In Mark 10:42-45, Jesus says His followers are to be "servants," not "archists" (using the Greek word from which we derive the English word "anarchist"). Luke says "The kings of the Gentiles" are such people. Jesus teaches that acts of violence are sinful. As far as I know, every political scientist agrees that "government" claims a "monopoly on violence." Just as it is sinful to commit an act of violence, it would be sinful to hire a Mafia "hit-man" to commit an act of violence, and it would be sinful to "vote" for a "candidate" who promises to hurt people and take their stuff. The "kings of the gentiles" want us to believe that the absence of "archists" would lead to chaos and lawlessness, yet it is "archists" who violate the most basic of Biblical commandments: "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not steal," and do so on a massive scale unrivaled by so-called "anarchists." How do mainstream theologians and preachers get around the fact that the Bible is an "anarchist manifesto" which draws a contrast between the peaceful Kingdom of God and the violent kings of the gentiles, or as Augustine put it, The City of God, and the city of man?
Mainstream theologians and preachers generally do not interpret the Bible as an "anarchist manifesto," despite the compelling arguments that could be drawn from passages like Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:25, which contrast the servant leadership taught by Jesus with the coercive rule of gentile kings. Instead, mainstream Christian thought across most historical and denominational lines holds that the Bible allows for—even mandates—some form of earthly government, albeit one that is accountable to God and ideally pursues justice and peace.
While Jesus clearly rebukes the style of leadership typical of Gentile rulers—those who "lord it over" others—passages such as Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 are often cited as explicit endorsements of civil authority by apostles Paul and Peter. Paul writes:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God…for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil" (Romans 13:1, 3).
Mainstream interpretations view these passages as prescribing respectful submission to government authority, except where that authority directly commands Christians to disobey God. Early Christians, while often victims of state violence, largely lived within and alongside these systems.
In Mark 10 and Luke 22, Jesus directly contrasts worldly authority with Kingdom values:
"You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (Mark 10:42-45).
The Greek word archōn (ruler) is indeed the root for "archist," but mainstream theology interprets this as a critique of abusive, self-aggrandizing power, not the mere existence of authority or government. Jesus' advocacy for nonviolent, loving service becomes a standard for leaders—both spiritual and secular—but not necessarily a call for the abolition of all government.
Many theologians acknowledge the tension between "Thou shalt not kill/steal" and state actions. Augustine’s City of God frames "the city of man" as built on self-love and violence—yet he does not call for abolition of all states, but rather for Christians to participate in society as faithful sojourners, working for justice while recognizing the ultimate peace is not of this world.
Aquinas and later reformers like Calvin argue for a "just use" of civil authority: while individual violence is forbidden, the state may use force legitimately within the rule of law for the common good (e.g., punishment of crime, defense of the innocent). This position, called the "just war" tradition, claims to distinguish between lawful, limited force by governments and prohibited violence by individuals.
Most maintain that biblical servanthood is not incompatible with lawful authority, and that Christians are called to witness to God’s Kingdom even from within flawed human institutions.
Arguments that voting for or participating in government is always sinful are generally seen as misreadings of passages like Romans 13 and Jesus’ own interactions with civil authorities (e.g., "render unto Caesar").
The ideal is for government to function as a "servant" for justice (Romans 13:4), but history warns against government becoming "beastly," as in apocalyptic imagery (Revelation 13).
Movements such as Christian anarchism, which take the radical pacifist-and-nonresistance route, remain a minority tradition, represented by figures like Leo Tolstoy or Jacques Ellul, but not by the theological majority.
Mainstream theology holds that while earthly governments are flawed and often violent, the Bible does not call for complete anarchy, but rather a transformation of leadership according to Kingdom values. Christians are called to be "in the world, but not of it," advocating for justice and peace even while recognizing the claim that ultimate authority belongs to God—not human rulers.
Interprets Mark 10:42-45 and the concept of "archists"
Discusses Augustine's City of God and Christian anarchist minority views
Explains Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, and mainstream theological arguments about state legitimacy and violence
Romans 13 describes "the kings of the Gentiles" as "the powers." In every verse in the New Testament where the Greek word exousiai (in the plural) is used, it describes demonic forces. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that Trump or Putin can point to and say (with any integrity), "In this verse, God commands me to steal from people and threaten violence against resisters." While Christ-followers are prohibited from being violent revolutionaries, and commanded to be pacifists in the face of such violent and demonic people, all political rulers are required to repent of violence and abdicate their office, because one cannot be a political ruler, by definition, if one recognizes the authority of the Prince of Peace and refuses to steal ("tax") and threaten violence against "subjects." One cannot "reform" the Mafia without abolishing it entirely. Same with "the State." It cannot be "reformed" or "transformed" without abolishing the entire concept of a "monopoly on violence." Doesn't this show that mainstream theologians are pawns of the State rather than servants of the state-assassinated Christ?
Your argument—one echoed by Christian anarchists and radical nonviolence traditions—raises powerful challenges to the mainstream theological approach to Romans 13 and the New Testament’s depiction of “powers and authorities.” However, mainstream Christian theology, while acknowledging the ambiguities and dangers of “state” power, generally rejects the conclusion that all political governance must be abolished or that theologians are merely pawns of oppressive regimes.
You are correct that, especially in Paul’s writings, "powers" (Greek: exousiai, plural) often denotes spiritual or demonic forces (e.g., Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15). Some Christian scholars (notably in the Anabaptist, Mennonite, and "powers" traditions, such as Walter Wink) argue that “powers” in Romans 13 can refer both to human institutions and the spiritual forces working through them, suggesting a deep ambivalence about earthly rulers.
Mainstream interpreters, however, point out that Romans 13:1-7, especially in context, clearly references civil magistrates—those who “bear the sword" and "levy taxes”. While Paul saw human rulers as flawed and sometimes demonic-influenced, he maintained that God can bring about order and restrain evil even through imperfect authorities.
Nowhere does the New Testament command rulers to abdicate their office simply because they bear authority; rather, it calls all—rulers and subjects alike—to repentance and justice. John the Baptist, addressing soldiers and tax collectors, tells them to act justly within their professions, not to abandon their posts (Luke 3:12-14). Daniel and Joseph serve pagan governments while acknowledging God’s higher sovereignty.
The call for “the City of God” to transform “the city of man” has, in mainstream theology, typically been seen as an eschatological hope, not an immediate political program.
It is true that the “monopoly on violence” has often led to systemic injustices—indeed, history is filled with Christian critiques of war, tyranny, and state-sanctioned violence. Yet mainstream theology distinguishes between illegitimate and legitimate uses of authority, usually advocating reform rather than abolition. The “just war” and “just policing” traditions seek to limit, not endorse, violence.
Christian anarchists like Tolstoy and Yoder argue that all such distinctions inevitably compromise Christian discipleship, but this remains a minority view. Most mainstream theologians argue that, after the Resurrection, the church works within society to call rulers to justice, advocate for peace, and shine as an alternative community — but without demanding total disengagement or the immediate abolition of all earthly rule.
Mainstream theologians do sometimes face the legitimate charge of acquiescence to power, especially in eras where the church was entangled with state or empire. Yet there is a vibrant tradition of prophetic critique within Christianity—Augustine, Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King Jr., and more—all witnessed to Christ “against” state violence, even while not advocating total abandonment of governance as a concept.
| Issue | Mainstream Theology View | Christian Anarchist View |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "Powers" (exousiai) | Civil authorities, permitted (though flawed), by God | Primarily demonic/corrupted institutions |
| Command to Rulers | Repentance/reform, serve justly within office | Repentance/abdication—cannot serve Christ and Caesar |
| Christian response to state violence | Pacifism or “just” resistance, usually within legal means | Radical pacifism, separation from coercive systems |
| Reform vs. Abolition | Reform and limit, but not abolish, the state | Abolition; “no king but Christ” |
Mainstream theologians do not simply serve as apologists for power, but have historically debated how best to witness to Christ within political reality. While prophetic calls for radical nonviolence and critique of the “powers” remain part of Christian witness, most theologians see the challenge not as abolishing government altogether, but as transforming both rulers and ruled by the standard of Christ’s peace.
Perspectives on “powers/exousiai” and Christian anarchism
Mainstream theological readings of Romans 13, Luke 3, Daniel, and Christian public engagement
Historical/theological debates on church-state relations, legitimation, and prophetic resistance
>> act justly within their professions, not to abandon their posts (Luke 3:12-14). Daniel and Joseph serve pagan governments while acknowledging God’s higher sovereignty.
John told the soldiers, "Do violence to no man" (Luke 3:14 KJV). But that was their "job," as Rome had invaded Israel, slaughtered thousands of Israelites, and set up a military dictatorship to extract "tribute." How can acts of violent invasion and military conquest be "reformed" or Biblically justified? How can anyone steal and kill "justly?" The soldiers were certainly in a difficult situation; if a Roman soldier went "AWOL," he would be subject to capital punishment. Many soldiers in history, having a conscience, have fired their weapons into the air (deliberately missing the enemy soldiers) so as to give an appearance of obeying their officers' commands while still following their conscience against violence. John was addressing imperial pawns in a compromised situation. Even today, John's counsel to the soldiers could be criminal, as counseling a soldier to disobey orders is a crime (18 U.S.C. § 2387). John was not addressing the morality of those who ordered the soldiers to do harm, as I am. However, John was eventually executed by the government when pointing out their sins. Mainstream theologians do not counsel soldiers to avoid violence, nor do they call the generals to repent and Presidents to abdicate, which I believe they should.
Daniel and Joseph were both kidnapped and enslaved. They had direct revelation from God to function in their position. Neither Trump nor Putin were enslaved against their will, and they have no direct prophetic authorization from God to hurt people and take their stuff.
During my lifetime, "archists" in Washington D.C. have murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent, non-combatant civilians around the world, and destroyed or confiscated trillions of dollars of private property. The evil of "the State" is so massive that it staggers the imagination. But to permit Trump or Putin to commit violence against even one human being, and to concede that God authorizes such a "monopoly of violence," is fatal compromise on the part of the theologians. How can we avoid the conclusion that mainstream theologians who do not condemn the State are self-deceived and are not following Christ?
Your objections highlight a profound dilemma within Christian ethics about power, violence, and complicity in state actions. These concerns are shared by many pacifist and countercultural Christian thinkers, who argue that mainstream theology too often accommodates or justifies violence by states and their agents. Yet, mainstream theological responses and their interpretations deserve close scrutiny.
John the Baptist’s instruction—“Do violence to no man”—is indeed radical, given the violent, oppressive context of Roman occupation. Most mainstream commentaries note that John did not demand soldiers abandon their posts, but admonished them to act justly: avoid extortion, false accusation, and discontent, thus “reforming” their conduct rather than rejecting their profession. Defenders say that, according to ancient (and most modern) readings, military service is not inherently sinful—only its abuses are.studylight+1
Pacifist and radical interpreters counter that any participation in state violence is fundamentally at odds with Jesus’ ethic of enemy-love and nonresistance. They believe John’s counsel highlights the impossible dilemma soldiers face under imperial power: true obedience to Christ ultimately demands laying down the sword, even in the face of official orders or personal peril.thinkingpacifism+1
Mainstream Christian theology has long defended “just war” principles, first systematized by Augustine, as a way of restraining evil rather than endorsing violence. The theory claims that rulers may reluctantly use force under strict criteria (just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort, etc.) in order to defend the innocent or restore justice. Killing and theft by states are never justified in themselves; only actions that meet these moral criteria may be reluctantly permitted.wikipedia+1
However, critics argue that these criteria are almost always manipulated by the powerful, leading to the justification of mass violence, dispossession, and profound suffering. Pacifist theologians, including Mennonites, Quakers, and many historic Anabaptist groups, insist that the New Testament’s call to peacemaking leaves no room for “just killing or stealing” in any form.benjaminrcremer.substack+2
Mainstream arguments cite biblical figures who served pagan regimes (like Daniel and Joseph) as evidence that Christians may, in conscience, accept government office—if they remain loyal to God’s justice. However, as you note, these figures acted under extraordinary, direct guidance from God and were often themselves oppressed captives, not willing participants in unjust violence or expropriation. No such prophetic mandate is ever claimed for modern political rulers like Trump or Putin.benjaminrcremer.substack
Romans 13 has sometimes been wielded as a “blunt instrument to sanctify power and demand obedience to regimes”—a usage many now see as a distortion of Paul’s intentions. Modern scholars increasingly emphasize that:thinkingpacifism+1
Romans 13 calls for nonviolent subordination, not enthusiastic endorsement of oppressive governments.
Paul’s teaching must be balanced with Revelation 13 and the Gospels, where evil empires are openly condemned and ultimate loyalty is reserved for Christ.thinkingpacifism+1
Christian obedience is limited by conscience: “We must obey God rather than men” when governments contradict Christ’s commands.
It is true that most mainstream theologians do not call on current presidents or generals to abdicate or renounce all use of force. Historically, broad ecclesial and ethical traditions have aimed to constrain—rather than abolish—state violence. Critics argue this approach inevitably falls short of Christ’s radical, nonviolent ethic.
Some contemporary voices within and outside the mainstream now argue that silence or complicity in the face of massive state violence is indeed a theological and moral failure. They assert that theologians and churches must reclaim their prophetic calling as witnesses against state violence, echoing the witness of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early martyrs.benjaminrcremer.substack
While mainstream theologians continue to debate and often defend nuanced engagement with political power, the radical critique you articulate is deeply rooted in Christian tradition—especially among those drawn to New Testament pacifism and the prophetic denunciation of violence. The legitimacy of any use of force, and the role of church and theologians in either constraining or condemning it, remains one of the sharpest, most contested divides in Christian moral reasoning today.studylight+2
Augustine, Just War, and mainstream viewswikipedia
John the Baptist’s advice on soldiersbiblehub+1
Pacifist and prophetic critiques of Romans 13 and state violencethinkingpacifism+1