Theology in the Raw - The Anarchist Anabaptist: Cody Cook

Episode Date: February 20, 2025

Cody Cook earned a BA and MA in biblical studies from God's Bible School. He's a regular contributor at the Libertarian Christian Institute and the author of Fight the Powers: What the Bible Says About the Relationship Between Spiritual Forces and Human Governments and the recently released, The Anarchist Anabaptist, which is the topic of our conversation. Order The Anarchist Anabaptist through libertarianchristians.com and use the code SPRINKLE25 for a 25% off discount. Register for the Exiles in Babylon conference (Minneapolis, April 3-5, 2025) at theologyintheraw.com -- If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel! Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Visit my personal website: https://www.prestonsprinkle.com For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: https://www.centerforfaith.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. My guest today is Cody Cook, who has a BA and an MA in biblical studies from God's Bible College, Bible School. He studied under God. Not really, that's just the name of the school. He's a regular contributor at the Libertarian Christian Institute. He's the author of a couple books, Fight the Powers, What the Bible Says, About the Relationship Between Spiritual Forces and Human and human governments and the recently released the anarchist and a Baptist. We give a little bit of backstory on that ladder book at the beginning of the podcast. I came across this book just a couple months ago, mutual friends sent me a pre-release copy and checked it out. It is really good, really good, really

helps unpack these two terms, anarchism and anabaptism, and shows a possible way in which these two ways of thinking can converge. So that's what we talk about in this podcast. We talk about anarchism, anabaptism, governments, politics. We even talk about voting towards it in this podcast, which that was interesting. So yeah, I think you'll enjoy this episode. If you are into political theology, libertarianism, anarchism, and all those fun things. And if you aren't into those things, at least you can learn a bit about them. So please welcome to the show the one and only Cody Cook. All right, Cody Cook, welcome to Theology in the Real. How are you doing today? I'm doing great.

Real excited to be here. Thank you so much. I have, have we interacted on social media? I feel like we have, or I've seen you on social. I've shared some of your stuff here and there. And I probably left a comment here and there. I don't know that we've had any extended conversation or anything, but I've been, I've been following you for years. So yeah, I appreciate that. So yeah, our mutual friend Doug sent me your book. He said, Hey, you should check out this book. And I was like, thanks Doug. I have no time to read another book right now. But of course I, I check it out or whatever. And this is a really, really good book that it sucked me in.

In fact, there was, um, nobody cares about this, but just, I dunno, uh, for the sake of just being raw and honest, I was, me and my son were going, he skis and I snowboard, got up to the mountain. We're all ready to go. I look in my truck. I forgot my stuff. I've got my board, my boots. Don't no helmet, no goggles, no gloves. I'm like, all right, it looks like I'm going to be in the lodge all morning. And with my phone, which that's dumb, but I had your book on my phone or the PDF or whatever. So I sat there for a couple hours and had time to, to read through it. And I was like, man, this is, this is so good, especially since the title is provocative. The anarchist, anarchist, Anabaptist. We're

going to get into that. We're going to unpack what those two terms mean and what they don't mean. But why don't you share your story a bit. You share a little bit of the book. And I was really just sucked into your own personal journey. So why don't you tell us, tell us about that journey. Sure thing. And first I want to say, I'm sorry you didn't get to ski and snowboard with your son, but I think it could have been Providence that that happened that way. Could have been worse. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, so there's, there is a small section where I talk about myself a little bit, which I always feel a little weird doing that. But basically, I kind of wanted to make some connections to kind of how I

come in, where I come into anarchism and where I come into Anabaptism. And so, you know, as a, you know, teenager, I guess I became an atheist at a pretty young age, I'd say before I was 11 or 12. But not long after that, I sort of found my way into this kind of this general anti-authoritarianism. And so I'd kind of bounce back and forth. Sometimes I'd be the kind of a left-wing anti-authoritarian. Sometimes I'd kind of be more libertarian. I used to watch Alex Jones before he was really on the radar. And I even like,

I made like a kind of, you know, documentaries. And I even got one posted on his website. So that's kind of my sort of a somewhat embarrassing claim to fame is that he shared one of my documentaries I made in high school. You don't sound like an Alex Jones fan now or? Not so much. I mean, you know, everybody has, I guess, something interesting to say, but yeah, not, not, not, not big. Yeah. And once he starts talking about lizard people, especially loses me, um, you know, kind of bouncing back and forth that kind of left wing, right wing. Um, one thing I had a friend, uh, we would like find out when our local police are doing drug checkpoints. So we'd show up and read the fourth amendment

and tell them they were allowed to do that. And I had one occasion that was kind of interesting where after we left one of those, we had like a cop just kind of like, as we were driving out, just kind of shoot up really fast behind us and pulled, pulled my friend over and kind of had him go like some talk to him somewhere else. And I looked at my other friend and I'm like, this is like Mississippi burning, what's going on here? And, um, he, um, he like gave my friend a ticket for, was it like stopping like six inches beyond the stop line.

So it was like, there was this kind of weird thing where they knew about us and didn't like us and we antagonized them and they tried to antagonize us. So that was kind of like, it took a while to get back into Christianity though, cause I sort of spent this time in this kind of vague anti-authoritarian space. And how I get back into Christianity is a little bit complicated, but it's different things. I had a friend who was a seven-day Adventist

and eternal conscious torment had been kind of an issue for me. And sort of talking to him and finding out that there was another way of looking at it and that it actually kind of lines up with the Bible was one of the things that helped me get in a little bit. The other thing was, when that spirit kind of speaks to you, at least for me, I wanted to ignore it. I sort of said, I remember praying, leave me alone so I can be an atheist. But over time, you know, at least for me, I was kind of dragged in whether I wanted to be there or not. But I think because I had such a skepticism about authority and things that I had been

taught in church, I didn't take anything for granted. So I kind of, like when I came into Christianity, I wasn't sure if Jesus was divine, I didn't know the Trinity and stuff. Like I remember reading like Jehovah's Witnesses resources and going, well, this kind of makes sense. But then over time, you read the Bible and you go, no, it doesn't really make sense. And so, by the time I went to Bible college, which was like, I kind of had this personality type where I really dig into things when I'm interested in them. So, I guess I got to go to Bible college so I can really figure this thing out. By the time

I was in Bible college, I was a Benetarian, but not a Trinitarian. But then my second semester, I took a class on the book of Acts and working through the book of Acts with a commentary, I was like, no, I guess I'm Trinitarian. So, I sort of, I think about that Chesterton quote a lot, like how he, when he was creating his own heresy, when he finally put all the finishing touches on it, he found out that it was orthodoxy. And that's kind of where I am, unless, of course, you consider pacifism and annihilationist views on hell to be heresy, in which case, maybe not. But I would consider myself orthodox at the very least. So you saw, I mean, you were a, maybe you wouldn't say this, I don't know, but like you were a thought, like a very thoughtful person, even from a kid, like you're thinking deeply, reading deeply.

Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I'd say that. Yeah, I mean, the stuff that I like to read like in high school, like I said, I'd bounce back and forth a little bit. So it'd be like, I'd watch this kind of right wing libertarianish Alex Jones stuff. And then I'd like read a book by like Bobby Seale or Abbie Hoffman, who like started the Black Panthers and like the Yippies. So like I grew my hair long and started smoking marijuana because I felt like that was like a sixties kind of, it was like I was in and started smoking marijuana because I felt like that was like a sixties kind of, it was like I was in the wrong decade, but I felt like this was a way for me to establish myself as an outsider.

So I think there was somebody who had said, I can't remember who it was, that he only smoked marijuana for political reasons and that was me. So anyway. That's awesome. So, anyway. That's awesome. So, okay. What led you, give us a little bit backstory on, I guess, the book, but how you came to the kind of views that you now hold, which anarchist and a baptism, which is a phrase I don't see too often. I don't know if I've ever seen it.

I'm sure some people maybe never see those two phrases together. But what led you to kind of correlate your Christian faith with your kind of political viewpoints? Pete Yeah, yeah, good question. Yeah, so, I mean, as I'm, you know, in Bible college and I'm doing a lot of reading outside and studying, I keep, especially as I read about church history, you know, you come across these kind of weirdos and during the reformation period called the Anabaptists. Being someone who was kind of anti-authoritarian, I was like, I kind of like these people better

than Luther and Calvin. Luther and Calvin were jailing people and working with the state, and these people were kind of didn't want anything to do with it, they were done violent. And so it's just, I think there was sort of an appeal there. I wasn't totally maybe on the pacifism train at that point, but I was interested in it. So, I kind of always, I kept coming back to the Anabaptists because they were just such, I think, an interesting

model of... So, I'd like to say that the Protestant reformers said, you know, we're going to go back to the Bible, so is scriptura. And then they got in a truck and they drove back to Augustine and they said, that's good enough, that's far enough. And I feel like the Anabaptists sort of said, no, no, we got to keep going. And so they sort of settled, especially like around the Sermon on the Mount. And they said, this is how Jesus tells us to live and maybe this is how we should live. We see with a lot of the Protestant Reformation and to some extent Anabaptists could be considered Protestant but they're also different. They're all kind of outsiders.

But the Protestants had this real tendency, I think, to look at like the Sermon on the Mount and say, well, there's some reason why we can't keep it. So maybe it's a model for how we should live ideally, but we can't live there because we're fallen. And so that's like one way to deal with it. So we don't really have to deal with it. Another way is like this kind of hyper dispensationalist viewpoint that says, well, this is how we'll live in the millennium, but it's not going to be how we live now.

And then Luther does this kind of weird, I don't know if this is ableist to say, but like a schizophrenic sort of thing where he sort of says, well, in so far as we are Christians, we can't be taking up the sword. But there's another almost like a second person in us that can because that person is a citizen. And so as citizens, we can kill and as citizens, we can pillage and rob, but we can't actually do that as Christians. And so I feel like the Anabaptists had this really kind of whole person idea here about how this was supposed to be approached. So that's like the Anabaptist side. And I think those who are listening, maybe can already hear a little bit of how that

connects in a little bit with anarchism and libertarianism, because the Anabaptists also wanted to have nothing to do with the state. Totally separate domain, the violence of the state. They even sort of said, yeah, sure, the magistrate serves the purposes of God in some way, but that's not something that we as Christians participate in. You know, the magistrate is, you know, for all intents and purposes, is a pagan, right? Yeah. Whereas Christians, the Kingdom of God is a different thing. So, the difference between like Luther and Calvin versus the Anabaptists would be,

and these might not be the best terms, but Anabaptists would stress just a very strong separation between church and state, where Luther and Calvin, they're kind of, I wouldn't say proto-Christian nationalists necessarily, but they're sort of integrating the two. The state can be used for good, whereas Anabaptists would kind of see the state as kind of intrinsically in opposition to the Kingdom of God. Would that be? Yeah, that's fair. I think Menno Sim Simons, I think uses the term outside of the perfection of Christ. Okay. Oh, I understand.

Yeah. And Calvin and Luther do it a little bit differently. Calvin's approach is a little more integrated. I've thought about doing this sort of model of like comparing it to Christology, like the different substances or whatever. So like, would that be, what is it where they're combined? Is that a Uticaeanism? I used to know. You should ask me 25 years ago. Sorry. So, as Calvin's approach, it's kind of hard to separate them totally. Luther does this thing where you can separate them, they're different, but as a human being, we kind of have those two parts in us, and they don't, they're divided without confusing the

essences. It's like the two kingdoms, right? Like, where as in our personal life in the kingdom of God, turn the other cheek. As a citizen in, you know, whatever country you're living in, we have state responsibilities where you can't turn the other cheek. Is that, I mean? Yeah, that's fair. Yeah. And Luther sees this as having sort of a dual citizenship. And Anabaptists talk about two kingdoms too, but they basically say, well, no, you have one citizenship. And so they're interested in getting along peacefully with the state and obeying the laws insofar as it doesn't require you to disobey Jesus.

But it's kind of like if you go overseas, like if you were to visit Saudi Arabia or something, you're not a Saudi Arabian, but you're going to try to mind your P's and Q's and get along and, you know, hopefully not get thrown in jail and obey the laws as well as you can unless one of the laws requires you to betray your Christian calling. And that's how I think they sort of saw it, that we are part of this kingdom, not this kingdom. Right. You're a sojourner and a foreigner living in a strange land. Yeah. Yeah.

Wherever you are. Yeah. Yeah. So that's how, I mean, I think they approached it. I think as far as the kind of the anarchism thing, it's just over time that anti-authoritarianism, I think, had to become more consistent. I found the, you know, in libertarianism, these ideas of individual rights, of the non-aggression principle, which does not go as far as Anabaptism's pacifism, but the non-aggression principle is the idea that it's always wrong to initiate force. And so, libertarian society would say, you know, if you're collecting taxes by force,

if you're throwing people in prison for smoking marijuana, which I mention marijuana a lot, I don't actually smoke marijuana anymore. I see that joint in your hand. But they would say that's just not reasonable for the state to be doing. And I mean, Anabaptists, incidentally, the early Anabaptists, I pulled some sources from them with a couple exceptions. Almost everything that I found was fairly consistent with that. They almost have a, without really using the language, like a natural law approach to what

the state is supposed to do. And so like Menno Simons rails against war profiteering. And they talk about the state coming after people who are peaceful, people who are Christians, people who are dissidents. And they say, more or less, your job is to protect people from thieves and murderers and rapists and stuff like that. And that's very consistent with a libertarian non-aggression principle perspective. Now, modern day Anabaptists, they wouldn't really be libertarian, right, in their political theology? I mean, but there's just a lot of uncanny overlap or...? Yeah. So, what I think, what I'm really doing is going back to the early Anabaptists. And yeah,

I agree that the modern Anabaptists, there are some problems there. And so, part of what I'm really doing is going back to the early Anabaptists. And I agree that the modern Anabaptists, there are some problems there. And so part of what I'm trying to do is I'm wanting libertarians and especially libertarian-leaning Christians to look at the Anabaptist as a model because we've kind of ignored them. We sort of said, well, I'm reformed or I'm Lutheran or whatever, and I'll sort of disown some of the old stuff and I'll tack on libertarianism to my religion. And what I'm sort of saying is there's actually a pretty good model for how to integrate these ideas in the Anabaptists. What you find today too often, unfortunately, is the very conservative traditional Anabaptists, the Amish types. Generally speaking, Anabaptists

are separatists. They don't really even vote usually. But you might find some Amish getting in their horse and buggies and going to vote for Donald Trump, right? Or you might find those Mennonites down the road who just kind of look like old hippies, and they're going to vote for Kamala Harris. And so, I think, so you have a kind of separatists, this kind of, I think, rejection of state violence to some extent, but I think some inconsistency there. And you see this a of, I think, rejection of state violence to some extent, but I think some inconsistency there. And you see this a lot, I think, from progressive Christians. They're very quick to criticize the violence when it comes from the right, but they don't

really want to acknowledge that the big pro-government giant state idea that they're advocating requires violence because that's what the state is. It's really the only tool that the state has. And if it were anything else, it would be a voluntary organization or a social club. What makes it the state is the violence. Interesting. That might explain why it seems like Democratic Party has become kind of the new neocon. Like they're really interesting. Like even like, you know, the Cheney's switching sides.

It's like people are like, what in the world? It's like, I'm like, actually, it makes sense because at the end of the Cheney's switching sides with that. People are like, what in the world? Actually, it makes sense because at the end of the day, they seem to be more these days in bed with the military industrial complex. I mean, it's both sides really. It's shocking how Neocon sounding the current Democratic party is. We should get to modern day politics a bit. But can we spend, I want to spend a bit of time unpacking anarchism because that is going to be the red flag, the disturbing term, a misunderstood term. Now, fortunately, some people listening will have heard previous podcasts. I've done all that with my friend, Jay Newman. I think I found

at least one or two other Christian anarchist scholars, at least one, maybe just one. So, we have unpacked this, but assuming nobody knows what that term means, maybe here's three things I want you to do. You could pick whatever order, maybe it's just woven together, like maybe a history of anarchism just as a concept. Then I would love for you to unpack like, what isn't anarchism? Like, what's the misunderstanding? And then you can maybe go into like, okay, what? Okay, when you say anarchism, what are we talking about? A lot of movements defy simple explanations, and you would expect that people who call themselves anarchists might be like more so that way. But yeah, the short basically definition

of anarchism really is an etymological definition. It means without rulers. And so historically, anarchism has meant opposition to the state in particular and historically, traditionally, anything that's seen as an authoritarian hierarchy. So that opposition to hierarchy regularly manifested itself in what we would today call anarcho-communism. So it's a belief in the social ownership of property and the destruction of class distinctions, but without the state. And so you can see, I think, is it Bakunin, anarchist theorist who argues with Marx and says, like, we agree on the communism, but you're not going to get there. You're not going to get to anarchism, or you're not going to get to this kind of society with the state. It's not going to happen because you're going to appoint these people to try

to make it happen, and they're going to take the power and they're going to hold on to it, and they're not going to give it up. And that was 100% exactly what happened. Exactly what's happened every time Marxism has tried to be established. Yeah. You got it. Yeah. So that's anarcho-communism. That's kind of a little bit more of a traditional kind of anarchism. And anarcho-communists also often were a little bit more comfortable with violence. Sometimes they called it the anarchy of the deed. This is anarchy of the deed, I think that's what they call it. Something like that, something of the deed. But it's not true

that all forms of early secular anarchism supported communism. So there was the libertarian anarchism in the 19th century. So you have like, um, uh, Lysander Spooner. He's more amenable to free markets, not quite what you call like an anarcho-capitalist, but he's more in that direction. Um, and then in the 20th century, you really do have anarcho-capitalism emerge and anarcho-capitalists, they share that anarcho-communist rejection of the state monopoly on violence, but they argue that a non-coercive model of society is actually going to inevitably lead to private ownership of resources.

There's a certain logic to that. If you get rid of the state, how are you going to get everybody to share? It's like, well, some people are going to want to share, and some people will want to share a little bit, and some people won't want to share at all. I think there's a certain logic to anarchism leading to something that looks more like a capitalist free market kind of society. Yeah, anarcho-capitalists or ANCAPS as they're called, they love free markets. They like free trade amongst all peoples.

They tend to be more pro-immigration and they generally subscribe to what I referred to earlier, the non-aggression principle, which says that the initiation of force is always wrong, but self and group defense is morally justifiable. Another thing to bring into the mix here is this tradition of Christian anarchism. That has been largely pacifistic in character and has been a little bit less economically motivated, but it's probably a little bit more left leaning traditionally. So, you've got Leo Tolstoy, who's not really orthodox, but he's an advocate of Christian anarchism. Is he not orthodox? I don't know much about him.

No, yeah, he didn't hold to the deity of Jesus. So, if you read The Kingdom of God is Within You, there's some really good stuff on the state and then he sort of does these weird rabbit trails about. And I think part of that what you see in that Christian anarchist tradition is they're so focused on ethics that they kind of leave behind the orthodoxy to some extent. They're like, you know, well, you know, the people who believe in violence also believe in the Nicene Creed and that was established by Constantine and so we reject that. So that's kind of unfortunate. But like Dorothy Day, who was a Catholic anarchist, Jacques Ellul, are other sort of examples

of major figures within that movement. There's also a guy named Bernard Eller, who was an Anabaptist and used that term Christian anarchism for himself. I'll make one more distinction then I'll shut up, which is there really are, I think, within Christian anarchism, two strains. So, I call it an activist strain and a separatist strain. Traditionally, Anabaptists were more in that separatist strain. So, they're saying, no king but Christ. If you guys want to have another king, that's fine, but we're just not really interested. We're going to kind of do our own thing and live our own life. They're not really trying to overturn anything. They're not interested in political involvement. They're just not really interested. We're gonna kind of do our own thing and live our own life. They're not really trying to overturn anything.

They're not interested in political involvement. They're just minding their business. So that's kind of one kind of anarchism. The other kind of anarchism is really trying to abolish the state and replace it with a more voluntary society. So that's kind of the other distinction that you could bring out there.

This episode is brought to you by Mitopure by Timeline. Mitopure is the only Urolithium A supplement on the market that's clinically proven to target the effects of age-related cellular decline. Cellular health is the foundation of well-being and longevity and Mitopeer gives you a precise dose of the rare postbiotic Urolithium A. It works by promoting an essential cellular cleanup process that clears out dysfunctional mitochondria, which is like your cell's battery packs. And with regular use, you'll see and feel the difference in the form of improved energy levels, better workouts, faster recovery,

and more endurance and strength. So this is obviously super helpful for athletes. You know, if you're in a sport or you're a runner, cycler, or if you just want to, you know, dominate the pickleball court, you want to check out MyDipure. For me, look, I'm 49 years old. I'm married with four kids.

My competitive sports days are long gone. That ship has sailed. But I keep learning about how strength training is not just for athletes or people who just, you know, wanna get jacked. Strength training is one of the most important things for energy, brain clarity, mental health, and overall healthy living.

That's why I've been taking Mitopure for several months now. It really does help with this. So for the all general listeners, Timeline is offering 10% off your first order of Mitopure. several months now. It really does help with this. So for, for theology and all listeners, timeline is offering 10% off your first order of might appear. If you just go to timeline.com forward slash theology. Okay. That's timeline.com forward slash theology. Go check it out. So does anarchy, I'm going to hear anarchy, I just think anarchy in the streets, burning trash cans, chaos, all the bad people are running around unchecked. There's no cops

to arrest criminals and there's no judicial system, there's no government and it's just absolute apocalyptic. Is there, I mean, is that true? Is there, I mean, is that- Not if you read anarchist philosophers. I mean, I think that that's an assumption that comes from the idea that if you don't have an initiation of force, if you don't have a certain class of people called rulers who have the right to do it, nobody else is allowed to do, which is to initiate force. I can't break into my neighbor's house and search through his stuff and put him in jail if he's got a pot, but the state can. They have a certain right in theory that nobody else has. And so, there's this idea that if

you don't have a system of certain people on top who have these special privileges, then it will just descend into violence. And that we'll have warlords and it'll look pretty much, I guess, like it does now. But what I think there's a basis in, I think a true observation that's there, which is that people are not necessarily always good, right? Yeah. That's what I was going to say. They kind of, yeah, go ahead. Yeah. But to me, that's also a very good reason to not trust the idea of giving certain people a special right to do whatever they want because if people aren't good, then you know.

Ultimately, I think what libertarian anarchism, and that's the term that I use, that's in that more freedom tradition of anarchism, free markets and stuff like that. What I think we're noticing is that the more you centralize power, the more dangerous it is to life and liberty. But if you sort of push those choices down to the individual, ultimately what's going to happen is people are now responsible for themselves as individuals. And of course, you know, especially coming from a Christian perspective, there's so much value in organizing as a community and helping each other and that kind of thing. But you get rid of the idea that there's a special class of people who can do whatever they want. And I don't think that that means that everybody's

out in the streets killing each other. I think, I mean, ultimately, I think that I see that as more of a trend, I mean, on the, maybe on the extreme left than I do on an individualistic kind of perspective. Yeah, I feel like there's almost like, yeah, the Christian anarchism and then just anarchism, and there seem to be two very big distinctions. Yeah, because secular anarchism has not necessarily been anti-violent. Right, right. So, just politically speaking, what does your political theology, your anarchism from a political lens, what would that look like? Would it be no government, no police, no whatever?

What happens when somebody does kill somebody? What happens to that person? Is it mob violence that the people just take care of it? Yeah. So I mean, my position, at least kind of practically, is somewhere in that activist and separatist stream. So there's a part of me that sort of goes like,

I would like the world to be a better place for my neighbors. But at the end of the day, like, you know, my kingdom affiliation is to the kingdom of God and there's only so much you can do. But so there are different ways that if someone wants to be an activist anarchist or especially a kind of libertarian anarchist, that you might approach some of these things. So anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard, who I've got on my shirt. So he makes a really interesting case in his book for a new liberty that markets could

actually handle these things, that people organizing together nonviolently could take care of these problems. So he imagines a world of private law courts that work together to resolve some various disputes. There's also a sense in which the only thing that really would be illegal is something where there's a victim, because the purpose of punishment is not necessarily to be punitive, but it's to basically pay somebody back for something that's been taken from them. And so there's a sort of sense in which you are now having to, if you've wronged someone,

you make it right. And so, you so, courts and jails could sort of facilitate that process of making it right. So I'm personally a little bit skeptical of part of what Rothbard is trying to do there in that I don't think that, I guess my starting assumption is not that everything should be privatized. And that's kind of his starting assumption.

So we get rid of the public parts, we get rid of the public roads. We get rid of the public roads, you know, Walmart buys the roads or whatever and they manage them and you know, they still have to be paid somehow just like now. So it's not like a totally crazy idea. But like I'm more inclined to be I think open to like a common law tradition. I'm more inclined to see like I think there's like a value some value in communities

saying we're going to maintain our local roads, we're going to set up local parks. I don't think that you have to necessarily, everything has to be owned privately. But I think his model of how to approach that is once you really hear him explain it and look at other theorists as well who've tried to make those case, make those arguments like Walter Block, who's talked about Rhodes. They make a much better case than you would expect coming from the outside. And I think when you're used to the state handling all these things, you feel like that's the only way to do it. There's kind of this old joke and libertarianism or whatever that if the government started

making all the shoes, 50 years from now, somebody would say, we can't privatize shoe making, who's going to make the shoes? But we just think that this is the only way to do it because it's what we're used to. So there is a lot of trust in the free market that the less government power authority, if you peel that back, what will fill its place is people doing what the government feels like. They're the only ones that can do it. Yeah, because ultimately what the market does is it comes in and it meets needs. And so, you know, if those needs were suddenly there, the market would rush in to fill those needs, is the prevailing theory among interco-capitalists. What about, so like when I hear capitalism, and I'm not an economist, so please don't.

Well, neither am I. So take my words to the greatest of all. Okay. Well, the critique is that it's just the fuel for capitalism is greed, and people that get more and more stuff end up having more and more power, and it creates wealth gaps and more and more power and it creates wealth gaps and all these things. Like, shouldn't we check the million and billionaires that are just having all the power? You know? Now the response is, I think you've already hinted at it and I very much agree. It's like, you know, the state should hold it in check. I'm like, ooh, I don't know if I trust the state to be the ones to do that. The bigger the state is, the more that they're beholden, basically the more power that billionaires have to use it for their advantage. That's the other side. People confuse capitalism with corporatism, forgetting that capitalism is about free markets, not about markets buying the state and using it to their advantage, using that monopoly

on violence to their advantage. But, you know, to speak a little bit more broadly to that question, I mentioned Dorothy Day earlier. She once said that everybody wants a revolution, but nobody wants to do the dishes. And what I get from that is that the ideal Christian society that we want to create requires a kind of selflessness and generosity that most people don't actually have. And that was something she experienced because she was kind of more, a little bit more of a left anarchist and she had this vision of, I think this very progressive vision

of what the church could do and taking care of everyone who's poor and needy and that it comes from this kind of voluntary spirit. But what she found is that people weren't necessarily motivated to do that. Even the people who she looked at as kind of her ideological, you know, influences, they wanted to sit and talk and write and do that kind of thing, they didn't want to do the dishes. So what I see from that is that the best society is not actually one with the highest ideals. It's the society that can deliver the most benefits, even when nobody

wants to do the dishes. And so, what kind of society is that? What kind of society is it that can meet the needs and even wants and desires of the most amount of people without violence and without expecting everybody to be a saint? And that would be a free market society. Okay. Is it Javier Malay? Is it Argentina?

Yeah. The new president. Isn't Javier Malay done in Argentina? Yeah. The new president. He's a Rothbard disciple, anarcho-capitalist, and he's doing it, right? And from the little I've read, it's working? Yeah, depending on what you define working, yeah. So if you're saying getting out of cripp I mean, crippling debt and dealing with the inflation

problem. I mean, a lot of what the situation Argentina has been in is because they've been so afraid to let things happen on their own, they've wanted the state to control everything. And so we're seeing actually, hopefully we're not going to see it, but I think we are going to see it. In California right now, as they're trying, they're wanting to rebuild, California is a very difficult place to build at because of all these government regulations. There's an economist named Brian Kaplan who just wrote a book, a very readable book. It's a kind

of a graphic, not a novel, but like a kind of, you know, comic type thing that really, that's on housing policy. And he makes the case that, you know, if type thing that really, that's on housing policy. And he makes the case that, you know, if you want to be able to house the most people, house the poorest people, you have to actually get government out of the way. Because right now, if I want to go to Portland and build a tiny house community for the people who are sleeping on the streets and in tents on the side of the road, there's somebody there in the government to tell me you can't do that. It's like we live in this world where the poor are not taken care of even though there

are ways to take care of them. There can be something too like how big a house has to be, how many rooms it has to have, how big the yard has to be. There's all these regulations. What that ultimately means is there's less housing and because there's less housing, it's more expensive. If you're out on your own and trying to buy a starter home, maybe you and your wife or whatever, it's going to be a lot more expensive. This kind of government intervention doesn't help the poor. I think what we're starting to see with Malay, he's even trying to get the state out of some

of the housing stuff and rent's coming down. It seems so simple that I think maybe people don't want to trust it. But the reality is that when you free up people to help each other and to do things that they want to do and try to meet the needs of other people, you'll be really surprised about how well it works. You don't actually have to have a ruler on top dictating everything that's going to happen. I guess it does seem to presuppose that people are more good than they're not, right? Not necessarily. Yeah. I mean, what I'm saying is people don't want to do the dishes unless you pay

them to do the dishes. But if you pay them to do the dishes, they'll do the dishes. And so if you have a society where people, if I say I have a business idea, or even if I'm maybe being philanthropic, but even if I'm not being philanthropic, I'm going to build a bunch of tiny houses or a bunch of small homes for people in the community who can't afford the current houses that are on sale. And I'll make a little money. There's a market there that wants to buy it and everybody is happy from it. I think that's the thing that we forget about markets. little money, there's a market there that wants to buy it, and everybody is happy from it. I think that's the thing that we forget about markets.

We talk about selfishness, and there is a selfish motivation. What that selfish motivation amounts to is that when there's a transaction, I benefit and you benefit. I sell you the house that I don't want because I've made it and I want my money back, and you want to buy a house. We both come out on top. We can call that selfishness because it's not like I really, maybe if I'm trying to sell you the house,

it's not like I really care about your wellbeing, or maybe you don't even really care about my wellbeing. Maybe I want to sell it for as much as I can get and you want to buy it for as low as you can get. We're both being selfish, but we both come out on top. And so I think even the left, I think, has kind of started to, maybe not the radical left, but like, I mean, Obama made a number of speeches saying, yeah, of course, we've got to regulate

stuff, but if you don't have markets, none of this works. And it's like, I mean, even the money that the state, that we want the state to sort of take and give to somebody else, that money has to be created. And what creates that wealth? It's the market. And so, I think we are, I think we really put ourselves in peril when we don't acknowledge what the market, basically what the power of the market is and what it does if we misunderstand it. Let's switch to Christian anarchy because I mean, when it comes to like,

what's the best, like if the church didn't exist, what's the best political theory to run a nation? I'm like, I don't know. And part of me is like, I just thought of this as you're talking, maybe this is a totally inaccurate assumption, but it made me think like just secular anarchy, anarcho-capitalism did work. The poor were fed, the rich were kept in check, blah, blah, blah. Then it almost seems like the church would be irrelevant then. Like part of the political relevance of the church to embody the sharing of goods, other centeredness, generosity, all these things, part of the political relevance as a political community is because the nations are Babylon and the other way is not good. That's just me thinking out loud though. I mean, that might say we need an hour long conversation

to kind of tease that out. I can give a short answer to that. I mean, so I'm not claiming that the markets can meet everyone's needs perfectly. And particular, when we look among the homeless, not everybody is homeless because they can't afford a house. You have issues with mental illness, you have issues with drug abuse. There's always going to be a need for people to take care of each other, even if markets can do most of it really well. There is, I think, this sort of concern. We see this a little bit where this kind of loneliness epidemic, because people won't necessarily have to leave the house

and they can do everything on social media and they can play video games and look at pornography. And they find that they're that kind of thing that used to get them out of the house, because really it's a lot harder to get amongst people and build these relationships than it is to do it on social media and to watch pornography. There is a certain, I think, concern that sometimes needs can be met so well that we

sort of forget what it means to be human, that all these things that we have created to these social safety nets and networks of support and friendship communities that I think really meet our spiritual needs in a lot of ways are not necessarily going to be met by the market. I think that meet our spiritual needs in a lot of ways are not necessarily going to be met by the market. So I think that's a fair concern. I think on the other hand though, what we've I think seen maybe a little bit more is that the state has jumped in to try to resolve some of these things in such a way that we used to have voluntary support networks.

The church is still involved in a lot of things like that, but not nearly as much as it used to be because we've sort of said, well, it's the state's job. Instead of going to your local church or your local Elks Lodge or whatever to ask for help, you go to the welfare office or you sign up for health insurance through a nameless faceless company. I think that no matter what, there's still a role for the church. But yeah, I think there'd be more of a role for the church in this current day and age if we got the statement out of some of those things. But I think the market would fill a lot of it. But yeah, that is, I think maybe, like you said, we could go into that much bigger

conversation in the sense of, you know, do the markets meet our needs too well that we forget to be human? It seems like, so let's move down to Christian anarchism, because it seems like when I think of Christian anarchism, it's really a quite different thing. Yeah, so I, yeah, my mind just went in so many different directions right there. Give us a definition of Christian anarchism as you would see it or maybe kind of various options and then, yeah, maybe explain what that is and isn't. Yeah. I mean, so secular anarchism, kind of the early anarchism tended to be generally anti-religious. So like they would say no kings, including Christ.

Christian anarchists would say no kings, but Christ. And like I said, there's some differences. Some of them are more activistic and some are more separatistic. So that kind of depends on how much they're trying to change the actual secular order. But I think one thing that really distinguishes Christian anarchism in that traditional sense of Christian anarchism is its nonviolence. So, I mean, I have friends who are Christians and are anarchists, but they didn't come in through the Christian anarchism gate. They came in through the Rothbard gate and they brought their Christianity or their Calvinism or their Lutheranism or their

Methodism with them. And so, they don't really tend to necessarily see violence the way that I do. But I kind of came in through that Anabaptist and Christian anarchism gate. And so, my nonviolence came with me. But I think today, I would sort of distinguish between a Christian who is an anarchist and a Christian anarchist, largely because of that view on violence. Okay. So, yeah, so give us a definition. You know, it's without rulers, a Christian who is without rulers. What does that mean? Is it primarily a Christian posture toward the state? Yeah, sort of. I mean, so, okay, so here's the first two things, I guess I would, if I wanted

to find it maybe kind of in three steps. The first two things I think we would kind of all agree on, and the third thing is maybe a little more complicated. The first thing is that Christ is King. So, for all Christians, we'd say, check. The second thing is that Christ is King, so for all Christians, we'd say, check. The second thing is that we are allegiant to Christ as King, and we'd say, check. And the third thing is the kingdom of God is not a human kingdom which operates through violence, that you have human kingdoms operating one way and the kingdom of God operating another way. And this is partly why I find myself in the middle of the separationist approach and the activist approach. Because as an Anabaptist, I do think that violence is occasionally necessary from a secular point

of view. That if you want to sort of have a secular order, I mean, the way the Anabaptists talked about it is essentially these Pagans are going to have to police themselves and the government is how they do it. I'm not opposed to that in principle so long as what they're policing is legitimately a crime. As licensure spooner, the 19th century anarchist said, vices are not crimes. So yeah, I don't want pagans policing homosexuality or marijuana use, coming back to marijuana. But I don't want them saying you can't build a house for somebody who wants one. I don't want them saying you can't, you know, you can't braid African American hair unless

you've gone to a white cosmetology school. What I want them to do is basically limit to those things as far as protecting my neighbors from violence and theft and, you know, that kind of stuff. So, like, at the same time, you know, as an Anabaptist, like, Anabaptists advocated that that's the way the government should work, but they also, like, they weren't the ones doing it. So, they wouldn't be the ones who were taking up arms to, you know, taking the pagans or whatever. But they would say that that is something that maybe has to happen and that God has to do, that God uses that. So, I think even if you're coming from

the Anabaptist viewpoint, you can't be totally activistic. So, my friends who are Christians and anarchists, but not Christian anarchists, they are much more optimistic about how Christians could participate in a libertarian society. That, you know, if we had this libertarian society, I could be a private police force, I could be the person who's out there doing this violence and be just really participating in it. And I think I would say, no, like, I mean, I can try to push the government in the right direction, reminded of what its actual purposes and what God has made it to do. But there's also a certain degree of separation that I have to initiate

from that just because Christ is my King and Christ has said not to take up arms, Christ has said turn the other cheek, Christ has said he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. And so, there's certain things that I can't do, even if they are legitimate from a natural law perspective for non-Christians to do. That sounds close to what I, without using these terms, argued in my book Exiles. There is a strong separation of the church and state, the kingdom of God is a political entity that is, I would say, at odds with all other kingdoms on the earth. So So it's kind of an argument against the kind of two kingdoms theory. And yet, I do lean more towards prophetic witness, you know, not being... Like I distinguish between prophetic

witness and being a separatist, being, you know, removed from society. I do... While I see some of the logic with the separatist thing, I do think, you know, I just see more scriptural evidence of speaking truth to power and confronting injustice and being a source of good and truth and beauty in the world, which requires more involvement. But this is where the, and I don't know, I don't even know where I would totally end up landing on this. Like, does that exclude any kind of Christian involvement in the state? State's a broad category. People have said, okay, you're talking about like, the president or the general in the army, or are you talking about the DMV worker?

Right. That's a broad category. And I'm like, oh, yeah. Yeah. And I mean, among the early Anabaptists, there were some really, there were some variations. So there were some who sort of said, you just, you don't participate in any of that at all. But there's one theologian, a guy named Pilgrim Marpek, and he actually was like an engineer who worked for the local city. And he felt like there was nothing wrong with that, that he was basically contributing to the local community without actually doing any violence himself.

And he felt like that was okay for him to do. Now, if they had told him to take up a sword, that would be a different thing. And so that was kind of where he drew the line. And I'm sort of sympathetic with that, even though I have my own issues with the way this government works. And if I had my way, it would go away in its current state. There's somebody at a libertarian Christian institute, a guy named Alex Bernardo. I think he may have interviewed you. Yeah, Alex, yeah.

He's a public school teacher. And I don't think he's a jerk because he's a public school teacher. He has his own viewpoint about how the education system should work. But I understand he's trying to do a job as best he can. That's not maybe an ideal job. And so, we don't give him a hard time for that. So, I find myself a little bit more in

that Pilgrim Marpek side. I think there's a book I wrote some years back called Fight the Powers, and it was like trying to connect... It's actually a biblical theology of political power and its relationship to demonic power. So kind of looking at all the texts in the Bible that sort of connect political power and spiritual power. Is that Walter Wink? No. No, I do cite him, but he comes from a much more secular liberal perspective.

The book that I wrote is called Fight the Powers. It's pretty short. Most of my books are pretty short. But it does fight a little bit. Oh, you wrote it, you're short. But it does fight a little bit. Oh, you wrote it, you're saying. Yeah, it's a book I wrote, yeah. And what I argue...

Oh, oh, oh, I thought you were referring to another, okay, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But one of the things I argue, I'm kind of looking at different models for Christian involvement, which is sort of like, okay, so if we agree with the Bible that there are spiritual powers that are sort of intertwined with the state, how does that shape how we want to be involved with the state? And I kind of put myself at that point somewhere between the Anabaptists, the traditional, the kind of Anabaptists as we see them, fully separatists, and the model of prophetic witness. And so if you look at like what Martin Luther King was doing and you look at the civil rights

movement in the United States, I think it's fair to say at times, especially looking back now and looking at how it's evolved, it's probably become too intertwined with politics. But if you look at that prophetic witness and what it was able to accomplish, it's hard to argue broadly with what Martin Luther King was doing. But I would put myself kind of between that full-on separatist and prophetic witness viewpoint, I think. Pete So, Christian anarchists obeys the laws of the government, they submit to government authorities, they're not rebelling against laws that the ones that don't conflict with the Christian worldview. I mean… Pete I would say so. Yeah. I mean, I have some friends who are kind of more libertarian anarchists

who are Christian, but I think what you see from some people is, well, if the state is illegitimate, then I should just disobey them all the time. And like, I understand the logic of that. But I think that when you look at Paul, Paul seems really concerned that Christians inconvenience themselves and set their rights aside if it means that they get along peacefully with their neighbors, that they don't besmirch the gospel, that they don't make it look bad and make it seem like it's this kind of violent, rebellious thing that's just opposed to any kind of order. So I think to be a Christian anarchist and not just an anarchist who's also a Christian, I think means that you actually do take into consideration all

of that biblical data and that also you take that into consideration that you let that guide you. For me, I try to obey stupid laws unless I feel like it's really an immoral law, like it expects me to do something that's wrong. I'm happy to obey drug laws even if they weren't on the books, but I'm not going to turn in a neighbor who is a peaceful immigrant. That feels very different to me. So, that's kind of where I would go. If we're trying to start crap all the time, I don't think we're really being biblical. Yeah, I mean, it's hard to, I mean, especially when the Bible is written all throughout the

biblical period in times when they were, the people of God were primarily, often under the power of a really, really corrupt and, according to Paul in the book of Revelation, demonic, demonically empowered. So it seems like from a biblical, theological perspective, there is that tension of you can name something as empowered by Satan, Revelation 3 or 13, and that we should come out of Babylon, Revelation 18, and yet still live a quiet and subversively quiet, subversively submissive life where we're not, yeah, trying to overthrow. We're still showing honor to Caesar while we're not, yeah, trying to overthrow, we're still showing

honor to Caesar while we're not giving allegiance to Caesar, that kind of tension, as I see it, at least. Yeah, yeah, I think that's a fair way to put it. You've listened to my stuff and read some of my, would I be a Christian anarchist? I'm not huge into labels. I have friends that say they like the provocative nature of the label. Like it's good to have a label like that because it's disruptive and that's a good thing. I think there's a place for that. I also think clarity is good too.

And sometimes people won't even listen to what you're saying if they hear a label slapped on you that is, you know, it's just super off putting or whatever or they misunderstand it. So. Yeah. I mean, a label is just a word. And I mean, a word is a handle to help convey meaning. And so, um, I think I'm okay with using the word anarchists. Um, but there may be certain contexts and where, where I wouldn't, when I think about that kind of web of anarchist

terms, um, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-communist, anarchist, volunteerist. I kind of like the word volunteerist because I think it puts the right emphasis where it needs to be, which is that we're trying to build a voluntary society where people are not aggressed upon who are minding their business. So I think that I like that better than starting with like capitalism, even though I believe in capitalism. I just don't really see that as the central idea. What I call you, so I've been suspicious that you might call, you might think of yourself as a Christian anarchist, but I don't know for sure where you are on that journey. So I don't want to speak for you, but I consider you at least sympathetic and willing to have a conversation. What would be a certain belief, a political, a certain, yeah, belief,

a certain political theology that would render one basically outside Christian anarchism? Like, are there some key things that they're like, well, if you believe that, then you're not in this realm of, you know, discourse. Pete So, kind of the traditional Christian anarchism. Violence, like coercion through violence. I think, yeah, the traditional Christian anarchism, not just Christianity plus anarchism, would be violence. And you can define that in different ways.

So for example, I don't have a problem with restraining somebody or holding down my kids so they can get a shot that they might need to get at the doctor's office. But I think, you know, one place we can pretty confidently draw the line is like lethal force, right? So I feel like that's a pretty good thing to at least say like that's, you know, maybe if I find myself in a situation, I don't know what to do in the moment, something happens, there's grace for that. But that's not like something that I have made room for in my theology and in my life. That's not something, that's not how I'm going to approach my problems.

Like I said, I've got friends who are, like I said, more in that Christian plus anarchist side. I think the non-aggression principle is kind of something that they would see as pretty important, at least on that kind of libertarian anarchist side. And then of course, you would add to that, maybe however you define Christianity belief in the major Orthodox creeds or something. So I think it just kind of depends on if you're talking about Christian anarchism or Christian plus anarchism. What about, okay, let's get practical voting. Do Christian anarchists vote? Many don't.

Because of their political theology. Yeah. So, yeah, for two reasons. I think one is because if the state is violence, do you participate, do you want to participate in violence? And the other thing is if Christ is my king, then why am I voting in another king's election? And there's some logic to that. But once again, I think myself in that little bit more of that Pilgrim Marpek strain where I could say like, so for example, man, I'm bringing this up a lot. A few years ago in Ohio, there was a law to make marijuana legal. I have friends who smoke marijuana.

I have people who I care about, people in my family who smoke marijuana. I don't think they should go in jail if they get caught. I think that's horrible. I was happy to go and vote to try to get that on the Ohio Constitution that marijuana was legal. I don't feel any remorse about that at all because I wasn't doing it to perpetuate violence and I wasn't doing it because I don't think of Christ as my king. I was doing it because I care about my neighbors. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm sympathetic to that and I, I'm sympathetic to that. I mean, I lean towards not voting in principle.

Um, I hope that's not too of a shock for people. I've talked about this, but I could see the argument of like, okay, one of let's, let's just talk, you know, presidential elections. One of these people is going to be there no matter what. Like, it's not like your lack of votes going gonna de-imperialize the empire. And if there is one potential ruler that is clearly, and this is where it gets tricky, it's clearly going to lead to more harm towards other people, then why not cast your vote? Not support, definitely not allegiance, but just say, I'm going to vote in this direction because the other side is so clearly evil. For, for instance, let's, let's, um, if someone, you

know, if you believe say abortion is the murder of innocent people and one candidate is clearly opposing that one's clearly for it. I could see the logic of saying, okay, empire is empire is empire, but this Caesar is going to kill less or lead to, and I'm just, I'm tapping into the logic of certain people. I'm not necessarily endorsing this, but like this leader will lessen the killing of innocent civilians. Or if somebody says, I think, you know, certain immigration policies are absolutely inhumane. And like you said, I have neighbors that are going to be deeply affected by this. So out of love for my neighbor, I'm going to vote in another direction. Or I don't know, one that's close on my heart is like the whole war in Gaza. If there was one candidate who is clearly concerned

about that, which neither is, that I could see from my Palestinian brothers and sisters, like, gosh, if this person gets elected, it's going to be worse. It's going to be worse on them. If this person, it's going to alleviate all this suffering. So all that to say, I could, I could see the logic in it. I think for me, there is, I don't know, voting is complex. I mean, is it actually offering support? And I love what you said about the political kingship of Christ means something. And I voted for, or, you know, he won the election when he walked out of the grave, right? And I also, on a practical level, I imagine a scenario where in our American context, that the evangelical Christian church didn't vote so that these Caesars would stop pandering to the evangelical church and doing whatever they can to win their allegiance.

And I'm like, what if they knew we didn't vote for anybody? I think that they would, there would be a much clearer separation between church and state. It's theoretical. It's not a hill I would die on. But yeah, I think that there's room for conscience. Like, I mean, I think that's kind of my thing. I have a libertarian friend who voted for Trump because in the end, he thought that maybe he would get some really good libertarian policies. That's not a decision I felt comfortable making. Now if Hitler had risen from the grave and got himself on a third party ballot and was maybe going to win against Donald Trump, it'd be really hard not to vote for Donald Trump. But just generally speaking, I think when you're comparing the class of people

that we're talking about with the major parties, the distinctions are not, I think, really significant enough for what I think Christians and libertarians should be concerned about. So it's hard for me to make that. Yeah. I mean, I think that American politics is like the entertainment wing of the military industrial complex. I think part of it is like, I don't know, peek behind a curtain you guys, like you're kind of being had a little bit with all this stuff. Well, if I didn't think you were an anarchist before, I think so now because you just said that.

That might be the intertwining of war profiteering and how that has embedded its tentacles into so many other aspects of the country. And that the country, I think America is largely an oligarchy, not like a democracy or something. So part of it is just my, not even my political theology, but just politics in general. I'm kind of like, you peek behind the system a little bit and you see they're kind of working for the same corporation. Yeah, like there's a video clip and this is one of thousands examples you can give, but like it was Trump and Obama kind of like just recently, a couple weeks ago, you know, like sitting together, whispering, laughing, kind of like they even said, I think there's a lip reader saying, Hey, we should meet up. We got to talk about something, you know,

and people were like, how are they chummy chummy? I'm like, I'm pretty convinced that they're kind of hanging out at night over drinks and like, maybe not, maybe not that much. But anyway, we kind of got off track. Okay, in the few minutes we have remaining, what would be the strongest pushbacks to your view as an anarchist Anabaptist? What are some things you're like, hmm, I'm not sure I'd be able to respond super convincingly to this counter-argument. Pete Yeah. So, I mean, I think, so, yeah, you're gonna get different pushback from different people, right? So, you know, secular libertarians, for example, they're not gonna want to really consider Anabaptism because it's Christian and it's radical and Anabaptists seem weird.

You know, most intellectuals don't make a habit of saying, hmm, I wonder what the Amish and Mennonites might have to contribute to my political philosophy. I think Christian libertarians, you know, I talked about the difference between a Christian anarchist and a Christian who's an anarchist. They're going to, I think, really be suspicious of the nonviolent piece. And that's partly because there is, you know, at least on paper, attention because the nonaggression principle is not completely nonviolent. It's not pacifistic. And so they'd say, well, you're proposing pacifism and, you know, I, as a libertarian, believe in the nonaggression principle. And my answer to that is that they apply to different, you know,

realms and different domains, different people, honestly. So, Christians, I think, are... We can talk about rights and natural rights and all these things, but we also have to take into account that Christ told us to set aside our rights. So, they're there, but if we're followers of Jesus, we're called to a different standard than non-Christians are. So I think those are going to be, I think, the big pieces of pushback. I think coming from maybe Anabaptists, especially who are a little bit more progressive, they're not going to like some of the things I said about free markets. Oh, yeah.

But I also deal with that in the book, and I think I deal with it pretty well, but we're running out of time, so I won't go into too much detail there. But I think, you know, if you believe in nonviolence, I don't see why you would support a kind of a big violent government, you know, trying to regulate everything that's going on in the market. That's maybe kind of the short answer. Yeah, yeah, that's good. Well, Cody, the book is really good. Again, I would highly encourage people to check it out. If anything, it's really short and easy to read. I don't know how many, it's like 120, 140, 140, but it's not like a dense text. You can read it in

a few hours really. I'm actually a slow reader and it's so clear. This is what I love. You interact with a lot of thinkers and stuff, but I love how you organize even like anarcho-communism and capitalism, or what, yeah, those categories, and you break down different categories and kind of situate kind of where you would fit and why. It's really helpful. It's not like something, I found it helpful because it's not like you're telling everybody, this is what you must believe and you're an idiot if you don't. It's kind of like you're just laying out these two traditions, anarchism and anabaptism, and showing a possible way in which they can converge. That might be the summary of your book. Yeah, that's great. And I'm so glad to hear that too. I mean, I tend to write short because I hate

reading books that are longer than they need to be. I mean, if it needs to be long, fine. But if it doesn't, don't do that. But also that it was clear and concise. That's really encouraging to hear. So, that's exactly what I'm hoping to do. Yeah. So, there's the main chapter or the main essay, the book, the longest one is about, it's called The Anarchist and the Baptist. But then I have sort of other chapters as well that connect or coincide with that. One that I think some of your viewers or listeners might find, viewers and listeners, might find interesting is called the, I think it's called the American sacrament that denies allegiance to Christ. And it goes into that history of the word sacramentum and where it comes from and how we

would, I think, apply it as Christians to violence, believe it or not. Yeah. Good, good. If anybody wants to get ahold of you, can they reach out to you or what's, do you have a website or something? Yeah. So, most of, I'm doing most, most of my work today is done through libertarianchristians.com. I also have a website that you can go to where if I'm, that's kind of a place where I'll just kind of my catch all where I'll kind of a clearing house, I guess anything I'm on or anything I do, I'll post there. And that's cantusfirmus.com, cantus-firmus.com. But libertarianchristians.com is easier to remember and they're also putting

out this book, so. Awesome. Well, thanks for being on The Knowledge and Rock, Cody. I really appreciate it. Oh, thank you so much, Preston. It's really been exciting to be here. Hey friends, Rachel Grohl here from the Hearing Jesus Podcast. Do you ever wonder if you're truly hearing from God? Are you tired of trying to figure it all out on your own? The Hearing Jesus Podcast is here to help you live out your faith every single day, and together we will break down these walls by digging deeply into God's Word in a way that you can really understand it.

If this sounds like the kind of journey you want to go on, please join us on the Hearing Jesus podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Hi, I'm Haven, and as long as I can remember, I have had different curiosities and thoughts and ideas that I like to explore, usually with a girlfriend over a matcha latte. But then when I had kids, I just didn't have the same time that I did before for the one-on-ones that I crave. So I started Haven the Podcast. It's a safe space for curiosity and conversation, and we talk about everything from relationships to parenting to friendships to even your view of yourself, and we don't have answers or solutions but I think the power is actually in the questions so I'd love for you to join me, Haven the

podcast.