Ask the Anarchist Reverend is a weekly feature here on the site. If you have a question you’d like to ask, you can send me an email (anarchistreverend at gmail), find me on twitter, or submit your question using formspring.
Today’s question: Can you be an anarchist Roman Catholic/Orthodox, or do anarchist politics relate strictly to non-hierarchical Protestantism? 
Couple of caveats before we start: I am not (nor have I ever been) either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. So I answer with only a limited knowledge of how those structures work. I am, however, Old Catholic and so I know a little bit about the polity and structure.
In my mind there are a couple of levels to this question: can one be a Christian anarchist and a lay person in a hierarchical movement? And, can one be ordained in these organizations as a Christian anarchist?
I would say a tentative yes to both of those questions, although I think being ordained is a bit trickier.
The key thing about Christian anarchy, for me, is that one obeys and listens to the law of God and follows the way of Jesus over all others. So long as the instructions a person gets don’t go against the law of God, I don’t see much of an issue with being in a hierarchical structure, so long as that structure isn’t oppressive. I think one could make the case that the Roman Catholic church has become oppressive. There is, in my mind, also an issue with how money is spent. With the amount of money the Roman Catholic church (in the United States at least) is using to pay out money for sexual abuse cases (in order to keep them out of court often) and pouring into anti-gay marriage amendments there is a real problem.
As a lay person in the church I think you have to weigh what will be required of you by joining a church like the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox church. Do they require you to go against your conscience in order to keep the party line? Do they silence you? Do they prohibit you from leading in the way in which you are called? Does the way they operate/use money/preach go against the law of God?
One of the things I was concerned about in joining the North American Old Catholic church was the hierarchy. But the thing with the NAOCC is that there isn’t the massive amount of money, nor are there oppressive power structures. In my vows of obedience, I vowed obedience first to God and then to the Bishop. If I ever feel that I am being told by my Bishop something that contradicts God I will not hesitate to refuse to obey, and if need be, to leave the NAOCC.
With any structure we have to ask, what purpose does this serve? Is this being used to silence voices or to make sure voices get heard? Is this structure to make sure things get accomplished in a timely manner or to push through the leader’s own agenda? I think that structures can be good and useful. One can be a leader without being a tyrant. The struggle is that often when one becomes a leader the power goes to their head. That’s the real problem with hierarchy: human selfishness and lust for power.
I am hopeful that the NAOCC will avoid those traps; that we can keep one another humble and that our structure will lead not to oppression but to division of labor as best suits our talents and callings.
Religious Anarchy only comes at a price. Not everyone is willing to pay it. Jesus was crucified. James was beheaded. John the B was beheaded. Peter was crucified. Paul beheaded. According to tradition Isaiah was stuffed in a hollow log and sawed in half. Look what Pope Benedict is doing with the current nuns who are wanting some recognition in a Male run church. Most ordinations are based on obedience to the Bishop, not the Bible. The church is seen as the only gateway to heaven with the priest as the mediator with “Peter” at the gate, otherwise one goes to hell to burn “forever” (“forever” for millions of years is not a Biblical doctrine). So to leave the church or to irritate one’s priest can set one up, according to Church Doctrine, for going to hell. Gallileo was under house arrest for years for inviting his friends to look in his spyglass at the planets. It costs to tell the truth. It costs to encourage people to bring justice to a community. How many Southern Christians killed and mistreated black neighbors during the 40′s, 50′s, 60s? Never felt their actions were wrong, never asked for forgiveness? Yes, it is dangerous to preach the Bible.
Are you familiar with William Cavanaugh? I’m not sure whether or not he would self-identify as an anarchist, but JesusRadicals feels comfortable enough placing him in their ‘theology’ section, so I assume he’s fairly close in principle. I wonder how he approaches this question, as a confessional Roman Catholic. I’m not aware of anywhere that he addresses the issue directly, and was wondering if you might be. At any rate, I imagine that your tentative ‘yes’ to both questions is accurate, especially in light of people like Dorothy Day, who remained a Catholic her entire life. Also, if one understands fidelity to a religious tradition as a mooring of oneself to a tradition and context, then it would seem very much acceptable to be a Catholic and a Christian Anarchist, because the tradition will always need voices to challenge it from within, and one’s fidelity to Catholicism would not be necessarily contingent upon agreement with doctrine or hierarchy. This would, of course, create a good amount of tension for the anarchist, but no more than, perhaps, it would for an American who is anti-imperialist. Because ‘American’ means more than ‘slave to America’s policies,’ just as ‘Catholic’ means more than ‘slave to Catholic doctrine.’
I am not familiar with Cavanaugh. I’ll have to check him out! Thanks for the recommendation! And yes, I totally agree that tension from within the tradition is always necessary. (And that we are always living in tension within structures that aren’t anarchist.)
I think this captures it nicely. Catholics in the CW movement have traditionally experienced tension with the institution. I think that’s a good sign. I also follow this blog: http://www.catholicanarchy.org
I think there’s a definition floating around there somewhere. Peace.
I hadnt thought of it much until reading this post. Mostly cause I dont then to care much about challenging things unless I see tangible problems. In this case I would say that I dont have anything to challenging you personally on in terms of the way you actually treat people, but in engaging your thinking I dont think I could feel comfortable embracing those kinds of structures. I dont think I would ever be comfortable making a particular vow of obiedience to someone even if we still put “God first.” The issue for most Christians isnt where they place God in their heirarchies but where they place of humans. I believe Jesus is calling us to somethinig different when he tells us not to lord it over each other and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church means that we are seeking the voice of God in all situations and assuiming that that voice can be heard anywhere. There should be no need to make a partciular vow to listen to a particular voice over other voices. Vows in general seem to go against the Christian witness, but more than anything a vow to be obidient to a particular person over others goes against our witness of obidience to the voice of God and the abolishment of gatekeepers to hearing that voice. It implies that a position or particular characeristics priviileges a persons perspective. I understand that Day and Maurin were Catholics. When reading their perspective on this I also thought they missed the point a little. Of course it doesnt stop people from living amazing lives in obidience to God… but I dont think there is much inspiring about these kinds of structures and I couldn’t in good conscience make a vow of obeidience to anyone. I do believe ackowledging and submit to particular people who show wisdom is healthy. but that must be fluid. We must at the same time be aware of and humbly acknowledfing God’s ablitity to speak elsewhere. A vow creates a structure that implies that a particular person has more of a right to demand obidience than others. But isnt demanding obedience much like lording it over another? Some can be a good lord by not truly treating others badly, but the system itself does not witness to the gospel of Jesus. I just would like to see Christians choose to consistantly, in all their forms, proclaim that Gospel rather than maintain structures that imply something very different.
Huh. I totally get what you are saying here. I guess I don’t think of my vow of obedience as meaning that I listen to the BIshop MORE than I listen to other people. Maybe this is just my own understanding, but I see it more as being willing to work within this structure because I believe it can do good things. If I ever feel that the structure is getting in the way I’ll leave it. I don’t think the NAOCC, the Catholics, anyone really has a lock on truth, God’s voice, or the way to do things. This is just where I see myself being able to fit in and make a difference at this point.
And I think you are right in that this wouldn’t be something that everyone could do in good conscience. I honestly don’t have a problem with it, right now. It doesn’t chafe on me, it doesn’t make me feel like I am straining under something oppressive. Maybe these feels like mental gymnastics to others, but just sharing where I am at at the moment.
I appreciate the pushback, though. I think it’s good to be thinking and talking about these things, to be challenging my own thinking and understanding and trying to live more justly in the world.