God is an Anarchist
Written by Darrell Anderson.
For many years I slowly transformed my beliefs and understanding about human action and interaction. Today I embrace a belief that outside the possible realm of restitution, any use of force, coercion, or the threat of violence against another human is impractical. That belief system can be summarized in the one principle of do not trespass. I also believe that the philosophy of statism promotes a foundation that force, coercion, and the threat of violence is acceptable. Therefore, I oppose the philosophy of statism.
Throughout my transformation, I also changed my beliefs about what I was taught about the Judeo-Christian faith. Like many people raised in or surrounded by those traditions, I was taught and nurtured to embrace specific ideas inherent in those traditions. As my own philosophical beliefs changed I found myself more and more at odds with being able to reconcile what I had discovered about human action and interaction with what I had been taught in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I then began a parallel journey attempting to find reconciliation.
That is, I found no reconciliation with respect to modern teachings. There always were “exceptions” or “work-arounds” to the principle of do not trespass. Although the Judeo-Christian system is supposed to be built upon a non-violent and peaceful nature, I found that many people who embrace the Judeo-Christian traditions also embrace the philosophy of statism. I could not reconcile this chasm until I began to do what few people are willing to do — I stepped out of the box and began to study Judeo-Christian teachings from a perspective of non-violence and peaceful interaction. I used one foundation through which I would study: do not trespass. If anything I studied violated that principle I then investigated why.
Using a concordance I studied the meaning of various words and how they were translated into English from the original Aramaic and Greek texts. I paid attention to historical context. Eventually I found a problem. If my one principle of do not trespass was tenable, then I discovered that many people had misinterpreted the Judeo-Christian writings to conform to the philosophy of statism, rather than conforming to the principle of do not trespass. Gradually, by using alternate translations of various words and insisting upon reading through the focus of the one principle of do not trespass, I found that much of the Judeo-Christian texts actually affirmed my own journey of rejecting the philosophy of statism.
Two principal figures within the Judeo-Christian tradition are Moses and Jesus. A balanced inspection of what these men taught indicates that neither man promoted a philosophy of statism, but promoted a social system model of self-government, persuasion, and cooperation. Indeed, Jesus was crucified largely because of his anti-statism and anti-establishment attitude. The fundamental principle from Moses was “Thou shalt not steal.” The fundamental principle from Jesus was “Love your neighbor.” Both concepts can be merged into one principle — do not trespass against others. Nowhere in either principle can one find the philosophy of statism. My failed reconciliation therefore is not with who these men were but how people have manipulated their teachings.
This is a book about many topics, but with one prevailing thesis — anarchy. My thesis throughout this collection of writings is amplified in the book’s title. Any individual raised in the modern teachings of Judeo-Christianity probably will reject my thesis. At least initially. The reason is simple — a misunderstanding about the definition of anarchy. Therefore, I provide readers a proper definition and understanding of anarchy. From that foundation I share ideas that defend my thesis. If God exists then God is an anarchist, and using the teachings of Moses and Jesus, could be nothing but an anarchist.
By definition, anarchy is a philosophy of non-violence and utmost respect for self-ownership and mutually beneficial reciprocity. In my own observations, I have noticed that true anarchists are some of the most highly disciplined people one could meet. They understand boundaries and voluntarily choose not to cross those boundaries. They never make excuses to justify trespass. In every sense of the word such people live a life of liberty because they always are aware of not wanting to trespass against others. Thus, you will find an additional theme throughout these writings — a focus on liberty of action, free association, and voluntary exchange.
I don’t pretend to provide perfect answers. I intend to provide a fresh perspective, a perspective that I hope will cause many embracing modern Judeo-Christianity to pause and reconsider their support of statism. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was at hand right now. In other words, Jesus taught that the life of liberty he espoused was available immediately. Unwittingly, many Christians have rejected Jesus’ teaching, instead embracing statism. Moses taught likewise, but the Hebrews rejected his offer to seek direct fellowship with God.
This is not a collection of thoughts discussing the existence of God, the infallibility of Judeo-Christian writings, the existence of Moses or Jesus, or a debate about certain current controversial topics. Those questions are irrelevant to my purpose. My focus is not theological but socio-political and socio-economical. Fundamentally, statism is a philosophy that supports trespass and theft under the color of law. Moses and Jesus rejected such ideas. If those men taught that trespass and theft are wrong then why do so many people embracing modern Judeo-Christianity support statism? The ideas presented here therefore question modern teachings and offer an alternate perspective that provides compatibility with the idea of not trespassing. I want to show that the Judeo-Christian model is incompatible with the philosophy of statism.
Therefore, I am sharing my thoughts to encourage people to think. I suspect many people within the Judeo-Christian tradition are struggling with what they think the Bible teaches and what is actually practiced or taught by many “leaders.” The straightforward reason for this struggle and confusion is that many people have manipulated those teachings. Unfortunately, often people are afraid to share their struggles and are rebuked for expressing doubt. Yet, the universe is not bigger than we know, but bigger than we can know. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge or certainty. The only people who could be doubt-free are those who willfully remain ignorant. I might be wrong about some of my ideas, but that hardly means there is no place for thinking or asking questions. I want to encourage a world of discourse and discussion.
Some people willingly refuse to discuss and entertain ideas and other possibilities. Therefore, I expect people to disagree with my ideas. That’s okay; this is a big world and there is plenty of room for more than one opinion. Of course, some people disagree and believe there should be only one opinion — theirs. Sadly, lots of conflicts and wars start that way. Being unwilling to share ideas means a permanent division from other people.
This collection of essays is not an academic effort; that is, you will find no footnotes, references, citations, etc. Many of my ideas were derived from the thoughts and ideas of other people and in an academic project those sources would be properly cited and identified. That is not my purpose here. This book is not expository but merely expressive and exploratory. In a way this book is a journal of thoughts and contemplation; and the source, derivation, or prompting for my thoughts are of secondary importance. If you expect the obligatory line that I accept all responsibility for errors and omissions in this book, well, forget that. This is a book about ideas and ramblings; thus, there can be no “errors.”
Thank you for joining me on my journey.
Next: A Brief Statement