Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today's episode is an interview with doctor Alexander Christoianopoulos, who wrote a book entitled Christian Anarchism, Political Commentary on the Gospel. Now, this episode was actually recorded like a year ago ish, and I want to thank Rebecca Mui for the opportunity and the audio to be able to do this because she had set it up and invited me. And I was so excited because this book was on my list to read for such a long time. And I finally read it and was able to talk with the guy who wrote it.

And that was amazing. So I loved it. So she's given me this audio to be able to to release through this show, which was originally released on the Kingdom Podcast, Kingdom outpo outpost network. So this is going to be slightly different because I'm going to be able to preface this here. It's not just going to

be

a just the interview. I'm going to give you a little bit of background and maybe some thoughts before getting into the the actual interview. So the first thing that I want to talk about is the book, which you if you've made it this far in the season, you're obviously interested in the topic, and you should definitely go and read this book. It's it's a great book which surveys Christian anarchism, and it provides a framework of anarchist thoughts and rebuttals from, you know, the past couple hundred years or so. And it is a survey, so it's not going to get super deep into the weeds, but it is a very valuable jumping off point.

And I feel like I'm at the point where I've more than just jumped off. Like, I'm I'm into the weeds a little bit, and it was still very helpful for me because there's so many many resources to pursue based on, you know, if somebody's ideas stick out to you or some of their arguments stick out to you. There are lots of resources that you can hunt down through this book to be able to read more. So definitely start with reading this book. Second thing I want to kind of point out, which I think we talked about it pretty early in the episode, but I mentioned in my introduction that nonviolence is what led me to Christian anarchism.

And Doctor. Christo Janopoulos says essentially the same thing, that it was he's more interested in the nonviolent aspect, but that kind of pushed him into to discussing Christian anarchism. And I've heard this from a number of other people, but it just it makes sense, right? If you're nonviolent, how can you prop up a system which monopolizes violence? It just seems like it doesn't fit.

And so that was super fascinating to me. The third thing I want to say, which is which is going to be bit of a longer discussion here before we get to the interview, is that it's fascinating to me that the nonviolent position and the Christian anarchist position, they contain a lot of adherents who don't necessarily consider themselves conventional Christians and might even doubt whether they'd be considered Christians at all. Now, Tolstoy is a great example of this, which kind of surprised me when I was reading him because he seems super religious. And then you find out that, you know, he doesn't believe in miracles and maybe doesn't believe in the resurrection. And it's like, how is that a Christian?

Like, that that doesn't make sense. And then you start to guess, second guess yourself, like, well, if these are the kinds of people who believe in in, nonviolence or Christian anarchism, like, does that mean that the two go hand in hand? Does that mean that I can't be both? And it's it's very disconcerting, at least it was was for me, to try to try to work through this. And, Alex, which he said we can call him because so we don't keep butchering his name, because I have to I have to really focus every time I'm gonna do it.

And I still I still don't know if I'm right. It's like when I was teaching Mexico City, we there were actually a lot of a large Korean population there, and so they were trying to teach me some Korean words, and every time I'd say the word, it would sound exactly like what they said, but they let they just laughed at me because I didn't say it right. And so I'm sure that's what I'm doing right here with his name. I'm sure it sounds like I'm saying it right in my head, but I'm not. So we're gonna go with Alex here and and go with what he gave us permission to do.

So Alex explicitly says that he doesn't know if he'd consider himself a Christian. That's a little unsettling, at least it is to me, when you're reading a book called Christian Anarchism. Right? For those who grew up in in a conservative area, conservative religion like I did, or or who are still in it like I am, this is extremely difficult to grasp. Now, I've long held this idea that there is a fine line with with, Christianity in particular, and you're either in or you're out.

Like, you don't you don't get to straddle that line. And this comes up a little bit. Rebecca gets to talk about this, in the episode when we're talking about patriotism, and she brings up the idea of othering, you know, this idea of an in group and an out group and the violence that this can lead to. But what I I really want to end this preface to the interview with is a question that I was able to ask Doctor. Alex at the end after the recording had stopped because I think that that this question gets to the heart of what I seek in in this podcast.

So Doctor. Alex's book mentions over and over again that many Christian anarchists are rationalistic and don't believe in miracles. While even the more conventional Christian anarchists in the bunch who do believe in miracles, they don't really spend a lot of time at all emphasizing the resurrection like most Christian groups do today. I mean, resurrection is huge. That's Easter.

Right? I mean, it's it's huge. Yet the Christian anarchist community doesn't emphasize it at all. And so I asked Doctor. Alex a question in light of this.

And I said, If the Resurrection isn't in view for many Christian anarchists, then what's the point of Christian anarchism? Wouldn't Christian anarchism then boil down to moral democracy? I mean, if there's no moral standard, no moral absolute, no essence in which we are purposed to be conformed to, then what is morality but acknowledging the functionality of particular actions and then acting in accord with those actions that do the greatest good for the greatest number? Of course, there are many systems of morality purposed by others, which Doctor. Alex brought up in our conversation.

Don't want to try to give his explanation because I'm afraid that I would misrepresent what he said. So I'm just going to kind of give this one-sided presentation here. Can hopefully, Doctor. Alex and I can talk again in the future and maybe wrestle with this and some of the other questions that I didn't get to ask him because it's such a short time and have so many. But anyway, I'm just going to kind of give you this one-sided view.

You know, there are a lot of systems of morality that are proposed by other people. Utilitarianism or consequentialism, virtue ethics, or, I mean, other sorts of systems that you can conceive of. But none of those systems cut it for me. Know, altruism is is doing good for someone else because it's good for them. But if I have one of these other ethics, if I, let's say, take a utilitarian ethic, then what does altruism become?

It becomes its own antithesis. Right? It becomes antithetical to what we understand it to be. Altruism on a utilitarian moral ethic becomes doing something good not for someone else because it's good for them, but doing good for someone else because it's good for me. And I brought up the the Christopher Hitchens debate, Hitchens versus Hitchens, his brother, back in the early two thousands.

And in there, there's this this section where he's brutally honest, and he says, look, the reason I I wanna fight AIDS isn't because I really ultimately care about somebody who has AIDS. He's like, I don't want them bleeding and dying on my doorstep. I don't wanna get AIDS. That's essentially what he says, like, and then he goes into the Whigs and the Tories and why they started to install baths into apartments and stuff like that. Right?

And it wasn't for the good of the other. It was for the good of themselves. And so on on a utilitarian system or or some of these other systems, altruism becomes doing something good for someone else because it's good for me. But how is that altruism? It's not.

It's egoism. It's selfishness. It's square circle. A married bachelor. It reminds me a lot of of Euthyphro's dilemma.

You know, Euthyphro's dilemma is is this thing that says, hey, look, good is isn't really this thing that you think it is. It it doesn't really exist like you think it does. Because is good good because God says it's good, so He just decrees it. Well, then it's arbitrary. He can just decree whatever He wants to decree.

Or does God command good because it's good? Is there something outside of God that God's like, yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna say that I'm gonna adhere to this. And the Christian solution to this is to to say, Well, that's a false dilemma. Neither of those is is true.

It's somewhere in the middle. Right? Something is good because the essence of God and the essence of good are one in the same. God doesn't arbitrarily decree good. God is good, and therefore, what he does aligns with who he is and flows forth from that.

Good and God are are one in the same. So if that solution is right, I don't do good because it gets me something, and good isn't arbitrary. It's neither of those things. So let's kind of try to try to tie this back in. Just stick with me for a minute, and and I think you'll you'll get it at the end where I'm trying to get get us to here.

So in my view, Christian anarchism hinges on the resurrection. Everything that I argue in this podcast hinges on the resurrection. One day, we will be glorified, or as the Eastern Orthodox believe, they they call this term glorification, they call it theosis, which I think is a much prettier term, or deification. I like theosis, though. Sounds cooler.

Now, as the Orthodox have a more robust explanation of theosis, I'm gonna go with with kind of some of their nuances. All Christians believe that one day we will be like God. We will be joined with God, whether that's glorification or you call it theosis or whatever. And it's not pantheism or anything like that. We're not saying we will be the essence of God.

The way that the Orthodox explain this is that they say, we're not gonna be God in our essence, but we will be adjoined to Him in our energies. And what are energies? I don't know. I don't know that the Orthodox know either. But they have to distinguish it in some way, just like veneration and worship.

But God, who is good in His essence, will one day, through theosis, a theosis which is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ, God will cause us to join with Him in our energies. We who are immutably and accidentally good will be joined to the one who is immutably and essentially good. And in this theosis, we will be with God and like God, and we will be with goodness and good for all eternity. Now what does this have to do with with Christian anarchism? Well, it means that the morality it espouses must be tied to the resurrection.

We don't join ourselves to the state because they do violence, and that's antithetical to the essence, to the character of God, and to the essence and character of goodness. We do the good no matter what, not because it works or because it benefits us, though we believe that it does tend to work and it does benefit us. But we do it because we were purposed to be in relationship with God and to have our essences in harmony and community with Him. Whereas sin and evil are negations of the good and of communing, to do good is to fulfill who we were made to be. Adam and Eve lost relationship with each other.

They lost relationship with nature, and they lost relationship with God in the garden when they sinned because that's what sin does. And doing good is that which chooses not to sacrifice but to pursue those relationships, to restore those relationships. Trinitarian communal resurrection theology is vital to any action or system that we pursue. I understand that in this short little bit, that's a lot to chew on, and it might not be a super compelling case. But when you think about the alternatives of morality, what's the alternatives to God and goodness as the essence and the definition of what were to be this absolute?

What's the alternative? Is it arbitrary? Or is it really redefining definitions, turning altruism into egoism? I think this I mean, I don't know what to call it, but essence or theosis, philosophy, morality, I think that makes the most sense of all of this. It keeps good as being good and that goodness grounded in an immutable God, and our pursuit of that goodness as pursuing the purpose for which we were created to be, and not just so that we have it better, a better life than somebody else, but so that we can be in true harmony and true relationship with God, yes, but also with all of creation and all of humanity.

Doing good is being in right relationship with all things. Because in Him, we're all things made and are all things sustained. To do good is to go with the grain of the universe, to be connected to God. And the good news of the kingdom of God is that Jesus Christ reigns and is inviting us all into that kingdom. And as we live in that kingdom, we share that vision and share that truth with everybody else and welcome them into harmony.

That's a short space to talk about such deep stuff. I'll put a few links in the show notes, which I think might help in some ways. But I I have a feeling that there will be some more conversations about that or monologues, I guess, because that's what a podcast is for me. So we'll see. So anyway, without further ado, after that long introduction, here is the interview with Doctor.

Alex, and I'll try it one more time here. Christa Yiannopoulos.

Hi, everyone. Welcome to another episode of the Kingdom Outpost Girls of Script. Today, we are joined by a guest, doctor Alexandra Christoannopoulos, who wrote the book, Christian Anarchism, Political Commentary on the Gospels. Is that right? Yep.

And also Derek from The Forth Wee. Alright.

Yeah. I I'm Derek Rider, like Rebecca said, from from The Fourth Way podcast, which I started because I was just trying to to kind of get my thoughts out on on nonviolence and kind of organize them and and put them in place so I could go back when I needed to refresh my my memory. And I found myself, as I as I went through pacifism, that, it inevitably led me towards the ideas of of Christian anarchism. The two seemed kind of intertwined and inevitable. So, I was really excited when Rebecca asked me to to come on today for this interview.

I'm looking forward to it.

Great. And, Alex, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure. So I'm Alex Christoianopoulos. I don't know what you want me to say at this stage. I'm a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at Loughborough University. That's the other thing people aren't sure how to pronounce, Loughborough, here in The UK.

And, yeah, I I did write that book, which was the outcome of the PhD several years ago. But and and I I think bouncing off what Derek just said, I'm more and more interested in questions of sort of nonviolence and pacifism, but not necessarily rooted in religion. So these days, I do a lot of research around pacifism and nonviolence. I'm launching a journal on that, which is very much open to sort of contributions that are embedded in religious studies, theology and whatnot, but not necessarily either. But we might come to to do this in a minute.

Cool. And you have a recent book about Tolstoy's?

Yes. That's the other sorry, I've got it here. That's the other thing that took a while to produce. When I started my research on what would become the PhD on Christian Anarchism, actually I aimed first to do something on Tolstoy and Tolstoy's political thought. Now for a range of reasons, the PhD moved away from that and towards kind of a study of Christian anarchism more generally, although it's really more an exegesis of Christian anarchism or even not even that.

It's kind of bringing together the bits of exegesis of Christian anarchism that lots of different people have written and trying to present them as coherent a whole as I could. But sorry, I'm getting fired up now. But at the time, I was particularly interested in Tolstoy and after the PhD, it took me too long because of all sorts of reasons, but I finally did return to the material I had started on and and and eventually wrote the book on Tolstoy's political thought because there had been there is still no well, no book that addresses it the way I wanted to anyway in English. And so, yes, maybe to prefigure a question you might ask me, I don't know because I tend to be asked that, but it's kind of through Tolstoy that I got to Christian anarchism and therefore or not I don't know about therefore, but after the Christian anarchism material, I've returned to Tolstoy at least for a bit. But yes.

Yes. The I particularly appreciated the book on Christian Anarchism because it was a synthesis. Like, you have Tolstoy, you have Allul, Jacques, Allul. And then, you you know, you have these bits and pieces, but no one had yet before that, I think, actually created a a coherent sort of synthesis of Christian anarchism as an idea across these various authors.

I mean, that was my impression. Yes. I guess, I don't know if it's to come clean, but to confess, I mean, you know, I'm not someone who had much of a religious education to begin with prior to the PhD. I got interested in religion and politics for a range of reasons when I did. And coming at it as someone who already was interested in questions of nonviolence and pacifism, I got intrigued.

I mean, there's a there's a sort of anecdotal story to it, but I'll skip those details. But I guess basically got intrigued by the idea that Jesus could be treated as a political theorist or as a political philosopher or something like that. And and when when I was quoted, you know, passages of the gospel, most of which I had heard, but I wasn't particularly, you know, versed in it at at the time, I thought, okay. This is really interesting because if it if it is political, then it's rather pacifist. And if you take it to what would seem to be its coherent logic all the way, not to the extreme, but to to to the conclusion of it, then you'd probably reach an anarchist conclusion to the extent that the state is a violent actor and so on.

And that's around then. I don't know exact I can't remember exactly when Tolstoy was mentioned to me or if I at at point that ingredient came in. But that's when I stumbled on who, of course, is someone who does exactly that. He, you know, argues on some sort of, okay, awkward Christian foundation that Christianity amounts to or should amount to pacifism or or or rejection of violence, and on that basis, also rejection of the state. But Tolstoy is also frustrating because there are a few issues which he kind of ignores, which if you want to be consistent, you ought to at least address.

So Romans 13, you know, render unto Caesar, several other things he just isn't very good at. He tends to ignore or dismiss a bit too quickly. And, of course, he has this very rationalistic understanding of Christianity, which most Christians don't necessarily relate to. So he's he's almost kind of a hindrance to his own message to for some audiences anyway. And at that point, I I realized there were many more.

There's Elul, Ehler, and Dave Andrews, the Catholic Workers, and and plenty more. And reading them in closer detail, I realized actually these voices complement each other quite well because where one is stronger, but but but but weaker on other things, another might be stronger on those weaker sides. And so the PhD became, I think as I put it in there, kind of weaving together the loose threads of Christian anarchist exegesis. And I should have stressed that it's really, I think, largely an exegetical endeavor in in the book. Together to present as coherent as possible an exegesis of of of Christian anarchism, basically.

So, yes, Tolstoy is really I mean, he writes really well. He's really exciting little exciting is the wrong word. Interesting and and provocative, and I think he moves you in a number of ways. But he's also got his problems, and I think these other voices help complement the Christian anarchist thesis a bit a bit more.

So one of the questions that I put down is, what would you say would define Christian anarchism uniquely from other political theologies?

I guess one thing is the kind of unequivocal critique of violence and rejection of violence. It's not that it's the only theology that does that, and, of course, there's pacifist theology for that matter. But but but it's so unequivocal that it also dares to question the violence that we take for granted as apparently agreeable and consented to by everyone, which is the violence of the state. Or should I rephrase the violence that human beings inflict on one another through the state or in the name of a particular fear out of which we empower the state to inflict that violence. And that's violence which is both direct.

You know? If you've been to demonstration, you would have seen how things can get heated up and become genuinely violent in terms of police repression. We could go all the way to kind of, you know, prison and so on. But there's a structural violence as well and and the policing of a status quo that is unjust through the violence of the state and the and the threat of violence. Now I think that commitment to a rejection of violence I'm not saying saying nonviolence.

I think that follows, but a commitment to rejecting violence is something that most Christian anarchists hold to dearly. There are exceptions, but yes. As a result of that, a willingness and openness to critique of the state and the options of working through it to try and ameliorate social conditions, that's kind of rejected. And I think there is also maybe I don't I've maybe I don't play that up enough in in in in in the book, but I think it is a consistent theme through many Christian anarchist voices. It's a critique of idolatry.

So a critique of, I suppose, human politics as a form of idolatry and of the state as a form of idolatry. I mean and and goes into that and several others. I mean, Ehler as well. It's not a big thing for Tolstoy, for example, but I think it is an important theme in the Christian anarchist voices I've come across. And I've come across through many more actually since the book.

So, yes, I think those would be the core things. Now none of these things are necessarily only the purview of Christian anarchists, but I think that's very big for Christian anarchists. They're important. And and they kind of define it as a particular strand of maybe a form of liberation theology.

So you would categorize it as a variant of of liberation theology?

Classifications. Us academics can spend endless time, you know, debating classifications. I don't know. I'm I don't I don't want to force a particular classification on things. I think it's it's kind of up to people how they want to use terms to some extent.

But I think there's there's there's a logic to it. So if I go through it the the slightly longer route in sort of secular anarchism, socialism, Marxism, left leaning thinking and ideologies, you know, there is there there's a strong view out there. It's not the only one, but that that you could treat anarchism as a form of socialism broadly confined broadly defined. Sorry. Although others will say socialism is a kind of moderate version of precisely what we reject.

We're much we're more radical, we're anarchists, whatever. But, you know, many of the traits that anarchists classically understood, so excluding anarcho capitalists, which we might come to later on, are basically very similar to socialism, with that commitment to question the state and other hierarchies of domination, I suppose a bit further than socialists might be willing to. So if you accept that argument for kind of secular ideologies or secular anarchism, secular socialism, then I don't think it's that big of a leap to make a similar argument about theologies of liberation and Christian anarchism. As in, of course, liberation theology is originally a particular movement that grows out of a particular Latin America. But it's since then adopted all around the world in all sorts of different kind of contexts and articulated in a slightly different way, as a slightly different theology of liberation using the term loosely.

Now I think it's not incoherent to argue that Christian anarchists are seeking some sort of liberation emancipation from well again, there is definitely the political economy of today, so that would be the Marxist analysis that liberation theology might sympathize with. But but they'll they'll take that all the way to to to the status on it. So it's it's a it's in a sense a theology, certainly an antithesis, and to the extent that I've looked at it, of liberation of some kind. But, you know, I'm certainly I'm willing to concede that that's not the only way you can skin that cat and you can possibly that's a horrible, horrible expression. But it's you know, you argue that liberation theology is a tradition of its own.

And I don't think many Christian anarchists that have, I suppose, that have published the stuff that I've read. I'm not talking about people active today more generally, the broader movement. But I don't think many of these kind of published Christian anarchists would necessarily associate themselves with liberation theology. But that's also because many of these voices emerged prior to liberation theology. So it's debatable, but I think you can make a case for, you know, treating it as part of that broadly defined, I think.

Interesting. Because I've read I've read critiques like, Hebden. Hebden would, like, strongly be like, no. It is not liberation theology. Liberation theology is, like, causing dependence of the state, but

any But that would be a disagreement precisely on that. In the in the same way that anarchists might push back against socialism by saying precisely that we don't go through the state. Keith is a friend. Keith Hebden. But, yes, no.

I yep. Fair enough. I think that's a valid argument as well. I think the point the point about this is to sort of, you know, in the kind of landscape of I of what do we wanna call them? Do we wanna call them ideologies for the minute?

In the landscape of political ideologies, you know, there are kind of clusters and families. Certainly, liberation theology and Christian anarchism aren't too far apart, although what divides what we typically understand as theology of liberation and what you might want to see as Christian anarchism is an important point of difference, and it would be this issue of the state. So yeah. But not not my job to police those uses of term as much as to notice the interesting kind of overlaps and and and tensions.

Yeah. It's it's interesting to play. Derek, do

have a question? Wanted to to make an observation about one of the things that that you said that kind of clicked for me. I I don't know what politics is like where where you guys are, but, in The States, it's it's insane, at this point in particular. And, you know, when when you said that, talked about idolatry and said that people are able to be critical of the state, I can hear people on both sides of the aisle and the state saying, well, I'm critical of the state. I'm critical of vaccine mandates, or I'm critical of, nonvaccine you know, or nonvaccine nonvaxxers.

And but what I was thinking is I I feel like when after after reading your book and and, kind of wrestling with with anarchism, I feel like for the first time, I'm able to be critical of the state as a whole, whereas whereas when when people say they're critical of the state, they're they're critical of the other idol, the other person's idol, and they defend their own idol. They're not really critical of the state. And, I I think that's something that that is clear to me now that a lot of people can't see it when they're inside the system.

So that's interesting, and I think it touches on a range of different things. I don't know if politics is as mad here as it is where you guy where you are. We've heard. We we we hear you. We pay attention.

Your politics matters. It's interesting because, yes, I think I think you're right. I I can I can hear those similar voices outside The US as well, people criticizing the states, but coming from a, I suppose, a left leaning perspective, that what they have criticized will be a state that polices and forces maintain as a status quo that is basically, you know, running a political economy that's in the favor of a of a of a limited range of people against a a broader yeah? Again, against everyone else. It's it's a state that's increasingly militarized.

It's state a that does inflict violence. It's a state that's kind of adventuristic in its foreign policy. And that's not it's not necessarily just The US. It might be The UK. It might be others too.

So that kind of state is what you often see criticized on the on the left, I suppose. And I guess that the state that that voices on the right on, I guess, the anarcho capitalist, if that's a term kind of position would criticize would be the state that they immediately think is somehow necessarily Stalinist and overly interventionist, you know, imposing inequality, somehow stifling human creativity and endeavor. I mean, I have deep issues with that analysis. I think it's faulty on a on a range of reason for a range of reasons. But, you know, yeah, I I to stick to your comment or question, that's a different state that's being criticized.

I hear you, I think that's an interesting observation. But I think to try and push it a bit further, and again, that's something I didn't do enough, I think, in the PhD and in the book, but it's kind of, I suppose, matured over time my mind and will continue to do so, no doubt. I'll think back at what I just said now and think that was still immature in some way. It's not just the state. I think, and this is where it gets complicated.

A lot of anarchists will say that anarchism is fundamentally about kind of critiquing, rejecting the state. But a lot of other anarchists will say it's really not just that. It's kind of broader hierarchies of domination and oppression. So the state, but also capitalism, racism and the various structures that maintain it and police it. And actually a whole range of things can come in.

Gender and all that if you want to go into it. Mean, there's all sorts of hierarchies and preferences that end up favoring particular demographics over others. And I think it's probably fairer to describe anarchism debatable and why am I doing this? It's probably fair to describe anarchism as a position that is critical of hierarchies of domination. It's a position of non domination.

Some of my colleagues have argued this. So it's not just the state you see and that's important because a lot of the Christian anarchists are in Antosta for that matter really is focused primarily on the state. And you do have anarchists who are focused on the state. But many other anarchists, Christian included, will go deeper and and it's not just the state, it's kind of the broader status quo that is maintained and policed and enforced by the state because the state does have a role. So it's not that if they let the state off off the hook, but they go deeper, not just the state, if you see what I'm saying.

And you see the thing then is I'm not I'm wondering how that then you know, with that in mind, you go back to what we were saying earlier about kind of left wing and right wing positions about the state. Like, I think the kind of left left wing critique of the state is very amenable to that kind of analysis and broadening because you can kind of weave into this kind of some of these broader struggles against various forms of domination today. The right wing critique, I think, is is a bit harder because what's basically disliked is intervention in property and things like that when property is precisely, actually, easily a deep hierarchy that's being meant, you know, like, fine to own a few things, fine to own the products of your labor. When you own acres of land next to a village that's basically deprived of any of it to survive, that's a bigger issue. And that's that's fundamentally the understanding of private property that is being maintained and and protected today and which the right wing kind of criticisms of the state don't address.

They just don't like intervention into that. I'm simplifying a bit. Sorry. I got interested. Good question.

Actually, that's something I've been interested in in my research. The more I dug into anabaptism and Christian anarchism, it seemed like there is a shift now or at least a gap in the research going away from focusing on high politics and the main maintenance of the state to what is, like, empire Mhmm. In human relationships, in situated interactions, like post anarchism?

Yeah. And there are others. Look. Most of the anarchists I've met this side of the pond, therefore, are at least as often, if not more critical of, you might call it capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, and the various imperialistic adventures that it tends to ride on, justify, facilitate. And therefore, empire, broadly speaking, mean, that's a term, yes, coming from Harte and Negri.

These aren't anarchists, but it's kind of vocabulary and analysis that's easily, I suppose, importable into an anarchist analysis. I mean, those are the things that exercise them. And how much the end of that analysis, you still conclude that it's the state that's the main enemy, I think depends from one voice to to to the next. But generally, the state becomes one of several players, an important one again, because it's it's it's the backer of it all. Like, it ultimately, to date, it's still, you know, the police that's gonna come and enforce these kind of relations and what's backed up by the law or the military rather than private companies, at least as yet.

Or if even if there are private, suppose, mercenaries, they're usually legitimized by the legal order, and, there's a backup by the state. So it it gets it gets complicated. But think that that that for me is when it becomes even more interesting. Look. A lot a lot of what academic analysis are actually fair or nuanced or in-depth analysis of most things involves complicating a picture.

It's really usually, things are more complicated than you think. And and, actually, I I do I do think that most anarchists I've read, you know, complicate the critique beyond what as we've said, just kind of the state to a number of different phenomena. And in today's context, in today's globalized political economy 2021, and for a while already, actually, it's to do with some people will call it neoliberal capitalism even and that's often what they'll rail against before they come to an analysis of the state even though that's important too, if that makes sense.

Yeah. Neil know that. Going to something that Derek mentioned and also a question that I had, would be some of the possible contributions of Christian anarchism today, especially with regards to the Christian political climate, which the most the the most vocal one we would see would be, you know, the North American Christian political climate and just the past few years. Something like that. Like, what could Christian anarchism contribute to discourses in Christianity today about politics?

No. That's a good question. And, look, this is again where I need to, I suppose, complete. First of all, I'm not in the North American context. I'm in a context where religiosity, to use that term, isn't as embedded, widespread as it is in North America.

And I'm not, you know, a churchgoing Christian. I'm not sure I am a Christian, if I'm gonna be really honest. It depends how you define it. I mean, some some people, when I say that, tell me, no. No.

You are. I I yeah. Look. We can go into that if you want to. I I come at this, as might be obvious by now, from a Tolstoyan perspective primarily perhaps, like it's the morality that I'm interested in and and and the import of that in politics.

Now, therefore, if I do kind of wear a Tolstoyan cap and look at kind of American politics today or American religion and politics, well, let's not mince words. As far as Tolstoy is concerned, most people who call themselves Christians in the Christians. They're they're simply not adhering by the pretty radical morality that Jesus keeps talking about again and again, you know, returning to in both his teaching and in his example throughout the gospel. And that's even the variant that survived us through the various councils that polished Christianity for the empire back, you know, in in the three hundreds. So with that in mind so I okay.

No. Actually, before I do that, to those who will counter argue that the Tolstoyan kind of Christianity is not Christianity anymore because Tolstoy did indeed reject the miracles, the resurrection, most things theological. He's just focusing on the morality of Jesus, as it were. That's what matters to him. To those who say that, I will gladly concede that that is true.

Tolsto has a rather biased understanding. What he focuses on is just the morality rather than the metaphysics. However, I'd also welcome let's just put it this way. I'd invite those critic those critics to reflect on whether they are underplaying the morality as much as Toulouse is underplaying the metaphysics. And perhaps since in the process, therefore, kind of ditching what Christianity is supposed to be about.

Look, most non Christians will tell you that the one main thing that defines Christianity is this turn the other cheek. That's kind of the radical message of Jesus. This this commitment to love and to forgiveness, which goes beyond most other religious traditions in the radicality of his preaching. Well, where is it? I don't see it in a lot of the voters for Trump to to go straight for that word.

You know, this is the demographic that by and large voted, you know, voted him in. And, you know, it represents a rather passionate corner of a very passionate and strained political canvas in The US. As far as Tulsa is concerned, that's just not Christianity. It's a fake Christianity. It's something that now he might not necessarily blame every sort of so called Christian for pretending to be a Christian.

He will consider that, you know, again, there's a whole sort of history of that happening. The message of Christianity as far as Tulsus is concerned got corrupted the moment Christianity was adopted as the religion of the empire by Constantine. And he's deeply anticlerical. He's but then in his anticlericalism, I'm not sure he's that wildly different from the Jesus of the gospel. So, look, I think, I mean, one of the reasons I suppose I got intrigued by this material to begin with was that it seems to preach an ethics, a way of life, both as an individual and the kind of community that you'd imagine of individuals of the sort.

That is very different from the one that you tend to see in mainstream Christianity. And it's one that's kind of really inspirational, radical, sacrificial, almost yeah. Okay. Utopian if you want to use that term. We can discuss that too.

That's, I mean, that's an interesting term for that matter. But it's not the one that most self proclaimed Christians adhere to. It's something they prefer to underplay in a way Tolstoy discusses as well and and as do other Christian anarchists. And so how would I see a kind of possible contribution or how would Christian anarchists kind of judge all those contexts today? They'll be more interested in the more do you want to call them progressive voices, denouncing neocolonialism, imperialism, empire, the the the various things that the state does.

They'll be critical of nationalism and patriotism. They'll be allies on issues around discrimination, repression, injustice. They'll emphasize the enacting of the teaching of Jesus, however nuts it seems, even if it means carrying a cross, which, you know, he did warn about. And that's all very different from, you know, going to church however often you want to go and reassuring yourself that God bless whatever country you're in.

Yeah. Derek, you had a question that was similar somewhat related to that.

Yeah. So I one of the questions that I guess the one I'll pick for for now is, you know, when I think of Chesterton, who I who I respect a lot, but he doesn't have have much good to say about anarchists and such, at least the the anarchists that he's thinking of, one of the things that he talks about is is patriotism. And sometimes I feel like as I move towards the anarchist position, that I'm I'm kind of just really a a pessimist about everything. Like, oh, you don't do this, and that's, you know, supporting the state. And, you know, July 4, like, you know, get rid of it.

But Chesterton talks very positively about patriotism. And so he basically, you know, he argues that the issue it's wrong to say that you can't take a a generalization and make it as specific. Like, you know, I love all mankind, but I can also love The United States and have a special love for it, just like I have a special love for my kids over anybody else's kids. And that doesn't necessarily make it bad. So how does how does something like patriotism how does anarchism speak to patriotism or group cohesion?

And do you think Chesterton is is right about patriotism? And and can we really be a part of a nation and celebrate with that nation?

So I'm not mean, good question again. I'm not, familiar with most of Chesterton's corpus. I know he's cited. There's a couple of passages that Christian Anarchists like to cite. But I hear you, and those kinds of arguments you hear through Chesterton are not.

Again, I think the answer has to depend on definitions to some extent. What do you mean by patriotism? If by patriotism you mean community, then that doesn't necessarily sound bad, and I can, you know, I I can see look. It makes what is I forget the study that ultimately we only really relate with a 150 or so people in in our surroundings at least at any one time. Like, you you don't know most of the other people who you might identify with, who might be similar to you, but live further away from your networks, geographical or otherwise.

So it's fair enough to feel a love and a bond and an identity with, the people, I suppose, let's say, closer to you. Whether that needs to be projected onto what is ultimately an imagined community, to use Benedict Anderson's terms, the nation, I'm not sure. So if by patriotism you mean community, then sure, loving your community or whatever you identify with, I don't necessarily think it's problematic for Christian anarchists as far as I can speak for them, and I don't know that I should, but never mind. If by that you mean valuing things not because of their intrinsic value but because they are ours, then that sounds less promising. So, you know, bearing in mind and this again would be as was my analysis but shared I think by at least some Christian archists, othering opens the road for dehumanizing.

We're all different and that's great. We're all different but much depends on what you do with that. Whether you celebrate is too vague a term but, you know, work with it, learn with it, enjoy it and, you know, yes, sometimes there'll be frictions but differences aren't necessarily a bad thing. What patriotism tends to do is it emphasizes those differences. It focuses on our history, our common heritage, what we do and it very quickly has a simplified version of that and equally a simplified version of what those others do.

Now, patriotism can be warm and progressive, has been historically. Patriotism in the nineteenth century was associated with liberal progressive ideas. The patriotism of French nationalism in the nineteenth century is the patriotism of universal values because we French people have worked it out. Immediately there's a weird association there, that kind of logic. Now, one thing that I like to again return to Tolstoy, because he was often asked, you know, surely there's a good form of patriotism.

He railed against it. Doesn't he think that there's good patriotism? And the people who asked that typically had in mind, say, the patriotism of the Irish or the Poles or the Finnish people who didn't have a nation yet. A nation didn't therefore have self determination. Okay?

Those kinds of human rights. A kind of political architecture to map onto the land that somehow is theirs or where they tend to predominate. But what Tolstoy liked to point out and I like about what he says there is: if something's intrinsically good, it's good because it's intrinsically good, not because it's something that's believed or held by a particular people. The Irish, the Poles, the Finnish, you know, deserve self determination, perhaps, but they deserve that because self determination is a good thing, not because they're Irish or Polish or Finnish. What's good about our community, about our way of life, is good because that thing is good, not because it's something that we do.

It's good that this be done. So that's the type of patriotism that I if you wanna call it patriotism by then that I can sympathize with, that someone like will have time for, but he won't call that patriotism. It's it's valuing the things that are good because they're good. So when you commemorate, you know, wars, for example, you know, the heroes the the the brilliant deeds that were done by us lot against them nasty people. Well, it's the good deed that's worth celebrating, which, by the way, we weren't always full of and the other end the other side didn't never do either.

That's the thing you want to celebrate rather than the 'us ness' and the 'thumbness'. Patriotism skews things. It kind of gives you it narrows your view and it ends up overly simplifying and and, yeah, identifying particular values with particular people. So community, celebration of, you know, things that are good that have been done by, I suppose, a lot of people in our neck of the woods for a while, fine. But patriotism when it becomes kind of something that excludes others, that associates certain values with us, as if others can't necessarily subscribe to them, or can't translate them and interpret them in ways that are different and interesting in that difference, because of a different context, then that's a patriotism that I suppose was only Tolstoy or me or quite a few other Christian anarchists would be less fond of.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah. And I think that's important to note that from what I understand, you're saying that anarchism doesn't undermine community, which I think is what a lot of But people would think of it actually it actually expands that community because we incorporate other, and we don't define us versus them.

Absolutely. And because of the way because the way that community has been defined is not restricted to a particular identity. It's potentially open to many, many others, and therefore, it is indeed open potentially to the human race rather than, you know, just a particular section of it. Absolutely.

So you you mentioned, like, you know, there's originally a lot of focus on the state, on that aspect of, like, let's say, empire. What are some of the main thinkers or the main thinking around the concept of othering and domination and hierarchy between people? Because I did I don't think Tolstoy focused on that as much.

I was about to say the thing about Tolstoy, which is, again, one of the reasons he's an awkward client. He uses the vocabulary of Christianity for that. You see, he thinks that and I'm gonna try and use his way of spinning it. When we all become Christians, then it'll all be peace and love and all fine. Right?

So he his vision is is is that let me rephrase it. When he has in mind kind of that that Christianity has somehow been adopted adopted by everyone, what he's basically saying is that it's it's when everyone has adopted Jesus' rather radical and loving ethics of kind of caring and forgiving and love and all that stuff, you know, loving your neighbor or being a servant to one another, and in particular, foregoing any violence or any role in maintaining any machinery or violence or consenting to it. Now that's what he can say that he considers being a Christian. So when we're all Christians, that, you know, won't happen anymore. We'll be living in a in a in a in a new Christian era.

I'm using I'm trying to using I'm trying to use his vocabulary here. The point about that is it's a very it's it's very much a contrast from nations as we currently understood them. Think the promise of Christianity for someone like Tolstoy is that it erases differences between human beings and therefore forms of othering because it's an adoption of a way of life that is embraced in that vision by everyone because people are inspired to do so by a few pioneering examples kind of thing. Now what's bizarre I don't know if it's bizarre, but what sometimes hinders the the understanding of that message as attempted by Tolstoy is that he's using precisely, you know, language that others as in he's using the language of Christianity, which we associate with one religious tradition as opposed to numerous others. But the way in which he uses it, he uses it with that kind of universalistic kind of perspective in mind.

So it's it's it's not yeah. I hope that makes sense. But so from that perspective, I don't know that there would not be any othering, but you would always be interested in, I suppose, encountering the other, forgiving the other if they harm you, you know, I suppose, you know, learning from one another, etcetera. And and, you know, envision, again, a community in which there is no or the whatever othering continues to happen doesn't happen in the way it tends to today, if that makes sense. So it's not one that enables various hierarchies of superiority.

But what's but what's all good about it is, of course, the process to get us there still involves a community that somehow has understood that or, you know, behaves in what Tolstoy would see as a Christian way as as opposed to others who don't yet. But those aren't treated as inferior or certainly worth any yes. Any what's the word I'm looking for? Any disrespect? Does that make sense?

Sorry. I I lost myself a bit.

Because that's one of the question that questions that comes up for me. Like, both anarchists and anabaptists advocate for some kind of communalism and the strong focus on the kingdom of God, in a sense, is against othering because it is against what empire does to the other. But at the same time, it is forming a strong communal identity that does, as some critiques of monotheism would say, like, exclude the other, which is violence. So it's a paradox of some kind that, you know, that

I agree. But I think it comes with I think I I mean, I think you're right. I think but I think it comes with an openness to the other, which a number of other forms of identity don't embrace, if that makes sense. So there are all sorts of ways of imagining community, society, nationhood, identity that aren't necessarily interested in learning from the other, engaging with the other or with others. This is this is a form of identity that, yeah, absolutely still kind of identifies an us and under them, but it's an us that wants to reach out that, guess, to some extent yet does want to convert or preach, but it's one that's also open to, yeah, treating others with respect and forgiveness.

And therefore it's also a way of approaching others that is not going to concede to any form of violence being imposed. But then you have the issue of defining violence. And, of course, the the othering and creating identity is a form of violence, perhaps. It's still not exactly direct violence in the in the way that, you know, a tank does, I think.

Yeah. It does go around in a circle.

It does a bit. So, yeah, I think it's there there's a there's a paradox there. You're right. But I don't think it's a it's a complete incoherence or inconsistency. It's an interesting paradox.

Yeah. Actually, Derek had an interesting question about Elul and something linked to that.

Yeah. If we're gonna go on to that, we can definitely jump there. Because that was dealing more with social justice. And I think Rebecca and I were talking through her questions and talking about abolition and how it's interesting, how when you look back, you see a lot of a lot of social justice, before its time, before a lot of other people caught on. One of the things from your book that stuck out to me was, very pertinent today because when I got to towards the end, you talk about how Alul against compulsory vaccination.

And I think, if I remember correctly, it came in a section of the book where you're talking about social justice and concern for the other and concern for neighbors. And it's so fascinating that today we have this conversation where you have, again, the left and the right, at least in The States, where the left says, hey. We need to love people. Therefore, I wanna force you to have a vaccination. And you have people on the other side who say, no.

You can't you can't forcefully love me. That's that's impossible. And they refuse to do that because they think they're standing up to tyranny or or whatever else they think. And so I I was wondering if if you would have any thoughts from the the perspective of Christian anarchism of how you balance loving your neighbor as well as pushing back against tyranny, what what that might look like in in today's time.

Yeah. That's a tough one. I do mention it in the book. I was looking up that passage as you're talking. I mean, this is in in the section on sort of what to do about the states according to those various voices that I looked at in the in the book, and they mainly preach things like not holding public office.

They have an ambivalence about paying taxes. They preach, you know, refusing conscription and war. But then there's a section where I have to sort of be honest and and mention a few other positions, and does, at the time, oppose compulsory vaccination or even compulsory schooling. I mean, let's leave schooling aside. I know that in France, there has long been an anti vaxx movement.

It's quite embedded, and it's, you know, you it's been visible with COVID, but you could see it coming even before the vaccination had been, you know, invented, the the vaccine. So there are there's there's a strong anti vaccine in France, and I spoke I suspect it alluded in many ways belongs to that. It's complicated to translate that into the language of love and caring for one another. I don't know if it's complicated, but I think I mean, it's a fair question. It seems to me look.

If I'm wearing a mask in confined spaces, I'm primarily doing it for others, not for me. I you know, first off, the mask mainly protects the people out, you know, the people you're surrounded by, as in it doesn't protect the filtering in so much as the sort of, you know, not spreading the virus if you have it asymptomatically or otherwise, actually. So it seems to me not that difficult to argue that it's not exactly a very loving and caring position not to care and therefore not wear a mask and, you know, because I want my freedom. It's very selfish, I think. I mean, I don't I don't know where you live.

We spent some time in the summer in France with family when England had just gone through its freedom day where our dear leader had decided that it was time to sort of dutch ditch masks, and and it was interesting. So then the language became one of encouragement. So in most sort of, you know, shops where you go into, they'll they'll say, or trains and whatever else, they've they've tried a a way of phrasing something along the lines, you know, we all have our freedom to decide how what to do, but we encourage you to wear a mask. I mean, the the they've they've spinned it differently from one place to the next, but they're trying to encourage people to wear masks. But the majority by now don't and so just before we left I noticed you know supermarkets you had maybe 20% not wearing masks anymore now it's it's more like maybe one third still do and that annoys me.

It annoys me because I'm thinking that's just selfish. Like, you're you might be carrying the virus. You don't know who's vulnerable around you. You don't know who's vulnerable and not coming out anymore because they can't afford getting the virus. Now I'm lucky enough I've been vaccinated.

My immediate family has as well. You know? And because I chose to, I I I could have not done it. So vaccines I think is a bit more difficult because the vaccine is protecting yourself primarily although by not getting it hopefully you're not transmitting it. But certainly on mask I think it's not that far fetched to argue that it's a bit selfish to decide not to wear one.

With vaccination, it's more complicated, but there is still an element of collective immunity, to use the term that you know, they've tried to herd immunity, the term that they've avoided ever since they conceded that that was basically what drove them at the very start here in The UK. You know, the more people are protected against the virus, the less likely it is to circulate and affect others. I don't know whether I I suppose in my context and with the people I talk to, it's not not so much through the language of Christianity or Christian ethics that people are going to be convinced of getting vaccinated or not. It's the language of public health, and there's a number of things for which we rely on, what you call it, one word, the science. You know, when I walk on a bridge, I trust that the engineers and the science that backs them up has built it properly.

Same when I go in a plane. With medicine, I'm not an expert, but I gather that the evidence is accumulating that, it's a better idea to get vaccinated for yourself as well as for others than not. And it's on that basis that I went for it. At the very start, I think like many others, I was interested to see what the studies might say, because you don't know what's in this vaccine, new technology, you know, effects and there are, it turns out, some side effects but they're very rare and, you know, not getting vaccinated makes you much worse on those very side effects etc. So I think it's more on the public health argument that I would try and or that I try and speak to the people I speak to and to to to encourage them to get vaccinated rather than through the language of Christianity.

But that's not to say you can't do it. I think it's a longer road there, I suspect. I don't know. Does that make sense?

Yes. Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. So we're towards the end of the interview now. I guess one last question that I would have is in terms of people who are not necessarily into theology or into academics, what are some ways that they can tap into Christian anarchism? What are some gateway resources or that you would recommend or thinkers, writers, that kind of thing?

I it kind of depends on what you prefer. If you're quite keen on, you know, a version of Christianity that is not Tolstoyan, more typically Protestant, I mean, there's all sorts of varieties, then you might be more interested in Eilou, Lela, Andrews. If there we go. My pen's gone. If you can cope with a Tolstoyan kind of Christianity and what you're interested in is the broader kind of critique of violence, nonviolence and and, you know, then Tolstoy is definitely a great read.

And for that matter, you can read Tolstoy even if you are of a different type of Christianity than him and still focus on what he has to say on the on on the Christian ethics in particular and kind of, you know, roll your eyes if you want to on the other stuff. It's it's still it's still a challenge, I think, to sort of read it and because it makes you rethink what you're doing. I I but then in in The States, of course, in particular, there's a lot of Catholic worker communities doing all sorts of work in in cities in particular, caring what's what's the expression? Caring for the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Helping people like, you know, people refugees struggling with the Kafkaesque paperwork, encouraging them to go away, providing food for them, demonstrating or demonstrating, performing acts of liturgy to use their vocabulary sometimes on Ministry of Defense buildings and whatnot.

There's all sorts of things that you can do there and get embedded in your local community, not just in The US, but in particular in The US with Catholic workers. And then, of course, online, there's plenty. There's, like, loads of different things, whether it's Facebook groups, although some are getting colonized by different perspectives, let's say, or all sorts of interesting podcasts. I mean, there there's lots out there, and I can't really speak for it because it it it it there's really a lot going on. And it is, okay, heavily sort of American focused.

It you know, a lot of people are from North America in in those communities, but that that's not a problem. That's just something I I noticed is part of it. But but that also means that you get the kind of activities and debates that you will typically get in North America, I think. So, yeah, and I suspect that there's a fair bit of talking about American politics in some of these fora too. So it depends what you're interested in.

There's lots of books and resources. A lot of the longer books, even a lot of what Tolstoy wrote is available for free online, sort of if you know where to look. But you can Google around, try with PDF in your in your searches. You you'll find it. And by the way, on Tolstoy, I should say, not to forget it, it's it's a guy called Steve Hajke, I think is how you just spell his name or describe it.

He's he he did a PhD on Tolstoy at Aberdeen, which I was lucky enough to be an external examiner for. But he actually takes a rather different approach to me on Tolstoy. He reckons it is high time that we read Tolstoy as Christians because he speaks to Christians in a in in a way that's much less incompatible than I say read it, for example. So he he brings Tolstoy to the Protestant tradition or makes him a bit more I don't know if he makes him more comfortable, but makes the case that he's not that he should be considered as an important thinker in in in in in the Christian story as it were. So, yeah, it kinda depends what you're interested in.

And I guess okay. Last thing. The the one one one chapter that I co wrote with someone called Lara Abs in in Canada. It's been published in three different versions now, but at least two of these, I think, are available for free online. But it's a chapter that tries to map out the literature on anarchism and religion kind of in four categories, kind of anarchist critiques of religion, anarchist exegesis, anarchist theology, and anarchist historiography, so writing the histories of Christian religious anarchist individuals and communities.

And that particular piece, if you Google it and find it, there's lots of references to all sorts of sources. So I'm not saying read that. I'm saying jump to the bibliography or read the bits that you're more interested in and pick that up and follow that trail kind of thing. It might be another way of recommending things.

Great. Thanks for joining us and giving us an overview of the discourses in Christian anarchism, something our audience may be less familiar with and not sure where to get into. So that is a great start. And thanks for giving us an idea of the vast complexity of the current scholastic debate on it. How it is categorized and what it focuses on and what it is, which in scholarly works is always up for debate.

Well, thank you very much for joining us, Alex.

And You're very welcome. My pleasure.

Thanks. And thanks, Derek, for kinda cohosting.