's where you begin the conversation. It's not where you end it and throw mud at each other. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I talk about this in the next podcast. I've already recorded it, but it's coming out after this one with Carl Ellis. And he's an African American theologian in America. And yeah, he says some really interesting things about Trumpism and anti-Trumpism, how each kind of thing mirror each other. And he said something interesting,

I guess, from the listener standpoint, will say something interesting, because it hasn't been released yet. But he's like, no, you know, I, he's like, I really don't like it when people think that every single person who voted for Trump is like a racist or something. He's like, I, I could think of many different reasons why people might vote for him. I could disagree with those reasons. But they kind of collapse it all into one. Like, if you vote for Trump, you're basically celebrating his existence. I you know obviously the guy's morally bankrupt and should be appalling uh to any christian but the political system is so complex and people people are complex and and um yeah there's many different reasons why somebody might vote in a certain direction but you don't know that unless you actually have a conversation with people across different viewpoints. But anyway, I...

No, absolutely. 100%. Yeah. Yeah. Well, hey, Alex, I've really enjoyed this conversation. I've taken you past... I feel like I keep taking people too long, but you've committed to an hour, so I want to try to honor that. But thank you for your book. Let me just say it again, the title. It's in the show notes, but it's called Christian Anarchism, a Political Commentary on the Gospel. And you mentioned it in passing, but I just want to repeat that this work is not you kind of like preaching or saying, here's the truth. It's you surveying how Christian anarchists have explained certain passages, the concerns they have with various issues. And so it's a very, if I can say, a neutral work. And so that's what

I appreciate about it so much. I felt like you were just giving an honest evaluation of here's where these thinkers have been. Here's how they've treated this passage. Here's how they've responded to this argument. So if you want to get a good handle on what it is we've been even talking about the last hour, I would highly recommend your book. So yeah, the link's in the show notes. Alex, thank you so much for – Thank you. Can I just briefly say that the – so first of all, thanks for these kind words.

Secondly, absolutely, the work that was the PhD so first of all thanks for these kind words secondly absolutely the the work that was the phd and became the book big part of what makes it i think useful hopefully to others is frankly the loads of footnotes not if you're interested in them but if you want to pursue kind of look up who said that and what precisely they're there because these are things that other people have said so hopefully that's helpful and just if i can plug this as it were there's there's that book which you can find for free if you know how to look online you know i'm not in this to sort of make money but your publisher's like it's also well you know um i mean they have reduced the price so hopefully it's fairly accessible now nevertheless but but but there's also plenty of other things that i have written that i try and make freely available online so

maybe if you can include in the show notes the the sort of my website i suppose where i where i list these various publications and where much of it can be available for free including three books to not advertise myself so much three books that i've co-edited with others on religion and anarchism that contain plenty of interesting further perspectives on often christianity but not only also islam judaism and anarchism too so there's there's plenty out there and and and a good deal of it uh freely available for people to look i will uh i'll put all that in the show notes yeah thank you for that so thanks so much alex for being on the show really appreciate you and thank you for the work you're doing.

Real pleasure. Thank you.