Anarchy FTW!

In the past few years Fort Morgan, the town I live in and where I am pastor of United Presbyterian Church, has seen a dramatic influx of Somali refugees. In a town of about 10,000 people we are now host to around 800 East African refugees. This has all happened within the past 2 years. You can imagine such a dramatic shift is causing some ripples in the community.

The Somali refugees coming to Fort Morgan are "secondary migration", meaning they were initially settled elsewhere in the United States, but moved to Fort Morgan for jobs. The largest Somali population center in the US is Minneapolis. So most of the refugees have come from there and have family and friends back in Minneapolis they visit on vacation. The attraction to Fort Morgan is our meat packing plant where most of them are now employed. After we had a small core of 100 or so refugees it attained critical mass and now we are seeing a continuing influx which is reshaping the demographics of our town.

I would be derelict in my duties as a minister in this situation if I wasn't trying to learn more about Somalia, the situation of these refugees and how to help my congregation adapt to this development. I am partnering with a variety of community organizations to host educational events about Somalia, and even more importantly face-to-face meetings where we can start to make friends and bridge the cultural/linguistic gap. As part of my research about Somalia I came across this article which I found fascinating.

In the article the authors argue that nearly 20 years of anarchy in Somalia has actually benefited the country. Obviously a statement like that comes with a lot of caveats. Somalia is still a deeply impoverished place. The refugees in my town all have stories of intense suffering experienced in camps in Ethiopia and Kenya, the loss of family members to violence, and severe deprivation which caused their exodus. With that said, the authors note that all statistical indicators have improved more without a central government in Somalia than they did in the years previous of corrupt dictatorships. The article describes an elaborate, yet informal, system of customary law and commerce which reemerged in the absence of formal government with surprising success. As a result people live longer, eat better, are more secure, and have more luxuries like telephones and televisions than they did before.

I love what it says at the end about many governments being "vampire states" that prey on their people. Obviously, we'd like to believe that our governments are better, but I think from a Christian perspective all government is fundamentally vampiric. The principalities and powers are set against Jesus Christ and his reign of Shalom, and in some cases anarchy really is the best road forward.

[Repost] Covenantal Anarchy

This is the original, from three years ago.

***

This is the term that I came up with, with Aric's help, that I think describes the political outcome of Jesus' teachings. We were discussing whether no government is better than bad government, and disagreeing on some things. I didn't think that Jesus was pointing toward anarchy as the best political alternative, but we both definitely disagreed with the traditional Reformed love-affair with government as such. I mean, come on. The Westminster Confession was written at musket-point. What did you expect them to say about authority figures? And then its easy for the culture with all of the money and the power (that is, ours) to perpetuate this uncritical affection for government because it mostly isn't used against us. Ask people in the DRC or Iraq or Sudan what they think of government, and you might get a different answer.

So I though of covenantal anarchy - Christ seemed to be a fan of peacefully resisting the Powers That Were, of taking their claims of authority over mind and person to an absurd extreme in order to subvert them, or of simply pointing out that rules are made for people and not the other way around. It wasn't just bare anarchy, though, because clearly there were other expectations as to how we are to act toward each other and what sort of relationship we are to seek with God.

Now, bear in mind that I am in a denomination (PCUSA) that seems to think that nothing is more important than arguing over rules. It seems eager to use rules as a weapon far more than they are used to restore relationships. The focus is on "decently and in order" - but something can be decent in the usual sense, and orderly, and wrong. You can dress up a blunt instrument however you like - beneath the thin veneer of decent and orderly you still have a weapon. I honestly don't think you can follow Christ until you disarm.

Like I said after one of our Polity classes - these rules are for when you fail at Christianity and you feel like you need to try something else. I can't imagine a world without rules, but at least acknowledging this, instead of pretending that the rules are somehow good rather than a regrettable necessity (Denominational Nomism?) would be a breath of fresh air.

I'm really lost as to how I can tell my Comittee on Preparation for Ministry things like this. I wonder how'd they respond to a statement of faith that read "Christ came, in part, to demonstrate the monstrous idolatry of confusing temporal authority with God's desire or design"?

I mean, one way or another, wasn't Christ killed because of rules?

Covenantal Anarchy: Basic Definitions

In talking about Covenental Anarchy it is helpful to give some definitions so that it is clearer what I think I'm talking about.


Covenant

A covenant is a clearly-defined relationship in which there are mutual obligations. For this, I take as the example the many covenants which are "cut" in the Old Testament, primarily between God and Israel. It is an agreement of mutual obligation and, theoretically, mutual benefit. Both sides agree to it with knowledge of what it is they are agreeing to, and what will be expected of them.

One thing that is key to consider is that a covenant does not exist without consent. You can't be forced into one - though one might argue that you could be born into a covenant, in the sense that it is up to you to leave it if you choose. That also might change depending on the covenant one is considering (i.e. both Judaism and Christanity have rituals around a person accepting their part in the covenant community)

The covenant is whatever the people involved decided it is. It is worked out ahead of time and then binding commitments are made. It should be beneficial to both parties because the punishment for failing to live up to the covenant is nothing more than not being part of the covenant anymore.

I model my thinking about this kind of covenantal relationship on what I understand to be how God relates to us, and how we are admonished to relate to each other by scripture and the witness of the early church. More on this later, however - I don't want this post to be too long.


Anarchy

Anarchy is simple - no archy, no rulership, no dominion. I don't use a dictionary definition here because I find that dictionary writers often assume that governmental authority is a good thing in a person's life, and I don't agree that it necessarily is.

If you think about non-dominion for a bit, you might realize that violence is entirely out of the question. Every archy, every dominion, relies on violence (with the exception of one - we'll talk about that later). The reason for this dependence on violence is that, at some point, there will be a conflict. In a dominion system, it is the power at the top that holds the monopoly on violence used to enforce its will on those beneath. We negotiate with any given government how much of our free will we will let the government override in exchange for the protections or conveniences that we believe that government offers. Political conflict sometimes boils down to haggling over the price of our autonomy.

The insight I feel like I've received as a pacifist who reads the works of other pacifists and talks to other pacifists is that if we discipline ourselves to choose anything other than violence, then we have to rethink things like authority and autonomy entirely. What I find is that dominion as we tend to practice it now just doesn't work unless there is violence hanging over everyone's head.

So I go looking for another way. Thankfully, there is one dominion, at least, which I believe does not depend on violence - which in fact has as one of its core teachings the absolute rejection of dominion through violence. That dominion is, of course, the dominion of Christ, and that absolute rejection of dominion through violence is demonstrated decisively in the crucifixion and resurrection. Among many other things, these events demonstrate God's commitment to not use violence to enforce dominion under any circumstances - even in defense of the life of God's son.

I find this very reassuring. I call this dominion of God as demonstrated by Christ covenantal anarchy, and I am continually excited to see where it leads us.

Covenantal Anarchy II: Foreshadowing

Here's something I wrote in June 2008. As it turns out, I did not cast a vote for no one, but I wanted to repost this as something of an introduction to my thinking around Covenantal Anarchy, which is something I want to talk about on this blog periodically. (Here are posts I've written previously in my other blog that included CA as a topic) In brief, it is my modification of anarchy in light of the Gospel, taking seriously its denunciation of domination systems with its call to remain in relationship and to organize our lives in some way. Anarchy, in my thinking, wasn't enough to cover what I was thinking of. Anywhere, here you go:

I would like to cast my vote for an empty Oval Office for four years. Give us all a rest. Let Congress do it's job without line-item vetoes. Let the troops, wherever they happen to be, figure out what the best idea is without some idiot in Washington inventing wars for them to die fighting, pointing at spots on the map full of people for them to kill. No more hypocritical, demoralizing speeches. No more talking heads and flapping lips blathering about his every move and word. No more state dinners. No more photo-ops with Girl Scouts. No more press secretary juggling lies like Barnum and Bailey's best.

Let people tour the White House as a museum of national relics and oddities. "Here is where the President once drank coffee. Here is where he once ate sandwiches. Here is where he plotted the assassination of foreign leaders. Here is where he went to the bathroom. That was back when we had a President. Now, if we want something done, we get together and figure out how to do it ourselves."

I wish I could cast a vote for an empty Oval Office. I would campaign for that. I would work a phone bank for that. I would donate to that.

As it is, I'll grudgingly cast my vote for what looks like a minimal evil, have a nice meal to get the sick feeling out of my stomach, and get on with enduring the vast miasma of lies, hypocrisy, waste and stupidity that we call a government, hoping against hope that it will do nothing, that it will leave it to the rest of us to get done what has to get done, knowing all the while that nowhere, at no time, in no place, do human beings refrain from using every shred of power they are able to wrest from others.

I leave you with a rendition of Jotham's parable from Judges:

Once upon a time, the trees all gathered to elect themselves a politician. They elected the olive, but the olive refused, saying that its job is to produce good oil. They then chose the fig, but the fig refused - shall it give up its sweet fruit in order to be above the other trees? But the trees demanded a politician to have authority over them. They elected the vine, but the vine answered like the first two. Finally, they approached the bramble, which accepted eagerly. Take refuge among my thorns, it said, and if you don't like the thorns, then you'll be burned up.

I love this parable.