Anarchism, Christianity, and the Prophetic Imagination 7无政府主义，基督教，和先知的想象力7
Written by Jason Barr : November 26, 2007书面由Jason巴尔： 2007年11月26日
In the last post we looked at two major misconceptions about anarchism and anarchists.在过去的邮政我们期待在两个主要的误解无政府主义和无政府主义者。 Now we will explore one of the most basic aspects of anarchism, the principle of shared and decentralized power and authority.现在，我们将探讨的一个最基本的方面，无政府主义，分担的原则和权力下放的权力和权威。
As I said before, anarchism is not the idea of politics without order, but rather the politics of a different order, meaning politics with decentralized authority, rather than a hierarchically-based authority.正如我以前说过，是不是无政府主义的思想，政治，没有秩序，而是政治的一种不同的秩序，意义与政治权力下放，而不是一个层次为基础的权威。 Anarchism has at its root the idea that centralized power structures should be criticized and even dismantled to allow for the development of more equitable and just structures where every voice is heard and those directly affected by decisions are the ones making them.无政府主义已在其根的思想，集中的权力结构应该予以批评和甚至拆除，以便发展更多的公平和公正的结构，每一个声音，是听取和那些直接受影响的决定是那些使他们。
Most institutions are designed according to top-down models of authority – CEOs, presidents, legislative bodies, managers, school principals, and so on.大部分机构的目的是根据自上而下模型的权力-地球观测卫星委员会，总统，立法机构，管理人员，学校校长，等等。 Those on top make decisions that trickle down to the people on the bottom.这些再加上作出的决定，涓滴细流回落到人民的底部。 But this is usually a one-way process.不过，这通常是一个单向的过程。 Although management sometimes responds to the desires of people on the bottom in an effort to pacify them, it rarely results in substantial changes.虽然管理，有时回应的愿望，人民的底部在努力安抚他们，也很少结果在很大的变化。
As a result, the overwhelming majority of people, whether they are in a democracy or a dictatorship, don’t make decisions about what laws are made, what rules they have to follow or what policies they’ll put in place.因此，压倒多数的人，无论他们是在一个民主或独裁，不作出决定的是什么法律，什么规则，他们必须遵循或什么样的政策，他们将付诸实施。 A much smaller segment of the population retains the power to make these decisions and the rest of the people simply have to do it or face the consequences, even if they disagree or the rules don’t make sense (example of the latter: the US tax code).少得多的人口群体保留权力，作出这些决定和其余的人根本也要做，否则将面临的后果，即使他们不同意或规则，这样做是没有意义的（后者的例子：美国税务代码） 。 So although we can vote for the president and senators, you don’t vote on the kinds of policies you want them to implement.所以，虽然我们可以投票给总统和参议员，你不投票，该种政策，您希望他们落实。 As such if you don’t like the job he or she does after they have gotten into office, you can’t really do anything about it until the term is over and you get to vote again - and even then you are forced to choose between the candidates the parties put before you, regardless of whether any of them represent what you think would be better or more just.这样如果你不喜欢的工作，他或她是否后，他们获得了进入办公室，你真的不能做任何关于它，直到任期结束，你去投票，再次-即使如此，你是被迫选择候选人之间的有关各方提出之前，你，不论任何他们所代表的是什么，您认为会更好或更公正。
The hierarchical mode of organizing tends to produce a society that looks something like this:分层模式的组织，往往产生社会看起来是这样的：
And while the methods of control in a so-called democracy will differ somewhat from those of a dictatorship the net result is still the same - people are unable to have any substantial control over the decisions that affect them in their day-to-day lives.而方法控制在一个所谓的民主会有所不同，从那些独裁政权的净结果仍是相同的-人是无法有任何实质性的控制权，影响他们的决定，在他们的日常的生活。
Anarchists reject “pyramid” models of organizing society and its institutions in favor of modes that are decentralized, where people share power more equally, and where no one person or group of people should have the ability to gain too much power over another.无政府主义者拒绝“金字塔”模式，社会组织及其机构在主张模式是分散的，人们可以分享更多的权力，同样，如果没有一个人或一群人，应该有能力获得太多权力。 Decisions that affect groups of people are made by consensus, by agreement, and not by “I said so, you do it”.有影响的决定群体的人都是以协商一致方式作出，通过协议，而不是“我说的话，你这样做” 。 The decision to change an aspect of society would begin with groups of people getting together to talk about whether a certain policy or course of action is a good idea.决定改变的一个方面，社会将开始与群体的人越来越在一起谈论是否某项政策或行动，当然是一个好主意。 The impetus for the decision would come from the ground up, with those who are directly affected most involved in the decision-making process.动力的决定，将来自地面，与那些谁是最直接受影响的参与，在决策过程中。 The process might take longer as consensus-building tends to be a time-consuming activity, but everyone (regardless of class, sex, or other identifying factors) would have equal power in making the decision, and everyone’s rights and responsibilities as a member of the community would be respected.该过程可能需要较长时间建立共识往往是有时限的消费活动，但每个人都（不论阶级，性别，或其他因素确定）将有平等的权力，在作出决定时，和每个人的权利和责任，作为一个社会成员将得到尊重。 Anarchists believe that basing decisions on consensus, and not coercion, would result in a more just and orderly society than hierarchical models.无政府主义者认为，根据协商一致的决定，而不是胁迫，会导致在一个更加公正和有秩序的社会，比层次模型。 This is true both of communitarian and syndicalist forms of anarchism (which tend to be more labor- or economically-based) as well as primitivist forms (which tend to be based more on a tribal understanding or even on hunter-gatherer ideas).这才是真正的两个communitarian和syndicalist形式的无政府主义（即更趋于劳动密集型或经济基础） ，以及primitivist形式（往往是基于更对部落的了解，甚至对狩猎采集的想法） 。
This is a very brief overview of the principle of decentralization and how it is different from hierarchical modes of society.这是一个非常简要概述的原则，权力下放以及它是如何从不同的层次模式的社会。 Next time we will begin to look at some of the implications of this principle, beginning with the concept of direct action.下一次我们将开始看看一些的影响，这个原则，开始的概念，直接的行动。
for further reading .为进一步读。 . 。 . 。
- None Found无发现
I don’t know what Christianity has to do with anarchism, but as long as anarchism is political idea it is not any different than any other political ideas.我不知道什么基督教已做与无政府主义，但只要是无政府主义的政治理念，这是没有任何不同，比任何其他的政治理念。
The masses can rule only if they gain control over the capital OR if the capital is destroyed.群众不仅可以统治，如果他们取得其控制权的资本，或者如果资本是摧毁。
I don’t know what Christianity has to do with anarchism 我不知道什么基督教已做与无政府主义
I’m getting there, it was a 25 page paper.我收到有，这是一个25页的文件。 This is about page 11.这大约是第11页。
I’m not sure there really is the overwhelming sameness to political ideas you propose.我不知道，真的是雷同的，以压倒性的政治理念，您的建议。 Do you mean to say that democratic theories are no different than theories related to constitutional monarchy?你的意思说，民主的理论是没有什么不同的理论与君主立宪制？ I mean, I’m sure there is some overlap due to the nature of the beast, in a sense, but that doesn’t mean there is categorically no difference.我的意思是，我敢肯定是有一定的重叠，由于性质的野兽，在某种意义上，但这并不意味着有断然没有区别。
Hi Jason,喜贾森，
These posts are really challenging.这些职位是真正的挑战。 I am struggling a bit with some of the presuppositions that I’ve inherited in my upbringing, which I don’t just want to throw out for the sake of fitting the progressive mold, because I know some of them have merit.我挣扎了一点与部分的假定我已经继承了在我的成长过程，我不只想抛出为拟合逐步模具，因为我知道他们中的一些优点。 Currently, I do not see anarchy as a universal model for all social structures.目前，我看不出有陷入无政府状态，作为一个普遍的模式，为所有的社会结构。 I think there are valid authorities and invalid ones.我认为有有效当局和无效的。 The government is invalid because it usurps the role of Jesus as King and Protector.政府是无效的，因为它篡夺的作用耶稣作为国王和保护者。 But I do not yet see how there cannot exist valid hierarchies under Messiah Jesus in families and churches.但我还没有看到如何有不能存在有效的等级，根据救世主耶稣在家庭和教堂。 If fathers and mothers, bishops and elders, follow the Jesus model of Servant-King in their administrations, do they need dismantling?如果父亲和母亲，主教和长老，按照耶稣模型的仆人-国王在他们的行政部门，他们是否需要拆除？ Can authority be valid and not authoritarian?可以管理局的有效期，而不是独裁？ Children and sheep need parents and pastors to guide them.儿童和绵羊有需要的家长和牧师引导他们。 The State, however, tries to put on both roles- parenting parents and shepherding shepherds.国家，然而，试图把两地的角色-为人父母的家长和引导牧羊人。 Do you think the difference needs to be emphasized?你认为的差异需要强调的？
I would never want someone to throw out certain presuppositions simply because there’sa more “progressive” model out there.我绝不会希望有人抛出一些预设的，纯粹因为有更多的“渐进”的模式存在。 I would want to throw them out because they’re not faithful to the Gospel as it is expressed in the grand story of God’s creation, redemption, and the already-but-not-yet new creation.我希望通过他们，因为他们没有忠实于福音，因为这是表示在宏伟的故事，上帝的创造，赎回，并已经但是未但新的创造。
That being said, I think one of the worst things someone could do would be to apply “anarchism” as a universal truth or as you put it “model for all social structures”.说了这番话之后，我认为最严重的国家之一的东西，有人可以做的，将申请“无政府主义”作为一个普遍的真理，或当您把它“的模式，所有的社会结构” 。 If that were to be the case, how would it be any different from any other attempt at universal truth from the modern age - communism, capitalism, scientism, the search for a Grand Unifying Principle?如果被情况下，如何将它会有任何不同，任何其他企图的普遍真理从现代的年龄-共产主义，资本主义，科学，寻找一个大统一的原则？ It seems to me that anarchism by its nature subverts the idea of universals because in order to be viable it must, by the very definition of the principle of decentralization, be contextualized, become “incarnate” if you will in different social contexts shaped by different histories.在我看来，无政府主义就其性质而言颠覆的想法的共性，因为在以可行的，它必须由非常的定义，原则，权力下放， contextualized ，成为“肉身”如果你将在不同的社会背景下形成的不同历史。 I might be tempted to call it a “universality of contingency”, an idea that exists in that space between the principle and the particular - just as Christ mediates the place between the dynamic nature of contingency (he did, after all, become a very specific person in a very specific place at a particular time) and the universal (the God who was and is and is to come).我可能会受到诱惑，称之为“普遍性的应急” ，构思中存在的空间之间的原则和特别是-正如基督介导的地方之间的动态性质的应变（他那样，毕竟，成为一个十分具体的人在一个非常具体的地方，在特定的时间）和通用（上帝谁是和是和是来） 。
I completely agree that there are valid authorities.我完全同意有有效的当局。 Not all anarchists are completely anti-authority in any and all circumstance(s).并不是所有的无政府主义者，是完全反权威，在任何及所有的情况下， （ ） 。 Noam Chomsky puts it best, I think, when he says a large part of what is wrong with our world is that we tend to assume authority is legitimate, instead of challenging it to legitimate itself.诺姆乔姆斯基把它最好的，我认为，当他说，大部份有什么不对我们的世界是，我们往往承担的权力是合法的，而不是具有挑战性的，它以合法的本身。
Nevertheless, I think you confuse the concepts of hierarchy and structure.不过，我觉得你混淆的概念，层次和结构。 A hierarchy is a particular kind of structure, and I think the clear implication of the overarching “metanarrative” of scripture is that it is illegitimate for human beings to wield authority over others as if they were God’s own hand in a way that denigrates the image of God in the other people.等级是一个特别种结构，我认为明确的含义的首要“ metanarrative ”的经文是，它是不合法的人掌握权力，他人，如果他们被上帝的手在自己的方式denigrates形象上帝，在其他人。 I can’t say too much about that here or else I’ll preempt what comes next (which you’ve already read I think, or at least you’ve had the opportunity).我不能说太多说，在这里，否则我会preempt什么明年（即您已经阅读过的，我觉得，或至少您有机会） 。
In a comment a few posts back I replied to Jonas about the difference between structure and hierarchy.在评论一些职位回到我回答，以文约之间的差异的结构和层次。 I’m not going to repeat what I said there, I believe it was about the 3rd or 4th installment of this series.我不想重复我说有，我相信这是关于第三或第四分期付款这一系列。 It may be helpful for you.它可以帮助你。
It is not necessarily the case, though, that bishops and priests and deacons (the traditional 3-fold order of ministry, which I think is highly valuable) is as a matter of absolute necessity hierarchical in an oppressive sense.这是不一定如此，虽然，主教和司铎和执事（传统的3倍秩序部，我认为这是十分宝贵的）是作为一个问题，绝对有必要的层次，在压抑的意识。 If they follow the nature of Jesus as the servant, then it seems to me they will necessarily by the nature of Jesus’ action and who he was as a person and how that functions as our example (see Philippians 2:1-11) then that will deconstruct the nature of authority as it works in the world, as it is practiced.如果他们后续的性质，耶稣的仆人，那么在我看来，他们一定会通过的性质，耶稣的行动和他是谁，作为一个人，以及如何发挥作用，作为我们的榜样（见philippians 2:1-11 ） ，然后这将解构性质的权力，因为它的工程在世界上，因为它是实行。 There would not BE a hierarchy in the technical sense for on my analysis hierarchy is not simply a collection of positions that correspond to some conceptual ladder but rather a real wielding of God-like authority by one person over another in a way as to constrain the vision of a person and her/his development into the vision of another.就不会有一等级的技术意识，为我的层次分析法，是不是一个简单的收集职位对应的一些概念的阶梯，而是一个真正的执政上帝般的权威，由一个人在另一个方式的制约远见一个人，他/她的发展纳入视野。
Regarding the role of parents, it’sa tricky question.对于家长的角色，这是棘手的问题。 On the one hand, parents have a responsibility to train their children in the ways of the Lord, and on the other they have a responsibility to act to them as the Lord did based on the Philippians 2:1-11 example.在一方面，家长有责任培养他们的子女在方式勋爵，以及对其他他们有责任采取行动，以它们作为主没有的基础上， philippians 2:1-11的例子。 One thing I find fascinating is Paul’s exhortation to fathers to “not exasperate [their] children” in Colossians 3:21.一件事，我觉得有趣的是保罗的告诫父亲“不exasperate [其]儿童”在歌罗西书3时21分。 The fascinating thing about it is that he talked to children first.迷人的一点，那就是他谈过儿童第一。 So far as I’m aware he was the first philosopher in the ancient world to do so - he considered the moral agency of the child BEFORE that of the parent.因此，据我所知，他是第一个哲学家在古代世界这样做-他认为，道德的机构，儿童之前的母公司。 In the Roman world it wasn’t even considered, because the entire society functioned on the basis of Caesar as the “father” of the “family” of the empire, a model that was reflected on down in the social structure down to the individual (extended) family where the father had the right to basically kill anyone in the household for offending his honor in any way (like being born as a deformed, female, or other undesirable form of child).在罗马世界，它甚至没有考虑，因为整个社会运作的基础上凯撒作为“父亲”的“家庭”的帝国，一个模型，反映了对下的社会结构回落到个人（延长）家庭如果父亲有权利基本上杀死任何人在家庭中为得罪他的荣誉，以任何方式（如出生作为一个变形，女，或其他不良形式的儿童） 。
We have to recover a sense of scripture as heard in the world to which it was written, instead of reading it through hundreds of years of its having been co-opted to support the status quo and the illegitimate authority that is wielded by power instead of by service.我们要收回的责任感经文作为听取了在世界上它是书面，而不是读通过数百年来，其已被增选支持的现状及非婚生子女的权威，就是掌握权力，而非由服务。
The State DOES try to put on both roles, and I do think the difference must be emphasized - but at the same time we must also relentlessly self-criticize the ways in which our conceptions of “authority”, shepherding, and parenthood are more shaped by the cultural assumptions we’ve imbibed rather than through a Biblical understanding.国家是否尝试把两地的角色，我确实认为，差异必须强调的-但是，在同一时间，我们还必须坚持不懈地自我批判的方式，使我们的观念的“权威” ，引导，和父母更形由文化的假设，我们已经吸胀，而非透过圣经的理解。
That all makes sense.所有有意义的。 Thanks, Jason.感谢，贾森。 I’d had a different definition in mind for the word, “hierarchy”, as a social structure which may or may not be oppressive, depending both on the validity of the authority in question and the virtue of the persons in those positions.我要了不同的定义，考虑到适用于Word ， “层次” ，作为一种社会结构可能会或不会被压迫，这取决于双方关于有效性的权威在的问题和美德的人在这些职位。 The threefold model of church leadership, which you mentioned, I would have considered a valid “hierarchy”, but perhaps we do need to discard the term in that sense because of the associations with various institutions that force conformity at the expense of the individual’s freedom to follow his or her God-given vocations.三重模型教会领导，你所提到的，我会考虑一个有效的“层次” ，但也许我们确实需要摒弃的任期在这个意义上，因为该协会与各机构的力量整合不惜牺牲个人的'的自由跟随他或她的上帝赐予的职业。
I think one area where children are the most victimized by this hierarchical attitude is the traditional classroom model.我认为一个地方的儿童是最受害的这个层次的态度，是传统的课堂模式。 My husband became acquainted with some of the works of John Holt, an advocate of “unschooling”.我的丈夫结识了一些作品，约翰霍尔特，主张“ unschooling ” 。 His previous assumptions in parenting and education were really challenged by what he read, he realized our children were born with unique gifts, and it is our job as parents (and educators) to help them along in finding and nurturing these gifts, rather than in forcing them to follow a preplanned path (someone else’s vision).他以前的假设，在父母和教育真正的挑战是什么，他阅读，他意识到我们的孩子出生，具有独特的礼物，这是我们的工作，作为父母（和教育工作者） ，以协助他们一直在寻找和培育这些礼物，而不是在迫使他们遵循preplanned路径（别人的眼光） 。
I am a big fan of a number of aspects of the un/de-schooling movement, of free schools to a large extent, and other such ideas like “contextualized education for liberation” (the best way I could think of to sum up Paulo Freire’s ideas starting with Pedagogy of the Oppressed ).我的铁杆球迷的若干方面，联合国/德-教育运动，免费学校相当大的程度上，和其他类似的想法一样， “ contextualized教育的解放” （最好的方法我可以想到的总结圣保罗弗莱雷的思想开始与教育学的被压迫者 ） 。
I think you’re probably right about the language of hierarchy - after all it is true that the language we use shapes the world we see (how could it be otherwise?) and I don’t see how using language that intentionally elevates one person’s status above that of another is helpful.我觉得您可能有权关于语言的层次-毕竟，这是事实的语言，我们使用形状的世界，我们看到（怎么可能不这样呢？ ）和我不明白如何使用的语言，故意提升了一人'的地位之上的另一个原因是有帮助的。
I’m still struggling with the relationship between the priesthood of all believers and the function of priests in the various denominations, an issue of no mean importance for me since I’ve been considering pursuing ordination in the Episcopalian church for a couple of months now.我还是挣扎着之间的关系，神职人员的所有信徒和神职人员的功能在各种面额的，问题没有意思的重要性，对我来说，因为我一直在考虑追求协调，在圣公会教堂，数个月，现在。
And holy cow, my comment above was long enough to be its own post!和神圣的牛，我的上述评论是，只要足以让自己的职位！