Further clarification on “Christian Anarchism”…

There’s been a great deal of controversy (a lot of it manufactured by Christian fanatics) around my entry on the oxymoron of “Christian Anarchism.” My basic position is that Christianity and Anarchism are ideologies based on opposite premises. Anarchism is based on the concept that hierarchies are undesirable and unjustifiable, while Christianity sets God up as the supreme authority on morality and ethics. Anarchism is based on personal responsibility, while Christianity is based on the deliberate obliteration of responsibility.

The only sort of answer I’ve gotten by Christians and Christian sympathizers revolves around my definition of a Christian as being someone who believes in Jesus as his saviour, as revealed by the Bible. People have objected to this definition, saying that I am trying to define Christianity for them. They have claimed that their personal beliefs have nothing to do with this, and yet still call themselves Christians.

I must admit that I have little patience for such nitpicking. As far as I know, this definition of “Christianity” I have used is the most widely accepted. But even if this remain under contention, I am fine with using the terms Ethical Christian and CINO (Christian In Name Only). Someone who does not express his Christian belief into any actions whatsoever, I think, rightly deserves to be called CINO, since there is no discernable difference for us between someone who believes but doesn’t act on it and someone who does not believe.

Now, I want to make clear that my use of the term CINO is most definitely not an attack; in fact, I am entirely in favour of people who may have some Christian beliefs but live as if they were atheists. I have no qualms about them calling themselves Christians if they want. I have no qualms about them calling themselves Anarchists either. It’s the Ethical Christians I am arguing against.

If you accept the fundamental premise of Christianity, then you cannot be an Anarchist. I think I’ve proven that well enough. But for those people who do not accept it and yet call themselves Christians, I say to you that you are a CINO, and that I like you very much. Keep acting like an atheist and we’ll get along just fine.

But to those of you who are engaged in spiritual warfare against the world, and whose most ardent desire is to make every knee bend, know that you are not our friends, but our enemies. I will kill you before I bend the knee to any power but myself. That’s a promise.

7 thoughts on “Further clarification on “Christian Anarchism”…

  1. Aaron Kinney May 3, 2011 at 19:12

    Which would you say is the greater scourge of society: god or the state?

    • Francois Tremblay May 3, 2011 at 19:19

      Well, God doesn’t exist, so definitely the State.

  2. […] UPDATE: Also see my follow-up to this entry, Further clarification on “Christian Anarchism”… […]

  3. […] fundamentally incompatible with Anarchism, which seeks the end of hierarchies. I’ve already written a clarification of what I said, but I wanted to address the comments as […]

  4. The Impossible Anarchist | Brainbiter January 19, 2015 at 20:36

    […] further clarifies the point here and […]

  5. Pádraig April 18, 2015 at 16:12

    Nah, that’s a load of bollocks mate. You claim that a Christian anarchist (I’m slighting paraphrasing here as it is late and I’ve been working), is an oxymoron, that they are a willing slave but you’re just as controlled by your own interpretation of anarchism to the point that no deviation can exist for you….almost Leninist in many ways. You reject a persons religious anarchism regardless of how it leads them in live and demand that they conform to your views.

    I mean….its one of the stumbling blocks of anarchism that neither Proudhon and Bakunin…you cannot stand for the betterment of human beings and then the next tell huge swaths that their religious beliefs prevent them from taking part because YOU (lets get the point of the matter, its always due to individual, not collective nor communal) believe it oppresses them.

    Lets be honest, its only because Bakunin was so anti-religious that many follow him but fuck him. He was idiot and antisemite who gets far more credit that he was due and his ideas on collectivism would have lead to wage slavery while many “anarchist” ignore the writings of Kropotkin, a much better human.

    Like I said….load of bollocks. Like others, in your rush to condemn religion, you have turned anarchism into one as a replacement.

    Also, finial point, groups like the CWM, they might not be many and they might not be large but they get more down in a week that the SF or AF does.

    • Francois Tremblay April 18, 2015 at 16:21

      You’re the one spouting a bunch of bollocks. Talk about wasting a lot of space to say absolutely fucking nothing. I would be ashamed to put out such a stupid diatribe. Did you have any sort of argument or even a point in this mass of blabbering? You’re trying to weasel out of the fact that your beliefs are ridiculous by basically saying that your opponents are just being too logical. LOL! Typical Christian deceit. You people talk and talk and talk endlessly to say fuck all, and then you crow that you’ve won.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: