However, while I am with you in actively working against this Militarized American Christianity I can’t stomach the way you word things: “Now, this is not new. I have known that they were doing this for a long time, but this example proved to be the ideal opportunity to bring up the issue.”

Your use of “they” repeatedly seems disturbing, as if you’re seperated from this. You are not. We are all part of this culture. Some of “them,” like myself less than a decade ago, shared this militarized christian theology/culture. I wasn’t any different. Not any. I’ve been there. But I reached a point where I had to leave it. It became apparent to me, through sites like Strike-The-Root, that Christianity and the State could be at odds and often were. Also, instead of offering alternatives you’re passing blame. You’re creating “the other” this site seems to love to talk about.

Secondly, once again this site fails to offer an alternative or provide a clear, concise, Biblical answer. I know reading the Bible isn’t something this site readily endorses but if you’re going to make a case to evangelicals then it needs to start there. The whole piece reads like, once again, whiney liberals not offering a viable alternative. Not making a case why it should be any different. Not using the Bible as a basis for the argument. And because of that, it suffers. It will never reach anyone who disagrees with you.

How about, “as you read memes of soldiers holding guns with the caption ‘that he should lay down his life for his friend’ think about that they didn’t go to die, but to kill.” That the state is not an agent of the church and rarely has been, even if the state is sponsored by the church. The state seeks its own self interest, not the interest of Jesus. And think, while tens of thousands of evangelical young men will go into the military to defend the state and its interests, how many will go into mission field to risk life and limb to save one soul for the eternal kingdom? And while thousands will be trained on military barracks to unquestioningly obey military superiors, how many will be trained in the halls of seminaries to wield THE sword, the Bible, to fight against Satan on this Earthly plane? While our military spends billions to find new and more interesting ways to kill, how many billions will the church spend to feed the homeless, comfort the ill, and entertain the lonely? Quite simply, we must ask ourselves as devoted followers of Christ “Is our country’s interest the church’s and, if not, is it worth the vast amount of manpower and resources we pour into it instead of ourselves?” The New Testament, including the letters of Paul, focus on building a strong community of believers not focused on worldly ambition like fame, money, sex, and ‘honor’ but on a church devoted to one heavenly King, devoted to winning souls, bringing up disciples, and caring for those around us. In what ways does the military accomplish any of that? Does the military have a written policy of doing any of those things? And, if not, what are the goals of the military and how do they line up with the church?

Criticizing places blame. Questions require self reflection. Do you think the best arguments are made with criticizing or questions?

‘”Eighthly, If the Turks should come, we ought not to resist them; for it is written: Thou shalt not kill. We must not defend ourselves against the Turks and others of our persecutors, but are to beseech God with earnest prayer to repel and resist them. But that I said, that if warring were right, I would rather take the field against the so-called Christians, who persecute, apprehend and kill pious Christians, than against the Turks, was for this reason: The Turk is a true Turk, knows nothing of the Christian faith; and is a Turk after the flesh; but you, who would be Christians, and who make your boast of Christ, persecute the pious witnesses of Christ, and are Turks after the spirit.” ‘

http://www.anabaptists.org/history/michael-sattler.html

I’ll try to dig up a better essay on his flavor of anarchism later today.

Thanks for your response and questions. I just corrected the post to make it more clear that it was written by Jason Lacoss-Arnold who I invited to share his story here. Hopefully he can answer your questions…

I am curious about which Christian anarchists you found in the history of the Church of Christ.

Thanks for sharing your story. It’s good to know that there are others that share a similar pathway that I do and that gives me hope for finding a place where I can find like-minded folk to journey with.

Thanks for your observation. It’s helpful for me.

I’m not a theologian or historian, but my sense is that there are lots of Christians out there who are drawn to Anabaptism precisely because it allows for a critique of theological liberalism.

In the conversations on this blog terms like “liberal” and “conservative” get thrown around very imprecisely and so it’s easy to forget that the most prominent living Anabaptist theologian in the United States today, Stanley Hauerwas offers a very strong critique of liberalism:

My problem with liberal political arrangements is not that they are liberal, but rather that Christians confuse such arrangements with Christianity. Wells notes that not all of my criticisms of liberal social and political practices depend on specific theological claims. That is true, but when I develop criticisms of liberalism using what I have learned from non-theological sources (Wolin, Coles, Connoly) I do so because I think liberalism is not only bad for Christians but also for liberals. It is so because the self that is formed by liberal practice lacks the substance to be virtuously habituated to acknowledge our character as ‘dependent rational animals’ [MacIntyre].” (p. 148-9)

From Hauerwas’s Problem with Liberalism

Interesting that Kierkegaard and some of his “unorthodox” followers reacted against theological liberalism; they just were not conservative usamerican evangelicals

It is not a religious issue, or a institutional one. It is not a problem based on policy in the United States. For instance, in the Stuebenville case, policies existed to expose the problem and seek justice (whether those policies were followed is another matter.) Culturally speaking, sexual violence is something that we are opposed to and very vocal about. We have a TV show dedicated to it (Law and Order: SVU). College campuses speak about it. As a culture, compared to others in the world, sexual violence is spoken about and it is never justified here.

However, with the amount of sexual violence that continues it is clear that our message and policies have failings. And that is a cultural issue, some deep seeded value within our society that those who commit sexual crimes justify it at the time (though they may regret it later). So where does that value come from?

We can point to women’s magazines or pornography, or to the way women dress or behave. We can point to alcohol or hook up culture. When someone says “Well, women shouldn’t dress provocatively if they don’t want to be raped.” I think we misconstrue that statement as blaming the victim. In reality, that person is trying to point to cultural values they don’t have a firm grasp on. They’re saying: “Women should protect themselves. Not send overly flirtatious messages. Not go alone with men they barely know.” When I leave my car, I lock it. I store my laptop in my trunk out of sight. Good advice isn’t always blaming the victim, sometimes it’s just good advice.

If we examine our culture and the values that hold it up, what do we see? What are the values that our society holds most dear? You find those, seek those, and you’ll have your answers.