Of Anglicans and Anarchists

For some reason, it seems, a higher percentage of the blogs that I either read, have read, have been influenced more heavily by, or are more interesting that all the rest have been blogs by Anglicans and anarchists. And there certainly isn't any main connection between these two groups. The Anglican church is headed up by the Queen of England, a monarch, and this is contrary to the ideas of the anarchists.

Anglicans seem to be better educated than the rest of Christianity, so maybe this appeals to me. They think out their beliefs a bit better. Not that I agree with them, but they seem to do so with richer language and better use of metaphor.

Anarchists, on the other hand, seem the same with respect to education. In order to be an anarchist (in the strict definition of the term, that is, having no ruler) one needs to have a good understanding of the political and religious ideology of the state. Anarchy gets a very bad rap in my book because people somehow have been taught to believe that with no civil ruler to govern the minute details of everybody's life, that complete chaos would result.

Thus anarchy is associated with chaos (even in the dictionary definition). This in not close to being necessarily the case. I believe in anarchy because I believe in biblical Christianity. Self government (i.e self-control) is the fruit of the Spirit, and when we govern ourselves according to the Word of God, we don't need (state) government because there are no lawbreakers. Our last church picnic was a good example of true anarchy.

Then there are many good Anglicans out there, but I'll never be one.

Biblical Anarchy

Go to the ant, O sluggard, observe her ways and be wise, which, having no chief, officer or ruler, prepares her food in the summer, and gathers her provision in the harvest. Proverbs 6:6-8

Four things are small on the earth, but they are exceedingly wise:...The locusts have no king, yet all of them go out in ranks. Proverbs 30:24, 27

Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 2)

In Part 1, I made the statement that in terms of human government, I am an anarchist. But Jesus said in Matthew 28 that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him. So all authority in the earth among men is derivative from and delegated by Christ. So, overall, I'm not an anarchist, just relative to man. Overall, I'm a monarchist, but this term is used in a relative way, too. Christ is the Monarch. No man or men have claim, in part or in whole, to God's monarchy.

So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.

Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 1)

These are terms for sure to evoke strong emotions in debating the subject of politics. We all have views of these forms of "government", whether indoctrinated by our culture or reached by our own self-education. Dictionary definitions carry baggage not present in the basic meanings of each word.

The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule

Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.

But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.

In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.