One of the presentations at the ASC this weekend was by Ed Stringham on Christian anarchist David Lipscomb, founder of Lipscomb University and author of an 1889 work titled Civil Government, arguing for anarchism on Biblical grounds. I’d never heard of Lipscomb, but he sounded interesting, so I did a quick websearch – which brought up a webpage devoted to Lipscomb, including an online version of his book. So if you’re looking for a principled antistatism founded in scriptural exegesis, take a look.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4813/l-for-lipscomb/
L for Lipscomb
Previous post: Patenting The Method For Posting To A Blog
Next post: Discretion is the New Rule
{ 15 comments }
I am considering making Lipscomb’s book available in a hardcover reprint as part of my Classic Reprints series. I have already asked Ed Stringham to write an introduction based on his presentation. If this ever comes to pass, I will post a notice on the Mises blog.
There is quite a lot of Christian anarchist literature that libertarians have neglected (see my reprint of J.H. Boggs’ essay ( http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/2005/10/boggs-our-political-protest.html for example) which should be included in our consideration of the libertarian tradition. Clearly, one can argue, as I have ( http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/2003/11/calvinism-and-nonvoting-spooner-is.html ), that one must go at least to its Calvinist roots to consider this school of thought.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/
Ed’s paper was excellent. I had never heard such strong and emotional writing like that before from a 19th century anarchist. This definitely goes on my ever-growing list of Books To Read.
Manuel… have you ever read Lysander Spooner?
It shouldn’t be so surprising some Christian intellectuals arrive at this conclusion; after all, the Israelite nation before the kings might be considered one of history’s great examples of law without rulers, i.e. anarchy.
It’s too bad most modern preachers espouse a political view of violence and control, much like the empires that destroyed said nation.
David Lipscomb was editor of the Gospel Advocate, and a watershed figure in the churches of Christ — a branch of the Restoration Movement originating with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, which gave birth to the churches of Christ, the Christian Church, and the Disciples of Christ. (Alexander Campbell himself opposed Christian involvement in the Civil War.)
I’m really glad to see that someone has re-discovered Lipscomb’s treatise. However, I think it’s a mistake to characterize him as a “Christian anarchist.” Anarchists are not outside politics; Lipscomb and Christian believers like him are. He is espousing an Christian interpretation of eschatology called “postmillenialism,” common in his day in the Restoration Movement churches and also among the Reformist (Calvinist) churches into the 20th century. This is the view that the church will spread to all nations before Christ returns in the last days. See page 91:
“God must in the police regulations of the world retain his institutions ordained to execute wrath until his own children possess the earth. God has two processes continually going forward, by which he world is to become the possession of the ‘saints of the most high.’
In other words, to the extent that Christians aid or enable earthly governments, they muck things up. They don’t prevent Christ’s return, but they don’t function properly in their role as Christians. That role is to win souls for Christ, not participate in the bloody business of enforcement.
I’m a big fan of Lipscomb. As a freshman at Lipscomb over two decades ago, I found this book — as I recall it, a little black book with gold letters — among the stacks at Crisman Library. It surprised me to see how far the views of many in the churches of Christ had diverged from those of this co-founder of what was once the Nashville Bible School — a man who remained such a luminary figure. By the time I arrived there, Lipscomb’s pacifist views seemed nearly forgotten and no longer quite welcome.
William in Shanghai
“after all, the Israelite nation before the kings might be considered one of history’s great examples of law without rulers, i.e. anarchy.”
How long do you think an atheist or homosexual would have lasted in the Israelite nation?
“How long do you think an atheist or homosexual would have lasted in the Israelite nation?”
Israel had many within its borders who did not worship Jehovah. Israelites were told by God to be kind to them.
Although homosexuality was forbidden, there was no state and police force to go around, examining people’s bedroom habits.
Paul,
Aliens were also required to comply with the Israelite’s religious laws. One example from Leviticus 24,
“16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”
I have seen several citations on this board to the pre-Kings Israelites as an example of anarcho-capitalism. If you read Leviticus, it is clear that the Israelites (and sojourners within their borders) were required to follow a number of laws with very harsh penalties. These laws were enforced by a professional and hereditary priest caste. There are also a number of references to law courts.
I don’t have enough historical expertise to know whether pre-monarchical Israel, where “everybody did what was right in his own eyes,” counts as an anarchy or not. But I would say:
a) the fact that there were oppressive, unjust, rights-violating practices doesn’t show it wasn’t an anarchy. Just as some states are better than others, some anarchies are better than others, and prevailing cultural norms will affect the goodness or badness of both. There’s reason to think anarchies will find it much harder to enforce bad stuff than states will, but not necessarily impossible.
b) the fact that there were law courts also doesn’t settle whether it was an anarchy, since most free-market anarchists likewise favour the existence of law courts. The question (to which I don’t know the answer) is: how monopolistic was the court system?
Roderick,
With respect to a), is anarchy a completely consensual society, or is it simply a society where you can leave if you want?
If it’s the former, I’d say that only hermits can lay claim to such a state of existence. If it’s the latter, then I submit the debate is more about the politics and philosophy of limited government.
With respect to b), I don’t know the answer either, but the Levites held the monopoly on priesthood and as such were the arbiters of such disputes as the Torah put within their jurisdiction. From what I have read, it would appear that any other matters were handled by what we might call a council of elders.
Geoffrey Plauche asks if I had read Lysander Spooner. Of course, but I don’t remember him being as passionate as Lipscomb. Then again, maybe it was Ed’s presentation that helped!
Reactionary asks:
“With respect to a), is anarchy a completely consensual society, or is it simply a society where you can leave if you want?”
Neither, exactly. I was thinking that anarchy was a society without a state, defined in something like the usual way (coercive territorial monopoly of law, etc.). Anarchism stands for more than that (I think a consistent anarchist has to be against slavery, for example, although that doesn’t logically follow just from being against states.)
William Hillis notes: “I think it’s a mistake to characterize him as a ‘Christian anarchist.’ Anarchists are not outside politics; Lipscomb and Christian believers like him are.”
I’m not sure what “outside of politics” means in this context. Anyone who thinks the state is an immoral institution, that it should not be cooperated with, and that it should cease to exist is ipso facto an anarchist, I would have thought. If the point is that Lipscomb didn’t advocate “political” activity as a means for achieving anarchy, well, that’s likewise true of many self-described anarchists, isn’t it?
Dear all,
I thought you may be interested in this BBC interview titled “Was Jesus an anarchist?”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/05/was_jesus_an_anarchist.html
Comments on this entry are closed.