Re-Imagining Peace through Process Philosophy

amazon link

Re-Imagining Peace

through Process Philosophy

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT

I saw the Cobb Institute's title on Re-imagining Peace through Process Philosophy, checked it's price, saw that I could never afford it, then turned to ChatGPT to sort out it's themes and motifs.

On Amazon the book blurb said this:

Reimagining Peace through Process Philosophy: An Integrative Transformation to Address the Global Systemic Crisis, 2024th Edition, by Juliet Bennett (Author)

This book explores the ways in which process philosophers extend and strengthen peace scholars’ outlines of a paradigm of/for peace. It then illustrates the value of such a peace paradigm through the example of the climate breakdown, showing how process thinking and process metaphysics intervene at the roots of a global systemic crisis. In doing so, it articulates a new inroad to process philosophy, and illuminates an integrative intervention in the systemic crises of climate change and global inequality.

The “static-process framework” developed in this book makes the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and the fields he has inspired easier to grasp, and offers a tool to assist in the application of process thought to a multitude of issues. This framework depicts tensions between two modes of thought―static and process thinking―according to five “basic orientations”: abstract/context, closed/open, isolating/relational; passive/generative; one/multi-dimensional. This pattern is mapped across the domains of metaphysics, economics, politics and as the basis for a new mode of living and organising across multiple layers of society.

 

I next asked ChatGPT to discuss the contents with me. Here's what we found out together:

ChatGPT

Here’s an outline and explanation of the treatise "Reimagining Peace through Process Philosophy: An Integrative Transformation to Address the Global Systemic Crisis" based on the synopsis provided:

---

Outline of the Treatise

I. Introduction: Peace Beyond Traditional Paradigms

• Expanding peace scholarship through process philosophy

• Establishing relevance to contemporary global crises

II. The Static-Process Framework

• Core conceptual tension: Static vs. Process thinking

• Five “Basic Orientations”:

  1. Abstract vs. Context

  2. Closed vs. Open

  3. Isolating vs. Relational

  4. Passive vs. Generative

  5. One-dimensional vs. Multi-dimensional

III. Process Metaphysics as a Root Intervention

• Applying Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy to:

  • Climate breakdown

  • Systemic inequality

• Revealing the structural roots of crisis

IV. Applying the Framework to Core Domains

• Metaphysics: Replacing substance ontology with relational becoming

• Economics: Moving from extractive systems to generative economies

• Politics: Envisioning participatory, evolving democratic systems

• Lived Experience: Inspiring integrative, peace-oriented ways of living

V. The Integrative Vision

• Bridging theory and practice

• Proposing a process-oriented peace paradigm

• Cultivating systems of care, responsiveness, and co-creation

VI. Conclusion: Process as a Pathway for Global Transformation

• Embodied action and structural change

• Peace as an evolving, systemic transformation

---

Explanation

This work presents a re-envisioning of peace not as the mere absence of conflict, but as a dynamic, evolving process deeply entangled with systemic structures such as climate change, global inequality, and political injustice.

It uses Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy as the foundational lens, emphasizing relationality, creativity, and becoming over static, dualistic, and isolating frameworks. This reorientation enables us to reimagine solutions at the metaphysical and structural levels, not just the symptomatic.

The "static-process framework" is a conceptual tool introduced to help readers understand and apply this philosophy practically. It identifies five binary tensions—such as abstract/context or closed/open—that characterize static thinking vs. process thought. These binaries are then mapped across various fields to show how process philosophy can reframe and transform each.

For example:

• In economics, process thinking urges us to move from competition and scarcity toward cooperation and regenerative systems.

• In politics, it supports a shift from centralized control to distributed, responsive governance.

• In lived experience, it fosters awareness of interdependence and the generative power of communities.

Ultimately, this book doesn’t just critique global crises—it offers a hopeful vision of transformation through a paradigm that values openness, relation, and co-creative action. Peace, in this sense, is not a state but an ongoing process of becoming together in a shared world.

RES

Please provide a chapter-by-chapter breakdown...

ChatGPT

Certainly! Based on the available information, here's a detailed breakdown of the chapters in Reimagining Peace through Process Philosophy: An Integrative Transformation to Address the Global Systemic Crisis by Juliet Bennett: Target+2VitalSource+2SpringerLink+2

---

📘 Chapter Breakdown

Part I: Theories of Process and a Metaphysics of/for Peace

1. (Re)imagining Peace Through a Process Lens
   This chapter introduces the concept of peace from a process philosophy perspective, challenging traditional static notions and emphasizing the dynamic, relational nature of peace.

2. Balancing Static and Process Thinking: Nurturing Peaceful Modes of Thought
   Here, Bennett explores the tension between static and process thinking, advocating for a shift towards process-oriented thought to foster more peaceful and adaptable mindsets.

3. The Process-Relational Metaphysics of/for Peace
   This section delves into the metaphysical foundations of process philosophy, highlighting how a relational understanding of reality can underpin a more holistic and integrative approach to peace.

Part II: Applications for an Integrative Transformation

4. Climate Change Through a Process Lens
   Bennett applies process philosophy to the climate crisis, illustrating how dynamic and relational thinking can lead to more effective and sustainable environmental strategies.

5. Co-Creative Politics: A Process Approach to Left and Right
   This chapter examines political ideologies through the lens of process philosophy, proposing a co-creative political framework that transcends traditional left-right dichotomies.

6. Contextual Economics: Nesting Static in Process
   Bennett critiques conventional economic models and introduces a process-oriented approach that embeds static economic structures within a dynamic and relational context, promoting more equitable and sustainable economic systems.

7. Integrating Changes Towards Peace-in-Process
   The final chapter synthesizes the insights from previous sections, offering practical pathways for integrating process philosophy into various societal domains to cultivate an ongoing and evolving peace.

---

This structure reflects Bennett's comprehensive approach to reimagining peace through the lens of process philosophy, addressing both theoretical foundations and practical applications across multiple societal domains.

If you're interested in exploring specific chapters in more detail or discussing how these concepts can be applied in real-world contexts, feel free to ask!

RES

What additional insights might you have related to Bennett's themes and motifs?

ChatGPT

Here are six key insights and observations that emerge when reflecting on Reimagining Peace through Process Philosophy through a broader philosophical, ecological, and ethical lens:

---

1. Peace as a Dynamic Becoming, Not a Static State

• Juliet Bennett’s work reflects a Whiteheadian revolution in peace studies: peace is no longer the "end" or absence of conflict but a continuous process of relational co-creation.

• This redefinition allows peace to flourish amid tension, much like in ecosystems where conflict and cooperation coexist in creative advance.

---

2. Process Thought as a Unifying Meta-Paradigm

• The five “basic orientations”—contextual, open, relational, generative, multi-dimensional—can serve as a diagnostic and generative tool across disciplines.

• Process metaphysics becomes a meta-framework for interdisciplinary transformation, offering common language across economics, ecology, politics, and ethics.

---

3. Nested Structures: A Processual Ecology of Systems

• Chapter 6’s concept of “nesting static in process” is profound. It recognizes that not all structures must be abandoned, but must be contextualized within living, evolving systems.

• This reflects Whitehead’s view of concrescence: actual entities arise from both inherited structure and creative novelty.

---

4. Bridging Political Polarization

• In Chapter 5, Bennett’s co-creative politics transcends oppositional ideologies by rooting action in relationality and novelty.

• This model may serve as an antidote to performative partisanship, offering a shared vocabulary of peace, responsiveness, and mutual becoming.

---

5. Ethics of Embodiment and Responsiveness

• Throughout the treatise, there is an implicit call for a process-relational ethics: one grounded not in fixed rules, but in responsiveness to evolving contexts and lived realities.

• This aligns with feminist, Indigenous, and ecological philosophies of care and relational accountability.

---

6. A New Mode of Subjectivity

• Beyond systems, the book hints at a new anthropology: the human not as autonomous individual, but as intra-active agent within an unfolding world.

• The shift from “I think therefore I am” to “I relate, therefore I become” signals a profound ontological shift relevant to education, psychology, and spirituality.

---

ChatGPT

Would you like a visual matrix that maps these five tensions (static vs. process) across the four domains (metaphysics, politics, economics, lived life) for deeper application?

RES

Sure...

ChatGPT

Static-Process Transformation Matrix:

Here is your Static–Process Transformation Matrix, showing how each of the five philosophical tensions transitions across the four core domains: metaphysics, politics, economics, and lived life. Let me know if you'd like this visualized as a poster-style chart or adapted for teaching or writing. 

RES

Please compare Maga evangelical dogma to Juliet Bennett's work.

ChatGPT

This is a profound comparison. On one side, you have MAGA Evangelical dogma—a sociopolitical-religious ideology that fuses conservative American nationalism with fundamentalist Christian theology. On the other, you have Juliet Bennett’s integrative process philosophy—a peace-centered, relational, and ecological approach rooted in Whiteheadian metaphysics. The contrast is stark and telling.

---

Category	MAGA Evangelical Dogma	Juliet Bennett’s Process Peace Paradigm
Metaphysics	Static, dualistic: Good vs Evil, God vs World, America as chosen	Dynamic, relational: all entities in co-becoming, no ontological isolation
View of God	Omnipotent, external, judgmental, tribal deity	Panentheistic, relational, persuasive, and co-suffering with creation
Truth	Absolute, fixed doctrines (Biblical literalism)	Contextual, evolving truth rooted in experience and creativity
Political Ideology	Nationalist, authoritarian, us-vs-them binaries	Participatory, co-creative, transcends left/right dichotomies
Economics	Prosperity gospel, deregulated capitalism, survival of the fittest	Contextual economies, regenerative, interdependent well-being
Ethics	Rule-based, punitive, purity-centered	Relational, responsive, focused on mutual care and responsibility
Peace	Peace through dominance or “law and order”	Peace as a living process: conflict transformation and generative harmony
Ecology	Anthropocentric dominionism; apocalyptic disregard for climate	Eco-centric: climate breakdown as central ethical-spiritual issue
Human Identity	Isolated soul judged by God; defined by saved/unsaved status	Intra-active being: becoming through relationships, context, and choice
Vision of Society	Hierarchical, exclusionary, fear-driven	Multi-dimensional, open, inclusive, rooted in mutual becoming

Interpretive Insights

1. Theology of Control vs. Theology of Co-Creation
   MAGA theology is about certainty, order, and divine dominance, while Bennett’s vision is about relational creativity, openness to novelty, and divine companionship. Process theology dissolves the fearful architecture that MAGA ideology builds around God and country.

2. Fear-Based Morality vs. Generative Ethics
   MAGA dogma thrives on boundary ethics—us vs. them, saved vs. damned, pure vs. impure. Bennett’s framework replaces this with a fluid ethic of response, where goodness arises through context, care, and relational growth.

3. Static Systems vs. Living Peace
   Where MAGA constructs peace through power, walls, and enforcement, Bennett constructs peace through flexibility, responsiveness, and the nurturance of life’s interconnectedness.

4. Climate Denial vs. Climate Consciousness
   MAGA eschatology tends to embrace environmental destruction as part of end-times prophecy. In contrast, Bennett's philosophy is grounded in ecological repair and the moral urgency of addressing systemic climate collapse.

5. Apocalyptic Fatalism vs. Processual Hope
   MAGA dogma tends toward end-times determinism—a closed future. Bennett’s vision is open-ended, participatory, and evolutionary, inviting human and nonhuman agents to co-author the future.

---

Conclusion

Juliet Bennett offers a nonviolent, post-oppositional paradigm for thinking, acting, and living—a striking departure from MAGA evangelicalism’s fixed, tribal, and punitive worldview. Where MAGA dogma calcifies fear into dogma and hierarchy, Bennett breathes hope into systems, drawing us toward a relational cosmos of shared becoming.

---

ChatGPT

Would you like this reframed in poetic or liturgical language next? Or expanded into a full essay or visual comparison?

RES

I would be curious as to the juxtaposition of liturgical language...

ChatGPT

Absolutely. Below is a juxtaposition of MAGA Evangelical Dogma and Juliet Bennett’s Process Peace Paradigm expressed in liturgical-style language—prayers, affirmations, or confessions—meant to capture their contrasting spirits in form as well as content.

---

I. Call to Worship

MAGA Evangelical Liturgical Voice:

Come, ye chosen, set apart from the nations.

Blessed is the land that exalts His name,

And cursed are they who oppose His anointed.

Return to the old paths, where law and order reign.

Make war if needed, for righteousness must triumph.

Process Peace Liturgical Voice (Bennett-inspired):

Come, all who dwell in the web of life.

Blessed is the becoming, unfolding in each breath.

Let all voices rise, and all boundaries soften.

Gather in the spirit of evolving peace.

We co-create in the dance of relational harmony.

---

II. Confession

MAGA Evangelical Confession:

We confess, Lord, that our nation has strayed.

We have allowed others to take root—

Those who know not your truth.

Forgive us for not standing firm,

For not purging evil from our midst.

Process Peace Confession:

We confess our forgetfulness of the whole.

We confess our part in systems of harm—

To earth, to neighbor, to the very fabric of becoming.

Restore in us the will to relate,

To transform conflict with compassion,

To be gentle in power and just in presence.

---

III. Creed

MAGA Evangelical Creed:

We believe in a God of strength and vengeance,

Who chooses a people and a land.

We believe in the supremacy of truth as given,

And in salvation from the world through faith alone.

We await the Lord’s return to judge the enemies of God.

Process Peace Creed:

We believe in a God who dwells within the becoming of all things.

We believe in truth as an unfolding, revealed in shared experience.

We believe in peace—not as absence, but as process.

We affirm the sacredness of every relation,

And trust the Spirit’s lure toward healing futures.

---

IV. Benediction

MAGA Evangelical Benediction:

Go forth, armed with righteousness.

Protect the borders of faith and nation.

Stand firm against the rising tide of corruption.

For the battle is the Lord’s, and we are His sword.

Process Peace Benediction:

Go forth, gentle co-creators of life.

Hold space for difference, breathe into uncertainty.

Bind the wounds of the world with your presence.

And may the Spirit of Becoming guide you

To make peace, not as it was,

But as it is ever yet to be.

---

The Importance of Torah and Community vs. Maga Anarchy and Imperialism

The Importance of Torah and Community

vs. Maga Anarchy and Imperialism

On the whole I have understood the term anarchy as a violent reaction to legal authority which has more recently been applied to maga-evangelicalism's activist rejection of America's Constitutional authority as evidenced in it's severe reaction to Donald Trump's presidential loss in 2020 to President Biden on January 6, 2021, in it's mass violent demonstrations in Washington, D.C.

I am also of the firm belief that America's conceived liberal democracy adjudicating for legal fairness and equality within its form of liberal democracy for all races and religions is the gold standard for any society wishing to pursue peaceful policies for cooperative and humane society building.

Today I am including an article which advocates for these same ideas by "radicalizing" or "twisting" the term "anarchy" away from it's violent connotations to a non-violent form of response to unfair governance and rule.

Which is ironic when applied to America's Constitutional political process... and yet imaginable in that America's Republican party has failed in its leadership role and guidance towards societal fairness and equality:

Presently, under President Trump, Maga-Republicans are actively advancing maga-majority white rule via maga-based Hillsdale (Christian) College's Project 2025 which advocates the resurrection of the bad-old days of Colonial Western-European rule over non-whites and non-white religion.

In my idealism of America's Civil Right's for women, gays, non-whites, and non-Christians it seems that the nation's white Christian population is not as benevolent nor societally-minded as its originating Constitutional contract put in place in 1776.

In my naivete I had thought that rightness would displace wrongness but maga-evangelicalisim's societal response to color and difference has shown to me only my misguided idealism for the Christian church.

An idealism which I had held within my white evangelical church setting until lately coming to the new maga-reality under the Trump-era commencing in c. 2015 to the present day.... How very wrong I was.... Nor do I suspect the evangelist Billy Graham could have foreseen the church's deep misapprehension of Jesus' Gospel by today's maga-church.

The Middle-Eastern Jesus I had come to love and preach has unfortunately been historically aligned over the centuries with the bloody Christian Crusades against all non-Christian races and beliefs. Rather than preaching a non-assimilating, non-white gospel of love, peace, and harmony in the Abrahamic God of Jesus (who Christians believe to be God Incarnate on Earth) the church's missional God has been politicized to reflect non-Christian injustice and inequality currently held by its majority maga-congregants.

Under Maga's political influence we are witnessing once again another form of White Western "Christianized" Crusading that is Constitutionally illegal, unjust, oppressive, harming, and persecuting.

Maga has brought a new kind of religious violence into American society and is justifying it under its errant theologies of church dominionism which I have described in the past as New Covenant-based Reconstructionism. That is, under Jesus' atoning redemption today's maga-church wishes to overthrow American Constitutionalism for it's own beliefs in the rightness of Church-led, Kingdom-based, rule via institutionalized monarchy.

Thus and thus the plethora of lies and propaganda which we witness daily from the mouths of Trumpian maga'ites who no longer can lawfully abide under the American Constitution but wish to overthrow it's legal document and imports so that white anarchal rule might reign supreme.

This then is how I have used and understood the word "anarchy" in my white church setting over the years when reflecting politically on my church's most recent misguided teachings and doctrines begun under Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority." Once centered in Jesus and not politics my Christian faith has now been displaced by political revisionism and oppression:

Thus I decry the maga-church's misappropriation of its religious beliefs in overthrowing America's Constitution for its own incongruous rule of Christian injustice upon race, color, and difference.

Maga has determined not to learn how to apply Christian love and harmony into our Constitutional spaces but to act illegally and treasonously against America's 300 year-old experiment of imperfect democracy.

Hence my departure from the maga-Church and my own personal advocacy for a process-based understanding of the Christian religion and its faith practices beginning with the firm belief that God is love and that all faith - and faith practices - including the ethical / moral political rule of society - must be grounded in loving response to God and to our fellow man in ethical / moral policies, behaviours, and endeavors.

R.E. Slater

March 22, 2025

Thinking Pacifism

Reflections on peace and faith

Is there such a thing as a

Christian political philosophy?

[Questioning faith #22]

by Ted Grimsrud

April 22, 2023

[reformatting and edits are mine. - re slater]

As long as I have cared about Christianity and politics, which is about as long as I have been a pacifist, I have thought that we need a political philosophy that captures key elements of the biblical vision of human social life. None of the main options one encounters in a political theory class (such as liberal democracy, communism, or monarchy) seem to come close to doing that. That leaves pacifist Christians with a kind of disembodied political philosophy—which is surely part the reason that pacifism seems too unrealistic. To try to fit pacifism into a philosophy of liberal democracy where a core principle is that the meaning of the state rests on its monopoly on legitimate violence is like trying to fit the proverbial round peg into a square hole.

Not long after I embraced pacifism, I learned to know a couple of anarchists. They helped open my eyes to a possible option. Then, when I took a class on the history of political theory in graduate school, I was pleased that the professor treated anarchism as a legitimate theory within the cacophony of theories that have been articulated in the western tradition. He didn’t spend much time on anarchism in the class, but that recognition of anarchism as a serious political philosophy planted a seed for me. I am still trying to make sense of Christian pacifism as a realistic and important set of convictions for people of good will. In this post, I want to reflect on the possibility that something like anarchism (or, more precisely what I will call an “anarchistic sensibility”) actually may help us imagine better the political relevance of pacifism.

What is anarchism?

The term “anarchism,” similarly to “nonviolence,” is a negative term that in its most profound sense speaks of a positive approach to human social life. Though the term “anarchism” literally means against “authority” (arché), it is at its heart—as I understand it—not mainly against something. It is for freedom and for decentralized ways of organizing social life that enhance human well-being. Anarchism has an unfair, though not totally unfounded, reputation for being violent, even terrorist. There indeed have been numerous acts of violence in the name of anarchism, perhaps most notably in the US the 1901 assassination of President McKinley at the hand of a self-proclaimed anarchist (though one who had few links with other anarchists).

The great thinkers in the anarchist tradition, however, generally were not people of violence nor advocates of terrorist tactics. Late 19th and early 20th century writers and visionaries such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Michael Bakunin (perhaps the most pro-violence of the lot), Peter Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman had ambivalent feelings about violence, but for all of them, the main concern was imagining how human life might be organized in ways that enhance human freedom and self-determination. Still, what probably united classical anarchists as much as anything was a strong antipathy toward the state. There is a sense that the spirit of anarchism is not unfairly described as a spirit of rebellion versus centralized nation states as much as any one commitment. To achieve [a] political life that is genuinely free and self-determined, the state must go—root and branch.

However, it could be that the anarchism represented by these thinkers is too state-centered. Maybe we would do better with a political philosophy that has anarchistic sensibilites if we did not equate politics with state-politics. This may be the key to developing a Christian political philosophy as well—to imagine it as having not simply to do with how we might run the state. In several articles and a PhD dissertation, political thinker Ted Troxell has helpfully brought together Christian theology, anarchist thought, and what he calls “postanarchism.”

Postanarchism

“Postanarchism” is a term that has arisen in the 21st century to refer to attempts to apply postmodern or poststructuralist thought to anarchism. This is not a way to be finished with anarchism but rather to apply these new styles of thought to anarchist theory in order to make it more relevant to our contemporary context. Troxell mentions one important postanarchist thinker, Todd May, who differentiates between what he calls “strategic” and “tactical” thinking. Strategic-thinking-oriented anarchism focuses on one particular theme, the state, while a more tactical-thinking-oriented approach questions that unitary focus and seek to broaden the scope of applying anarchist thought.

One especially important theme, according to Troxell, where this increased flexibility becomes key is our response to macroeconomic issues related to the dominant neoliberal regime we live in that is not strictly state-centered. In general, a more tactical approach creates possibilities of heightened creativity in navigating the particular issues facing people seeking a more humane politics in the contemporary world. Postanarchism, as presented by Troxell, also makes a closer link between Christianity and anarchism seem more possible. 

Christian anarchism

As a rule, not without reason, anarchists have seen Christianity as part of the problem. However, ever since the rise of Christendom in the early Middle Ages, a few Christians have joined the resistance to the domination system:

Note, the early Franciscans’ voluntary poverty; the Anabaptists’ radical anti-Christendom witness; the pro-labor and antiwar activism and unconditional hospitality of the Catholic Workers, and the overtly Christian influences on the Civil Rights Movement.

Troxell suggests it is even possible to talk about “Christian anarchism.” However, this is an anarchism that agrees with postanarchism in not focusing on overthrowing the state. Christian Anarchism instead will seek to find ways to live out an alternative witness [for] a peaceable world as a way to anticipate the hoped-for kingdom of God. 

Contemporary theologian, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, has written a book, Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel, that articulates a vision that has in mind not the overthrow of present structures so much [as] the subversion of them. This subversion emphasizes creating alternative communities that embody the way of life that is to come. The hoped-for revolution will lead to social transformation, but through love, forgiveness, and patience not violence and terror. For Christian anarchism, radical living in the present is made possible by trust in God’s guidance of history that will lead to an authentically [peaceable] anarchist social reality. 

The Anabaptist contribution

The Anabaptist tradition has been occasionally recognized as a kind of prefiguring of anarchism, though rarely have there ever been overt connections between anarchists and Anabaptists. In recent years, especially in light of a decentering of the idea of overthrowing the state, it has become more common for Christian anarchism to see Anabaptist emphases as relevant.

An Anabaptist critique of the state would not include a call to abolish the state, though the state indeed is all too often characterized by Jesus’s charge of tyranny. However, even so, it plays a necessary restraining role in protecting people from the resultant destructive chaos likely to ensue were the state abolished before people were truly ready for the self-determination anarchism hopes for. Recognizing that abolishing the state is not an immediately desirable outcome is thus a common stance that Anabaptistic and a postanarchistic sensibilities share. 

As part of the decentering of the state and state power, we could see a point of contact in thinking about power more generally. An Anabaptist reading of the New Testament notes the use of power in the plural—the “powers and principalities”—with the sense that it is appropriate to reject the notion of power in the modern world that sees it as centralized and univocal and rather recognize that power should be seen as multifaceted [sic, "empowering" others vs. "powering-over" others]. Postanarchists also understand power to arise “from many different sites” in ways that interact to form our social world. 

To recognize power’s decentralized manifestation in the world supports seeing social action as oriented toward efforts to construct humane spaces for creativity and peaceable living more than to directly overthrow the existing order. The efforts of the Anabaptists over the centuries have been focused on creating alternative faith communities and in the context of those communities to develop strategies for meeting human needs and express human creativity and, in a sense, letting the state take care of itself. 

Troxell calls this positive focus on creating space to be human [and humane] outside the domination of the state “a structural indifference to the state.” With this, the state is not necessarily rejected as unimportant on a practical level so much as it is not the central emphasis for the community’s political involvements. In a parallel manner, postanarchism is uninterested in typical anarchist strategies of creating a “vanguard movement” to take down the state. Instead, since there is no centralized source of power that must be taken control of, the focus may be turned toward the decentralized politics of direct involvement in the day-to-day work of humane engagement. The goal is to construct a politics that embodies decentralized power all the way down.

When the focus is to construct decentralized spaces to be humane more than concentrated efforts to overthrow the state, the emphasis will be on the practices to sustain that humaneness—another point of close connection between Anabaptist thought and postanarchism. Anabaptist peaceable practices are similar to what some postanarchists call “micropolitics.” A central practice is that of patient listening to various points of view. This listening is a key element in processing conflicts. Inspired by the Anabaptist emphasis on the importance of the Bible, we may seek a reading of scripture that highlights ways that the Bible actually might support an anarchistic sensibility. The points of congruence between Anabaptism and postanarchism may be linked with such a reading.

The Bible’s “anarchistic” politics: Old Testament

The Bible provides much material for idealistic hopes, and we should take that material seriously. One of the main functions of the Bible is to hold before us a vision of genuine healing and shalom. At the same time, the Bible does give us pictures of human fallenness, of imperfect communities, of power politics. The tension between the imperfect and the ideal remains very much in place.

From the start, the story expresses a deep suspicion of centralized political power. At first this is a bit subtle. Only if we notice what is missing in the creation story will we recognize its subversive tenor. The creative force and center of power in the universe is not anything hinting of human kingship or empires. It is a free, humane, relational God whose creative energies stem from love not domination. The human politics in the rest of Genesis are familial, decentralized, local, and often surprising. Younger sons at times take priority. Injustices at times are forgiven. The God at times sides with the weaker and more vulnerable members of the community.

In Exodus, the Bible’s anti-imperial sensibility becomes explicit. The paragon of power politics, the god-emperor Pharaoh of Egypt is shown to be corrupt and overtly opposed to the God of the Hebrews (that is, according to the story, the God who is the Creator of the Universe—so this is a cosmological statement). God intervenes to liberate the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt and gifts them with a blueprint for a just and humane society—the law codes (Torah). Though Torah certainly contains many ambiguities and reflects its own time and place of origin, as a whole, it may fruitfully be read as an exercise in anti-imperial politics. The vision of communal life in Torah is a counter-vision to the notion of life expressed in Egypt’s ways of domination. So, the exodus story includes both a critique of centralized, unjust power and a vision for an alternative community of freed slaves, an alternative vision for human life.

The community is meant to operate in a way that prevents a return to slavery. The anti-slavery dynamics of Torah include both a rejection of centralized power (initially, no human king and no permanent military; when allowance for the possibility of human kingship is made, precautions are still provided to prevent aggrandizement of power and wealth) and an affirmation of the center of power being the community and not some kind of small elite.

Along with Egypt, later empires are also critiqued throughout the Bible. Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Rome are often presented as God’s enemies, as oppressors of the Hebrew people (and so many others), and as the sources of most of the world’s violence and injustice. The entire project of the exodus, Torah, and the sustenance of the community of God’s people is framed from the beginning in terms of God’s work of blessing all the families of the earth. Resistance to power politics is one of the main aspects of this work, along with constructing communities that model genuine justice and empower the vulnerable.

One of the most politically significant parts of the Bible is the account of the post-exodus community. Though gifted with Torah as guidance to just living, it struggles from the beginning to actually embody such just living. They end up with a homeland, gained by morally ambiguous means, including a great deal of violence. What’s not ambiguous is that in time, this territorial kingdom departs from Torah’s guidance for just living:

As the kings and power elite imitate the ways of the nations and exploit the vulnerable, prophets arise who reemphasize the perennial relevance of Torah and the politics of decentralized power and empowered self-determination. In the end, the territorial kingdom is destroyed, and with it that model as a channel for God’s promise is ended.

 So, the relevance of Torah is multifaceted, in many ways hinting at an anarchistic sensibility—especially in its critique of centralized power, attention to the needs of the vulnerable, providing guidance for shared power in the community, and empowerment of the prophets as a source of insight and direction from leaders outside the elite establishment.

The Bible’s “anarchistic” politics: New Testament

It is possible to read New Testament politics as being in continuity with the Old Testament when we recognize how central to the story is the failure of the territorial kingdom as the locus for God’s work among human beings:

The Hebrews were given the Land as a place to embody Torah and fulfill their vocation to bless all the families of the earth. For various reasons, they failed to do so. The leadership class became corrupt, and Torah was disregarded. Ultimately, the territorial kingdoms were destroyed by a couple of the great empires, Assyria and Babylon. The key message of this tragic story, though, was that the destruction of the territorial kingdoms was not actually a defeat for Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews. This destruction was actually a vindication of Torah and of the warning God gave the people back when they entered the Land in the time of Joshua: Disregard Torah and your kingdom will fall.

When the territorial kingdom had been established the people gradually turned from Torah. At the last minute of this kingdom’s existence, the law books were rediscovered. With Torah back in hand, the community managed to find sustenance for their peoplehood. They didn’t need a king nor a territorial kingdom to witness to the truth of Torah and to bless all the families of the earth. The political message of the Old Testament thus ends up being an affirmation of peoplehood and politics apart from existing as a territorial kingdom.

With that anti-territorial kingdom message in mind, the political dynamics of the New Testament make more sense—and it’s easier to see continuity between the two testaments:

Jesus framed his ministry as an expression of the kingdom of God. But politics of the kingdom of God as presented by Jesus has to do not with a territorial kingdom but with embodying Torah in decentralized, shalom-focused “assemblies.” The common life and witness of these assemblies was about politics in the same ways that the original Torah-centered community following the exodus was—practice generosity, justice for the vulnerable, non-acquisitive economics, no centralized power elite, reconciliation rather than retaliation when there is conflict.

Both testaments show optimism that the dictates of Torah that especially empower vulnerable people are followable. Certainly, we read of many failures to embody the way of Torah consistently, but the main responsibility for such failures generally lies with the powers-that-be in the community and with the impact of the great empires on the people (from Egypt to Rome). Human nature is not the problem so much as the imposition of power politics from the top down. The Bible, as a whole, undermines the domination of hierarchies in human communities. Do not be like the tyrants of the nations, Jesus insisted.

Transforming politics

An Anabaptist reading of biblical politics has much to gain from a conversation with postanarchists. The potential of useful connections with postanarchists may also be present with other anarchist thinkers as well. Anabaptists suggest a line of continuity from the formation of the people of God around the liberating work of Yahweh (with the prophetic word and not human power politics at the center) through the failure of the geographically bounded kingdom option through the continuation of peoplehood based on Torah and not the sword culminating in Jesus as king, reinforcing a politics of servanthood. Many of the classic anarchist thinkers and practitioners (maybe most especially Peter Kropotkin) have sought a similar kind of politics.

My concern is not so much with converting anarchists to Christianity or to convert Christians to anarchists. I don’t even know yet if I want to call myself a full-fledged anarchist. More so, I want to work at a way of reading the Bible that would challenge Christians to embody a radical political philosophy. And with that, I suspect more awareness of the anarchist tradition, including the recent thought of postanarchists, would be very helpful for that task. And if doing so would make biblical and theological resources more available to anarchists and other activists, so much the better.