Anarchy and Christianity

[This Baron of Mora]

I recently got into a brief discussion online that became about anarchism and whether or not it is compatible (in its true form) with Christianity etc.
The dialogue is below (with omissions etc. for clarity), but I was wondering if my argument was valid and/or whether anyone can find any holes in it (purely for the sake of avoiding error).
____________________________________________________________
Myself: If you read 'The Man Who Was Thursday' you see that true anarchists want to abolish God, since He is the law, other anarchists (what is thought of as conventional ones) are only puppets that throw bombs.
However that is more of a 1900s view of anarchism, moreover 'true anarchists' likely never existed in that way. Now anarchism is likely even more flawed and hypocritical because it adheres to neither bomb throwing, or abolishing the true source of law. This may sound flawed, but what I mean is that if you truly believe in what anarchism represents you in turn must except either/both of those.

Response: What about anarchists who believe in authority, just not authority of man over man?

Third Party: Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?

Response: No, because I'm referring to anarcho capitalism. These anarchists believe in voluntary structure and authority; but not a monopolized force called the State.

Myself: What that part of it can basically be paired down to is that you intrinsically cannot reject all authority on Earth and still accept the authority of God. After all it is the Kingdom of Heaven. Besides just like communism this 'anarcho-capitalism' needs people to give up/adhere to ___(also known as authority) in order to function remotely how it is supposed to (and in so doing you destroy what it IS supposed to be).

Ancient Israel during the time of the judges is a good example. In that time God was supposed to be their King working through the Priests as well as ordinary people. But the Israelites turn away from God and 'did as they saw fit' (effectively anarchy) and therefore rejecting both His authority and the authority of man. Then God sent the Judges who then ruled as His leaders on Earth and everyone in Israel turned back and followed both their authority and God's authority until they died and they turned backwards. Eventually God anointed a King to be more or less a permanent line of 'judges' over the people. When Saul became greedy etc. and tried to kill David David refused to kill Saul despite many chances to do so because he was 'the Lord's anointed' and the person who did kill him was killed, in other words even though Saul was wrong David respected his God given authority (which was also given to David before this time) etc. etc.

So simply put:
worldly anarchy = rejection of God's authority (intrinsically)
worldly authority = acceptance of God's authority (intrinsically)
rejecting God's authority = world anarchy (intrinsically)
acceptance of God's authority = acceptance of worldly authority (intrinsically), (as mentioned in the Gospels as well)

Third Party: You have that habit of saying everything that anyone could say in one huge post...

Myself: I tried to keep that brief but also tried to do it quickly, so pardon both its length and possible holes that I forgot to fill etc.
I dislike sacrificing the details if they also harm discerning the truth
______________________________________________________________

[Bainespal]

I think there is a difference between rejecting God's authority and rejecting human authority, even if the Bible tells us to respect even human authority, even if rejecting all human authority would be sinful and destructive.

The people who hold human authority are the same as the people whom they rule over. Kings, presidents, and legislatures are not established directly by God. God gave us the mandate to govern ourselves, I believe, and every society has the responsibility to institute just governance. However, this does not mean that governments come directly from God as an expression of His will. Governments come from sinful humans, and all governments are made of sinful humans. Therefore, in a very immediate way, governmental authority really does come from the people, from the consent of the govern. This isn't a modern American concept; it was always true. If everyone in an ancient kingdom decided that the king was a tyrant and they didn't want him, how would he remain king? If every crewmember onboard a ship decided that they hated their captain and wanted to mutiny, that captain wouldn't last long.

Ancient Israel was somewhat of a special case. A prophet who had received objective, direct, and literal revelation from God anointed Saul and David. Israel itself was the recipient of the most specific revelation from God, a tool by which God revealed Himself and established His authority. The same cannot be said of any government since. Jesus Christ is, of course, the rightful King of God's world, the anointed heir of the anointed kingdom, the only human who is truly special. Even so, as a human leader, I don't think even Christ's Kingdom will be established without the participation of His people. Otherwise, why would He seek to have us repent and willingly submit to Him?

[This Baron of Mora]

I agree with effectively all you said, human authority is flawed (just look at Saul, and David sinned to of course) nor do I believe toppling kings etc. is always wrong. What I mean is that you must intrinsically accept some degree of human authority if you accept God's authority, and therefore anarchy doesn't work. I also believe the reverse works, if you accept God's authority you will eventually come to accept some sort of human authority.