8. “Christian Anarchism: Communitarian or Capitalist?”
by Alexander W. Salter
Abstract: I build on Christoyannopoulous’s (2011) compendium of Christian anarchist thought to shed light on the divergence between Christian anarcho-communitarians and Christian anarcho-capitalists. The anarcho-communitarians believe the institution of private property is contrary to the Word of Christ, while the anarcho-capitalists hold it is justifiable. I show that the anarcho-communitarians misunderstand the nature of property, rendering them unable to reconcile an apparent contradiction between Christ’s command to renounce violence and His violent cleansing of the temple. The Christian anarcho-capitalists, drawing upon the philosophy of natural law, face no such difficulty. Although their position is far from unassailable, the Christian anarcho-capitalist paradigm is currently the only theoretically consistent interpretation, and will remain so unless the Christian anarcho-communitarians can discover and advance a new theoretical framework.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
I think an additional stumbling block for anarcho-captitalists is reconciling self-ownership and Christianity. If self-ownership is defeated then private property is placed on shaky ground, and so on. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 claims our bodies belong to God. In context they are talking about sexual morality but if God can rightly claim ownership of your body as a temple to be made clean what would prevent him from claiming ownership for your work to further his Kingdom?
When it comes down to just gut feelings I think God very much agrees with personal property because it allows us to exercise free will and surrender our posessions and desires to God’s glory. God wants us to live like like communitarians but it only serves his design if we have the ability to live like capitalists. The parable of the talents seems to demonstrate this but again if we cannot establish self ownership biblically then we have no basis. Natural law is, in my opinion, insufficient to use as the basis. Similarly if we accept that God/Jesus performed miracles, being generally, temporarily suspending the laws of physical science, than we see that even something as settled as gravity becomes subordinate to God’s will. How can natural law then bind/legitamize our actions when water can be turned to wine and women to salt? We trust physics and the comfort that we will not float out of our beds in the morning and likewise we can trust that natural law holds but without a biblical linchpin of self-ownership we simply act on faith.
I would make a very big difference between the “popular Christianity” as it is being preached by people who read the Bible once and understood it pretty much literally and between the “philosophers Christianity”, meaning a deeper understanding of the consequences of what Christ said and did.
One of the most influential in this regard for me are the works of Semyon Frank, a religious philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Frank).
He notes what many popular preachers do not notice, that if we say that fate of man comes from the fact that we are free and so in this freedom we sin, then it follows from this that God values us as free creatures. And thus that we cannot say that an illness is a “punishment” for sins, as a punishment would be basically using force where none is possible. God does not use force. Otherwise – why not stop Adam from committing a sin by force in the first place?
Not only that, but Frank and many other philosophers, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Vladimir Solovyov, did not view God as a totally separate entity from man, but as part of man which is neither separable, nor totally united. And so saying that “God owns are bodies” is basically same as saying “we own our bodies”.
And finally, miracles do not have to mean the “suspending of laws of physics”. Miracles may mean “ordinary physics” + “external power of God”, whatever that power is. Many philosophers, including Frank, take that stance and show that miracles do not contradict physics a bit, since physics studies a closed system of known forces. Biology, for instance, says nothing about what would happen to a virgin’s body if an external force (certain power of God) acts upon her.
So I think that difficulties come from a simplistic understanding of Christianity and of ignoring the full consequences of things Christianity teaches, like free will.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin…. were able to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Christ’s command to renounce violence and His violent cleansing of the temple. I also wonder if it was their shedding light on the divergence between Christian anarcho-communitarians and Christian anarcho-capitalists that led to this GREAT country? Nice Job on the paper!!…….. e