The Little Friar

Continuing my political theology posts of late, here are some thoughts on Christian anarchism. First, in an important sense, all Christians are anarchists.  The word anarchism comes from the Greek αναρχος ( anarchos ) which means "no rulers" or "without rulers".  For the Christian such a description, obviously, refers to the ultimacy of human rulers. An anarchist strain runs throughout the Old and Testaments.  We see it in the Old Testament in God's unwillingness to give a king to Israel.  When God finally relents God takes this as an explicit rejection and predicts things aren't going to go well for Israel: But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us",  this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.  And the LORD told him:  "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.  As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, fo...

I'd written earlier as part of a post:  "So it doesn't take a genius to see that God doesn't like empires".  Enshrined quite early in the biblical narrative, we read this (Genesis 1.26-27): Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. There's been a great deal of ink spilt in theological literature over what this "image of God" might be.  I want to offer a political theological reading. Also enshrined within the biblical narrative is a Christological definition of "the image of God".  The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  For in him all things were created:  things in heav...

I've written previously here about a couple of those books by William Stringfellow that have had an impact on my thinking.  I want to continue with that series by focusing today on his Dissenter in a Great Society:  A Christian View of the American Crisis , from 1966. In the Forward, Stringfellow sets out the goal of the book: This book has no other ambition than to be a chronicle of criticism, complaint, and dissent, informed, I trust, by the faith and ministry exemplified in Christ, in which all things whatsoever are brought into question in this life. This "chronicle of criticism, complaint, and dissent" has four chapters.  Chapter 1 deals with poverty.  Chapter 2 deals with the American political crisis characterized by a "breakdown in rational public dialogue" between the political ideologies captured, as they are, by the Republican and Democratic parties.  Chapter 3 deals with race relations.   The final chapter is meant to articulate a...

One doesn't live long as a Christian -- but especially someone in ministry or in education -- before you come face to face with a stark realization:  You rarely see the fruits of your labors. I received a phone call not long ago from a friend.  He was beginning to see just how difficult ministry may be among particular sets of congregational folk.  So he was concerned:  "Should I be feeling this way?  Does this doubt mean I may be misunderstanding my call?" When we start out on our spiritual journey we tend to have pretty heroic expectations and visions of ourselves.  From there, we either wind up driven or depressed.  Driven to live up to the heroic expectations or depressed when we can't. Thing is, there's a third way.  It's the way those of us in ministry must learn to walk. Jean Vanier , founder of the L'Arche community, calls this "the second call".  If our first spiritual calling is heroic, ambitious and big the second ...

The problem of the pledge of allegiance.  It's been a problem for me for years.  I always stand -- out of respect for those who are reciting -- but I am compelled to remain silent.  And every time I stand but remain silent, there are looks, questions, even social pressure to conform.  I usually offer a brief response, thanking them for their loyalty and for their faithfulness to a nation-state that provides so many "freedoms".  But that's hardly consolation. Tonight, I've seen this picture making its rounds on Facebook. This is the sort of social pressure I'm talking about.  I can't know why "Kevin" refuses to stand or pledge, but I sympathize with him.  It's rough not pledging allegiance.  I blame all this on Dietrich Bonhoeffer .  It was he who made me begin to think about issues of faithfulness to God and how that faithfulness relates to the State.  So, I want to lay out, again, as clearly as I can, why I don't say the pled...

Yesterday, I touched on one of William Stringfellow's books that's had a tremendous impact on my thinking.  Today I want to move on to another -- Free in Obedience . Free in Obedience is a book written for the church.  Much in the tradition of Barth and Bonhoeffer, this little book is an attempt to call the church to faithful witness in the world.  In making this call Stringfellow's task is both descriptive and prophetic.   Descriptive in helping the church clearly discern death and resurrection in the world.  Prophetic in calling the church to become a sign of life in the midst of death's works. In the first chapter -- "The Scandal of the Churches" -- Stringfellow starts by calling the church to participate in the everyday experiences of the world, to participate in what he calls "the real issues of faith": [T]he people and the things which an ordinary Christian comes into contact from day to day are the primary and most profound ...

I was first introduced to William Stringfellow in college.  Alongside Barth, Bonhoeffer, and George MacDonald, Stringfellow has been one of the most influential theologians upon my own thinking.  I want to take a few days and explore some of his most important works.  And I want to begin with his first book, A Private and Public Faith , from 1962. The quote from the dust jacket: The author hits hard at the manipulation of religion for personal, corporate and national self-interests; and sets forth the possibility and content of a relevant and honest witness to Christ in both private and public affairs.  The back cover of the dust jacket has a quote from Karl Barth describing Stringfellow as "the conscientious and thoughtful New York attorney who caught my attention more than any other person".  As most fans of Stringfellow know, during Barth's visit to America, Stringfellow and he interacted (with others) in a public discussion.  Barth was so impres...

Kendra and I are huge fans of the musical Les Misérables , so we've been living the dream lately.  Of course, that's because the movie came out on Christmas Day. Again, we're hardcore fans. She can sing every line and every part (male and female) of the musical soundtrack.  I find the musical to be a profoundly spiritual, and distinctively Christian, experience.  (Same goes for the book, which I read in high school.)  I know most of the words to a few of the songs -- but I only sing in the shower. Today is Martin Luther King's birthday.  It's also inauguration day for the President.  These three events put me in mind the political theology depicted in Les Misérables .  That political theology has much to say about today's events. I'm interested here in the contrast been Jean Valjean, Javert, and Enjolras (along with Marius and the other student-revolutionaries at the barricade). Javert and Enjolras could be considered as two poles along a c...

I can understand why I see it more often.  With shootings happening at such a regular pace in American culture, the question of gun control laws and Constitutional "the right to bear arms", the cultural war over guns is more than a skirmish or two, here and there.  It's an all-out battle.  More and more, I'm seeing quotes or comments about Adolf Hitler's drive to keep guns out of the hands of Germans. The implication is clear:  If gun control laws are passed in the US, we'll effectively be living in the same sort of society as Nazi Germany.  The Nazis will have control of our guns.  Such tyranny is evil.  So don't support gun control. What bothers me about this meme is its "guilt by association".  To many (certainly in the US), Hitler is the very epitome of evil.  Therefore, anything associated with him is evil. So, anyone that agrees with anything associated with him is evil.  The emphasis is that if you support gun contro...