I'm part of a Christian anarchist group on Facebook. We get into a lot of lively debates about the nature of God, the Bible, the church and anarchy. It isn't an echo chamber, that's for sure!
There have been a lot of debates about how an anarchist ought to view the church. Rather than having to restate my opinion every time this debate comes up, I'm going to thoroughly outline my thoughts and research in one post.
Disclaimer: I'm writing this post with two basic assumptions: God is real and the Bible is true. I'm not here to prove or debate those assumptions. I'm here to argue based on those foundational assumptions that the church is a legitimate hierarchy instituded by God.
The Issue
Many anarchists are against all forms of hierarchy. I don't believe this position is necessary to anarchism since as humans we constantly engage in voluntary hierarchical structures. So long as there is no force or coercion involved, do whatever you want. Right?
It's this thinking that all hierarchy, or even all structure is immoral that gets a lot of Christian anarchists hung up about the church.
First, I will submit that the church is a voluntary hierarchy, therefore there is no moral issue to be found. Second, I will submit that even if the church was an involuntary authoritarian structure, it would have every right to be. Let me elaborate:
One thing that we must remember is that we are anarchists in the way we relate to our fellow humans, but total monarchists in the way we relate to God. If God has the right to rule over us (and he does, of course) then he also has the right to institute legitimate authority structures.
That being said, I believe that the church not authoritarian because God chose not to design it that way. I think voluntary associations with very limited top-down organization is the best and most Biblical structure for a church. As organizations that are both voluntary and instituted by God, churches have no need to be anarchistic in their internal structure.
The Evidence
The Bible's outline for how a church ought to run is fairly limited. For that reason, I think it's best for churches not to be so bound by structure or tradition (that's just an opinion, it isn't the crux of my argument.) Where the Bible is most clear is in matters of church discipline.
In Defense of Church Discipline
I debated with one Christian anarchist who called the idea of church leadership having the obligation to discipline "God appointed law enforcement." In an anarchist group, the idea of law enforcement, of course, carries many negative connotations. That's a mischaracterization of the concept of church discipline. But it's clear in many verses in the Bible that when sin is present, corrective action must be taken. It should first be dealt with among the brethren, then the church leadership if the first step fails..
Matthew 18:15-17 says, 15"If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Just as I stated above, correction should first come from brothers in Christ, or the "offended party", but if that doesn't work, others should be made involved and eventually the church. If this individual still won't listen to correction, he should essentially lose his bond of fellowship.
In 1 Corinthians 5:12, Paul speaks of judging those inside the church rather than those outside, suggesting that those within a local body are subject to its leadership and discipline. That same chapter speaks about a specific case of church discipline that led to excommunication. Sin is like yeast, Paul says, it can't be allowed to grow and thrive and spread among the body.
Of course, when repentance occurs, fellowship should be restored (2 Corinthians 2:5-8).
This evidence was enough for me. Matters of discipline and excommunication from a local body can't really be accomplished without a leadership structure. But some might say that I'm arguing from the assumption that legitimate church "leadership" exists. Fair enough, let me prove the legitimacy of church leadership next.
In Defense of Church Leadership
The verses given above may not explicitly mention leaders, but they don't exist in a vacuum. Everything in Sciprture must be read in context. And in the context of the New Testament, there are plenty of passages about church authority (don't get bumped by that word my fellow anarchists. Neither I nor the Bible use it in every case to mean "someone with the right to rule over others.")
1 Timothy 3:1-7 states the requirements for the office of Elder (or Overseer). The prerequisites to leadership aren't relevant to our discussion, but the existence of this passage is proof of the requirement for churches to have leaders/elders/overseers. It refers to it as an "office" (Greek, "hierateia" which denotes an official position). Acts 14:23 similarly talks about the appointment of elders to oversee each local church.
The Greek word for "Elder" used in many of these passages is "presbuteros" or "presbuterion". In some contexts that can be used to simply refer to age and standing in a community. But in the context of an overseer, it refers to one who has been appointed to the spiritual care of a church and to exercise oversight over it. Their duties are described by the Greek work "episkopeo" which means to look upon, inspect, oversee, look after, care for. These duties can't be done with some kind of leadership over the body.
Some people get hung up on the word "leader" but a leader isn't necessarily a ruler. The Bible more often uses words like "elder" or "overseer". But what's the difference between a leader and an overseer? It's obvious from the text that overseers have a leadership role and in the Bible, it's clear that church leaders aren't rulers. The Greek "episkopeo" does not imply entrance upon a responsibility, but fulfillment of it. It's not a matter of assuming a "position" but a discharge of duties.
1 Peter 5:2-3 speaks of a church leader as a shepherd of the flock, exercising oversight and being an example. This passage shows the twofold nature of an elder. They are an example and a leader. Some Christian anarchists will gladly accept the former but have trouble accepting the latter, but the New Testament clearly describes elders as both.
Speaking of authorities instituted by God, Hebrews 13:17 says, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. As you can see, this isn't just a communal relationship between brethren. There is structure, with spiritual leaders that ought to be obeyed within the context of the church.
Ephesians 4:11-16 talks about elders, shepherds, teachers and other leaders duties to equip the saints and build up the body of Christ. In the context of what we've already seen, it's clear that part of building up the body is dealing with seen. This is done among the brethren, but the ultimate responsibility falls to the overseers. That way, they can help the body, attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Of course, this discipline and instruction must be done in love as verse 16 says.
Titus 1:5-9 talks about elders as both teachers and those who must rebuke those who contradict God's truth.
I'm gonna swing back to 1 Peter 5 now. It's just one example that refers to leaders as shepherds. Some of the nuance of the role of shepherd is lost on us in the modern world where we aren't as familiar with the job. The shepherds would not only care for and sustain their flock. They would have to deal with those that went astray, sometimes forcibly with their crook. If a sheep wouldn't come, it wasn't uncommon for a shepherd to break its leg with the crook. Shepherds have to lead and discipline. They have authority over their sheep and will do whatever they can to guide them back to the fold. This sometimes involves pain and punishment.
Bringing it all Together
Given what we've learned about church leadership, I'm going to bring it back to the matter of church discipline as seen in Matthew 18. Having read everything above, it should be clear that when the passage refers to a matter of sin being brought to "the church" it's the overseers who have to deal with it.
God appointed elders to teach and look after the spiritual wellbeing of a church. This includes discipline. This cannot be disputed Biblically.
Preemptively Answering Objections
Perhaps my use of the word "authority" is bumping you. The church leaders aren't the "authorities" in the sense that many anarchists use the word. They don't hold a position of rulership. God is the authority, but the overseers exercise his authority through teaching and discipline.
Someone might dispute my claims by demanding a single verse that says, "submit to church leaders for they have the authority to discipline." But you shouldn't need a single verse to say one thing for that one thing to be true. You need to read passages in context.
Nowhere does the Bible say the word Trinity or explicitly define the concept, but we know God is three persons when we connect the dots between passages. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly condemn polygamy, but we know what the patriarchs did was wrong from other passages. Nowhere does the Bible condemn abortion, but we know it's wrong by connecting the dots between passages that value life in the womb to God's commands about murder. Sometimes we don't have a single passage to spell out a single truth.
Finally, some might say that I'm advocating a system where we answer to man rather than to God. Nowhere did I say that and no where does the Bible say that. You answer to God, but in the context of a church, God has placed men as overseers over you. This is indisputable.
Concluding Thoughts
The need for Christians to have a church with structure and leadership is so obvious when you look at the right passages. Jesus was not anti organized religion. The New Testament is full of texts about how church should be structured. They aren't direct words from Jesus, but if you doubt the words of His apostles you call the whole Bible into question, including the red letters.
So you're a Christian anarchist, and if you believe the Bible I hope I've proven that church is not a wrong, nor is it optional. Some Christian anarchists might be tempted to stay home since they can't find a body of like-minded believers, but this is unwise too. Most Christians (like most people) are statists. I doubt you'll find any denomination that's perfectly friendly to the anarchist worldview.
I go to a Baptist church with a lovely, well-meaning group of statists.The most important thing is to find a church that diligently preaches the gospel. We're Christians first and anarchists second.