I may not be the first to ever use that term, but I've never personally seen it used before. Christian anarchism is not a new thing, but its manifestation today looks somewhat different from what it's been in the past. Formerly, Christian anarchism, as well as anarchism in general, was of a socialist bent, at least to the extent that inviolable private property rights were not always regarded as a crucial aspect of peaceful social life in this world (the great writer and Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy comes to mind). In a post-Rothbard era, however, and the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, modern Christian anarchism has taken on a decidedly different flavor.
Rothbardian anarchism advocates ethical norms within human society, but does not claim to put forth an entire moral code for man. A person can adhere to almost any religion, or no religion at all, and consider oneself an anarchist. I wish to suggest, however, that Christian beliefs coincide particularly well with anarchism and further, that anarchism is the most consistent philosophical position for the Christian in his conception of this finite world and earthly society.
The Non-Aggression Principle is like a film negative of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule tells us to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us", whereas the NAP says "don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." One is a prescription for action, the other is a restriction of action. Taken together, a consistent person would realize, then, that while he has chosen to abide by the Golden Rule himself, to force others to abide by it would be a violation of the NAP. So the least requirement for peaceful human society is the rejection of the initiation of force; beyond that, positive prescription for ones conduct must be voluntarily adhered to on an individual basis. This attitude upholds the Christian belief in man's God-given free will; one must freely choose to obey God's will and follow his Son, otherwise the choice is meaningless. The NAP forms the basis for peaceful coexistence in this earthly realm. The Golden Rule forms the basis upon which we become citizens of the heavenly kingdom, the world to come.
Recognizing the implications of the NAP, the Christian must conclude that earthly rulers are under the same rules and obligations as all men, and that, in their pursuance of lordship by force, they are necessarily committing injustice toward their fellow man; they are not doing unto others as they would have done unto them. If "thou shall not steal", then taxation, which is theft, is illegitimate. If "thou shalt not kill", then war, which is simply mass murder, is wrong. When these Commandments were given to us, it was not with the caveat that "These Commandments do not apply to those who call themselves your rulers."
What about the "monarchism" at the end of our term? At first glance, "anarcho" and "monarchism" may seem to be contradictory terms. But here they are not being applied to the same thing, in the same way. A Christian can quite consistently be an anarchist with regard to his fellow mortal man. But the very name "Christian" means "one who follows Christ." The Christ is The Anointed One. He is called Lord and King. So the Christian is, in this way, a monarchist. He recognizes the Son of God as legitimate King. This is compatible with anarchism, however, as it is a voluntary relationship. Christ Jesus calls us to follow him of our own free will, and to go out into the world to tell others the good news: that there is a King who is good and just, who is trustworthy. But if, instead, we go out and force others to bend their knee to Him against their will, not only do we fail in that very act (it must be a free conversion of the heart, not merely an outward appearance of begrudging submission), but we disobey the King we claim to follow, in not following the Golden Rule. Christianity is a voluntary monarchy. It is consistent with the NAP.
Anarchism is a philosophy about earthly man, taken as he is, and his relationship to other people in this world. It is not a religion, and its claims are not claims of utopia. Rather, it is the consistent application of conscience (though often supported by knowledge of economics and causal realism) that is written on our hearts. It does not venture into the realm of metaphysics. But metaphysical truths lie beneath. Many anarchists believe in natural law. Christians believe in the source of natural law; the natural law giver. The very existence of right and wrong must be taken as a given for the normative values of anarchism to make sense. The essential questions of "How do we know what we know," and "Are there objective truths" have lurked under the surface of philosophical thought for millennia. I would posit that the answers to these questions are to be found within the answer to the question of existence itself: namely, in God. I mean not only to suggest, then, that the Christian should be an anarchist, but also that the anarchist should be a Christian. This flip side of the coin I will expand upon in a future post.
Whenever this line of argument is put forth, questions arise from both anarchists and Christians as to particulars ("What about Romans 13?", etc). These require sufficient space for explanation on their own, so I must save those for later. For now, my purpose was to adequately define my own personal strand of anarchism, so as to lay the groundwork for future discussion. If you're interested in hearing more about this topic, please let me know in the comments.