You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'anarchy' tag.
So it’s Flag Day here in the United States of America. I would be happy to participate, but find myself sadly unable, for the Kingdom of which I am a citizen has as its symbol not a flag, but a cross.
I’ve written previously about my discomfort as a Christian with the Pledge of Allegiance and with American nationalism more generally. I used to think that the Pledge is a rather radical and identity-claiming statement. But today, reading a post over at Experimental Theology, I came across the US oath of naturalization for persons desiring to become citizens — and the Pledge pales in comparison.
Please don’t read this post the wrong way. I have no objection to people, including Christians, who want to become US citizens — some of my closest friends are Christians who have done so. America offers many benefits of political freedom and opportunity, liberties that may not be available in some other countries, and there are indeed many compelling reasons someone might desire to be naturalized. But reading the Oath, I realize that it would be impossible for me, as a Christian standing in the theological tradition of the Radical Reformation, to swear it, if I want my words to mean anything at all.
The oath says this:
I hereby declare, on oath,
(1) that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
(2) that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(3) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
(4) that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
(5) that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
(6) that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
(7) and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
so help me God.
Here’s why I wouldn’t be able to swear this oath.
(1) As N. T. Wright has said, “If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not.” The actual, literal dominion of Christ over the Church makes a very real demand upon my political allegiance.
(2) “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” (Luke 5.27-28 NSRV)
(3) My “true faith and allegiance” can be only to the person of Jesus Christ and his Kingdom. See also #1.
(4) The Kingdom of God is a nonviolent one. See also #2. My faith prevents me from engaging in armed violence.
(5) See #4; I can no more directly aid violence in a noncombatant role than I can perpetuate it myself.
(6) I don’t have much of a problem with this part, assuming that the “work of national importance” doesn’t further the state’s violence.
(7) “Without mental reservation…” This would be impossible, clearly; see #1-#6 above.
I would be interested to see whether other nations’ oaths of naturalization are as identity-intensive as this one. If so, the Christian who pledges her political allegiance to the Kingdom of God and seeks her identity in that polity finds herself in a bind should she ever have to renounce her national citizenship and seek another, for whatever reason.
The Church, of course has its own naturalization oath: baptism. Infant baptism, then, is analogous to citizenship by birth, while adult baptism is analagous to citizenship by naturalization. This is part of the reason that, while I align myself generally with the Anabaptist tradition, I don’t have much of a problem with infant baptism.
* * * * *
Edit/Update: I was just looking over the confession of faith of the Mennonite Church USA. From Article 20, “Truth and the Avoidance of Oaths”:
Throughout history, human governments have asked citizens to swear oaths of allegiance. As Christians, our first allegiance is to God. (Acts 5.29) In baptism we pledged our loyalty to Christ’s community, a commitment that takes precedence over obedience to any other social and political communities.
For some time, I have considered using the word ‘transarchy’ to describe my political philosophy: not anarchic properly speaking, but nonetheless quite anti-statist (though not necessarily anti-governmental). What follows is a document I drew up a while back that describes my ideology from a certain angle. But here’s a key disclaimer: it must absolutely be taken alongside what is said on the views page on this site. This post and that page are very different approaches to describing my attitudes towards government and society. But I don’t see them as contradictory — just as paradoxical, existing in tension with each other. Also, these different approaches represent the fact that in my own mind, many things are still being resolved, and many of my political tendencies do exist in a sort of tension.
Finally, it should be noted that what is described below is an ideal. It is something I aspire to, but something I can’t live up to particularly well. However, there are some groups, such as the Catholic Worker movement, the Amish, and intentional communities like the Simple Way, that embody exactly what I describe here.
PREAMBLE.
We the Transarchists embody an alternative to the structures of the State. Transarchy does not oppose them; rather, it outdoes them, providing an alternative identity to that of the cult of the State. Transarchy does not require withdrawal, nor the overthrow of the top-down structures of this mad world; transarchy is lived out in love rather than built up by force, and its alternative structure emerges naturally, bottom-up in the very midst of the nations.
ARTICLE I.
1. We reject violence, force, and war.
2. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” it is said, and peacemakers we will be.
3. To live transarchally, we embrace nonviolence, inherently subversive of the militarism of states.
4. Every act of peace is a pebble thrown into a pond – a pond filled with the polluted waters of hate, war, and violence. We shall throw pebbles into the pond until they pile towards the sky; the water shall drain away beneath; peace shall emerge.
ARTICLE II.
1. We reject the greed and the selfishness of extreme individualism.
2. We refuse to deprive others for our own gain. For some this entails a rejection of exploitative capitalism. For others it is merely a new practice of sharing without expectation of reward.
3. For this, some will call us communist; but ‘communist’ is derogative only because of those who forced it on others. We force it on no one. We live it.
4. However they occur, these new mutations of the ideal of loving community shall be turned towards the elimination of poverty and of suffering, in scales small and thus ultimately large.
ARTICLE III.
1. We reject the identity the State supplies us.
2. We are indifferent to its workings and its trappings, neither fighting against them nor obliging ourselves to accept them – we are subservient but not obedient.
3. We do not see citizens and noncitizens; we see only men, women, and children. We do not see persons domestic and foreign; we see only friends, neighbors, and good Samaritans.
4. We flee the cult of the State, forging instead post-national communities bound by common humanity.
THE ANTI-BILL-OF-RIGHTS
We the Transarchists are not concerned with what our rights are. We are concerned only with love, for from love emerge bonds that render rights meaningless. To love is transarchy.
No war, no greed, no State-worship; only love.
