From Jesus Radicals (who I don’t wholly endorse but do like):

All governments operate on a model of ruling over people. But the Gospels claim that Christians should model Jesus’ suffering servanthood. These are fundamentally incompatible outlooks. Anarchism, at its best, is a commitment to systematically critiquing all structures that place one person or group in a position to dominate others or creation. So anarchism, as a political philosophy holds some promise for Christians because the two share a commitment to critiquing the power structures and working towards a more level playing field.

Because the term “anarchy” has recently worked its way back into political news reporting — and its applications haven’t been particularly flattering — I feel I should clarify what I mean when I use the term. Perhaps this is classic pseudo-postmodernism, defining a word to make it mean what I want it to mean, but I want to be met on my terms, not someone else’s pre-suppositions.

So, with that in mind, when I talk about being an anarchist, I don’t mean that I advocate the wild-eyed throwing of Molotov cocktails, or even of lawlessness. What I mean is that I do not believe that, just by the virtue of its existence, I necessarily owe a political system — even a very noble political system — my allegiance; that is, I am not obligated to unflinching loyalty to a given government or system of government just because I was born under it. People generally agree with this when you apply it to Communism, but when you point that same gun at post-liberal western democracies, you’re a traitor. Nevermind that post-liberal western democracies have gotten really efficient at generating the illusion of freedom without granting it.

As a Christian, I am obligated to obey the lawful laws of the land, but I cannot genuflect to Caesar while muttering about just following orders. My loyalties lie with a King and his kingdom, and — as institutions go — to the Church.I suppose this makes me more of a monarchist than an anarchist.