Welcome to LibertarianChristians.com! If you are new here, you may want to see the About Page for a welcome message and more information about the site. Check out the posts on the right and the Top Posts page to get started! Don't forget to subscribe for free with RSS or Email.
While there have always been schisms in the Christian faith, the current theological/political divide between the Christian Left and the Christian Right is a culmination of the past 100+ years of theological and social developments regarding the nature of the gospel and its implications for our lives. The Right emphasizes the personal, individual nature of the gospel and its effects. The Left emphasizes the social and communal aspects of the gospel. Not surprisingly, their respective views of the gospel fits with their views on the nature of sin. For the Right, sin is when individuals act out of step with God’s desires. For the Left, sin can be created by social institutions beyond the control of any one individual.
Tim Suttle, pastor at Redemption Church in Olathe, Kansas, has made a concerted effort to bring into view both emphases of the gospel. In his book, An Evangelical Social Gospel?, Suttle recounts his own personal journey from a Christian faith emphasizing the effect Jesus has on our personal lives to the embrace of a faith that embraces both the “personal gospel” and the “social gospel.”
Suttle maintains that the individual aspect of the gospel isn’t to be cast aside, but to be held as merely one aspect of the gospel. Suttle suggests that our Western culture has become individualized to a point where even the message of the gospel has adapted so well that this individual aspect has become the whole message. He writes, “Evangelicals have been formed in this narrative of individualism so it should be no surprise that the gospel we tell in America should have an individualistic bent. But, the story of individualism is not synonymous with the story of Christianity. When the story of individualism and the story of God are conflated, the gospel ceases to be good news to everyone” (pg 13). In contrast, Suttle declares that the Bible “tells about a God who has always been concerned about all of life” (pg 15).
Suttle draws heavily from Social Gospel preacher Walter Rauschenbusch, an early 20th century Progressive who learned early in his ministry that the gospel isn’t just about individuals going to heaven when they die, or having a better life for themselves here on this earth. After experiencing the suffering and misery of Hell’s Kitchen, a poverty-stricken area of Manhattan, Rauschenbusch discovered that the message of personal conversion lacked power. Not the power to save individually, but the power to bring people together and toward God. It wasn’t good enough that rich Christians oppressed the poor. Such a gospel didn’t satisfy, and Rauschenbusch believed it didn’t do justice to the gospel of Jesus. To Rauschenbusch, the whole gospel incorporated more than just individuals. It incorporated society.
I was expecting Suttle to lead the reader gradually so as to shift the importance of the individual gospel message to the social gospel message. Refreshingly, Suttle is clear about where he stands: “I believe that if our concept of the gospel doesn’t include both of these messages, then it is something less than the true gospel found in Scripture, and thus lacks the power to transform the world” (pg 26). He starts in the Garden of Eden and points out four directions in which our humanity was fractured by what many theologians call “the Fall”:
The human relationship with God—they hid from God
The human self-relationship—they saw they were naked and ashamed
Humans’ relationship to each other—blame-shifting occurred instantly
Humans’ relationship to the created order—increased pain in childbirth and a cursed ground
If our gospel doesn’t restore all four types of fractures, it is only partial good news.
In just over 100 pages, Suttle’s book explores the nature of the image of God, the dangers of what he calls “individualism,” the nature of sin, and the solution of corporate salvation. Critical to the book is his hardcore commitment to the subtitle of the book: “finding God’s story in the midst of extremes.” He does a superb job.
As a Christian trained in theology and sort of an armchair philosopher, I had a few moments of frustration throughout the book. One was a statement about individualism vs. collectivism: “What makes us human is our participation in humanity” (pg. 35). What followed were a few paragraphs that felt a bit jarring. Suttle makes the case that “the social relationship temporally and logically precedes any awareness of our own existence. In other words, if I was (sic) the only thing in existence, it would not be possible for me to even discern my own existence” (pg 35). To put a finer point on it, he says, “Human ontology—our very being—is predicated upon community. Community comes first” (pg 36). The essence of his point is that to be fully human we must participate as humans in community. Though I agree with his conclusion, I would argue that individualism gets a bad rap due to its confusing nature. Most of us think of individualism as a self-centered way of viewing the world. Norman Horn says it best in his article highlighting the beliefs of Edmund Opitz:
The concept of individualism is often lost in the modern church. One frequently hears in religious circles that “individualism has no place in the life of the church,” but this constitutes a misunderstanding of the word itself. At its core, individualism means the individual is responsible for his own actions, in particular before God, and thus individual liberty is necessary for living out the dictates of conscience. Opitz would agree that one cannot be in Christ (Galatians 3:28) without the body of Christ—the church—but many Christians take this much too far and find themselves promoting collectivism rather than community. Individualism is not social atomism: “We have no inclination to be hermits; we are social creatures, and we achieve our full humanity only in association, in mutuality, and in community.” Voluntary action is the very essence of community, and thus the collectivist is actually acting against the spirit of community he seeks to promote.
Suttle’s understanding of individualism is really criticizing an atomistic view of humanity. Atomistic individualism is antagonistic to life and contrary to the spirit of the Kingdom of God. It would be inappropriate, however, to throw out individualism by arguing that individuals do not or cannot exist apart from community. A Christian individualist is not one averse to community, nor is he self-absorbed. A Christian individualist emphasizes the moral worth the individual, something I’m absolutely certain Suttle affirms. It’s about recognizing that each individual is God’s image in the world, representing unique aspects of the Creator-god in their respective communities.
Another interesting point is that Suttle spends a lot of time talking about the social elements of the gospel message, yet spends little time talking about particular manifestations of society itself. As a libertarian, one quote from Rauschenbusch that stood out to me was, “When [Jesus] took God by the hand and called him ‘our Father,’ he democratized the conception of God. He disconnected the idea from the coercive and predatory State, and transferred it to the realm of family life, the chief social embodiment of solidarity and love” (pg 41, quoting Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel, pg 175, emphasis mine). Suttle cites examples of social sin and its horrible outcomes, and he is convincing in his argument that sin can be social and not just personal. Though it was probably beyond the scope of his book, Suttle does not talk about the nature of the State and its predation on the poor—something most libertarians (even non-Christian ones) would consider to be a “social sin.” Suttle would find some decent company in the midst of libertarian Christians with the following:
Our vocation as human beings is to organize our common life together in such a way that we image God to all creation and bear witness to the in-breaking kingdom of God, so that when all of creation looks at us and sees the way we live together—not just as individuals—it will see past us to the greater reality that is the reign and rule of God. (pg 44)
To Suttle, the good news of the Kingdom of God is beyond our individual destinies and more about embracing God’s reign on earth. He demonstrates in various New Testament passages (Mark 1:14, Luke 8:1, Luke 9:1-12, Acts 3:19-21, Ephesians 1:9-10, Colossians 1:19-20, 2 Peter 3:10-13, and Romans 8:19-23) that God’s saving action is not a destruction of the cosmos but a renewing of it. In a statement clearly drawn from the language and theology of N.T. Wright (a favorite theologian of mine), he succinctly describes the gospel:
The good news is that the future of God has come rushing into the present through Jesus Christ. Heaven has invaded earth in the person of Jesus Christ, who prayed, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (pg 84)
He ends the book on a refreshingly (and perhaps ironic) pastoral note. By describing the Kingdom of God as a rival narrative, he asks, “What story are you living in?” If our world’s narrative is highly consumeristic, we will tend to view ourselves as mere containers, which implies that we keep God’s blessings for ourselves. Instead, we ought to view ourselves as funnels through which God is the source of all our life, our gifts, talents, resources, abilities, passions, and income. Instead of leveraging these to keep our containers full, a fully human experience lets these flow freely through our lives into the lives of others. The original promise to Abraham comes to mind: “you will be blessed to be a blessing throughout the world.”
Suttle’s book has a few shortcomings, and I have a few gripes about his beliefs about society. Suttle is probably more sympathetic to the Progressive movement than I would be. He probably rejects libertarianism. Nonetheless, he has made a significant contribution to the Great Conversation about life and faith through his work.
In 2007 Barack Obama promised us Hope and Change. Change hardly came and hope is long gone. Even his most ardent supporters are pretty miffed. Glenn Beck — clearly not an Obama supporter or even admirer — predicted that John McCain would lose because he was not running for something. Obama won because he promised a vision of America that captured the hearts of many Americans (and the leg of one newscaster).
Ron Paul is clearly the only candidate not running against Barack Obama or against the other GOP candidates. He is running to promote liberty and a restoring of the Republic to the Constitution. He does criticize Obama, but more importantly he describes our social problems as stemming from something greater and more problematic.
Yet one thing doesn’t seem to be clear to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is not the hope of America, or even the world. Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolinski cautions Paul’s supporters into being overly excited about a Paul Presidency, and has taken considerable heat from it. In short, he said that the time supporting Ron Paul could be better spent. Maybe, but that’s too sharp a dichotomy for me. Elections are for a season. Supporting institutions like the Institute for Humane Studies can continue beyond the 2012 election cycle. Call me crazy, but I’m 100% sure Ron Paul won’t run for president again. So let’s seize the day. And if we have enough time and money, we can do both.
But Zwolinski hints at a deeper point that he doesn’t quite explicitly say: Ron Paul is not the ultimate solution to our social problems. To be fair, I truly, honestly, deeply believe that no Ron Paul supporter believes a Paul Presidency will usher in the New Millennium (or something like it). I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Paul (if you don’t believe me, check out my Facebook). Yet as a Christian I am reminded that the hope of the world doesn’t rest in worldly institutions, as much as they need dramatic reform. The hope of the world doesn’t rest in the administrations of men. It doesn’t come through mere human efforts.
A Ron Paul White House would yield tremendous positive results for society and the world. Fewer nations would be threatened by our military. Diplomats around the world might begin to trust our nation. Children will have their fathers return from foreign lands. Fewer troops will suffer from psychological disorders. The importance of sound money will become center stage in the national conversation. Those changes are truly needed. Let’s not underestimate or devalue those outcomes.
But the hope of the world doesn’t come through the actions of one administration. It comes from the members of society who are committed to change, starting from the inside out. Those individuals will shape the world around them. God’s will done “on earth as it is in heaven” will happen when the love of Jesus is demonstrated throughout society. When followers of Jesus funnel their gifts, talents, resources, abilities, and passions for the good of the world, they become God’s image to mankind so real hope is present.* And even though we are ardent supporters of Ron Paul, this thoroughly hope-filled belief is the true position of LibertarianChristians.com.
Perhaps former presidential candidate Barack Obama said it best: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!”
—–
* It’s far too easy to ignore the virtue of suffering, something Western Christians avoid at all costs. When we suffer along with our fellow human beings, we bring ourselves closer to each other and to God in a way unlike any other. True “social justice” (whatever that phrase implies) requires it, otherwise change is anything but real. But that’s for a future article…
Art Carden is a Christian economist who has a knack for bringing complex subjects down to understandable terms. While he already writes for Forbes.com, Mises.org, and other major online sites, I’ve been encouraging him to submit articles relating to faith and economics to LCC for a while. I’m sure he’ll take me up on that offer someday, but for now I’d love to share one of his videos that was recently posted on LearnLiberty.org that is simply phenomenal.
His previous videos are primarily educational, and while his newest one does educate, it’s extremely practical. As a response to a left-liberal video called The Story of Broke (same creators as The Story of Stuff), it sets an example of how to talk about public choice problems and the knowledge problem while at the same time agreeing with much of the critique of our current system. It’s simple, and brilliant. Add to that the amazing production effects (seriously, there are sharks in this video!), and it’s a wonderful 4-minute video.
The character Flik in the movie A Bug’s Life was always on the lookout for an invention that would improve the lot of his ant colony. In the story, the ants were the hard-working productive creatures who simply labored as they were intended to. Given their plight they had little time to do anything else. Flik was always on the lookout for a way to break the endless cycle of grueling labor they performed every summer. He was passionate, inventive, and resolute despite the trouble these characteristics caused him in the ant colony.
I can empathize with Flik’s spirit of innovation. Inventions often make life easier, a win for both me and for the person who has made my life better. While labor is certainly a wholesome way to produce, labor-intensive tasks that can be made less painful are welcomed by just about everybody. Labor-Saving Devices, be it a faster lawn mower, a snow blower, or self-checkout at the grocer, are a net gain for all of us.
I’d rather spend two hours figuring out an easier way to perform a 20-minute task because I’d rather not get my hands dirty or lift a heavy object. I’d rather spend half an hour automating my Mac to perform tasks that would take me minutes to do manually. Some might view this as pursuant to laziness, but I view it as a potential investment in efficiency. If there’s a chance this new task will become a new habit, then I’m determined to make the task simpler and capitalize on my time. This, my friends, is the opposite of laziness!
Over 100 years of technological history ought to be evidence enough that technological improvements make our lives better. Yet somehow the myth survives that LSDs “take our jobs away.” Recently a friend told me he has chosen to avoid the self-checkout lanes at the grocer because the traditional lane contributed to a real person’s job. (I’m not sure who created the self-checkout technology, but I’m guessing it was a real person). The logic behind such decisions puzzles me. I choose the traditional lane because it’s usually faster where I buy groceries, and I often use it as an opportunity to encourage the real person doing the job of a machine! But I’m not under the illusion that I’m “saving” this person’s job. Surely my friend would object to a proposal that movie-goers leave candy wrappers and empty popcorn buckets on the floor as they exit the theater under the auspices of “job security” for somebody else!
Labor, like any natural resource, is scarce. Even multitasking humans can only perform so much at once. What is unique about labor is that behind it is a mind that can adjust and be put to use in myriad ways. The displaced worker at the checkout counter can now use his intellect somewhere other than mindlessly sliding goods from a conveyor belt down an angled bin into a bag. The displaced potato chip quality control overseer can now stop watching chips on a slower conveyor belt and use her intellect somewhere else in the production line (HT2 EconTalk for this simply awesome podcast). Laborers are free to contribute to more beneficial tasks for the betterment of themselves and society. Lest we believe we should always be doing exactly the same thing years from now, embracing LSDs will always yield a more prosperous society.
(It ought to be clear what the meaning of “LSD” is here. Neither I nor LCC condone, encourage, or excuse the use of LSD, this case notwithstanding.)
Art Carden proofread this essay and provided suggestions for improvement.
Laurence Vance’s article on the pledge of allegiance elicited an excellent discussion from the LCC community. I’d like to perform my own little “twist” to his point about a nation being “under God.”
One commenter cited a critical verse from Psalm 22: “dominion belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (TNIV). It’s highly unlikely that those who inserted “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance had this verse in mind. Yet the simple truth is: every nation is under God, but in what manner? The truth is that every nation will be judged by God. God is serious about the treatment of the poor. God is serious about our moral decisions. God is serious about the debasement of money. And God is certainly serious about who we worship.
I don’t believe any geo-political nation must be, ought to be, or even can be, a “Christian nation.” But surely that doesn’t nullify God’s demands for justice and morality. Those who live their lives apart from God bring upon themselves God’s judgment, and nations who fail to satisfy God’s demands for justice will likewise reap what they sow.
I am sure some would endorse an idea that we transform “under God” from meaning the arrogant “we are better than you” statement that it is into the biblical Psalm 22 meaning. Perhaps good would come from reminding ourselves that American is going to be judged. It could serve as a stark reminder about the dangers of not living as if we are under God’s reign.
This intent is surely genuine, yet I’m afraid it will do nothing to turn the ship around. There are three main reasons this is the case: (1) the state itself expects nothing less than the traditional meaning; (2) most Christians who endorse pledging to the U.S. flag believe God are passionately devoted to their position; and (3) when on earth will we get the chance to explain this “new meaning” to the pledge? Most recitation of the Pledge takes place at sporting events and schools. Yes, preachers can start espousing this “new meaning,” but I’ll defer to #2 as a response to that impossibility.
Attempting to infuse new meaning into the words “under God” will do little to remind us that God will judge a nation for its sins. In fact, it’s sure to do just the opposite—engender a sense of importance and praise of the state. That is reason enough to not advocate pledging our allegiance.
Yet there are rhetorical advantages to pointing out this new meaning to other Christians. Beyond simply knowing the real meaning of the phrase “under God,” this can become an excellent opportunity to ask meaningful questions. For those who believe it’s our duty to pledge to the flag, we might want to ask, “When you pledge to the flag, do you really believe our nation is ‘under God’?” Or perhaps, “In light of the fact that [insert any/all of the Vance statistics here], do you think it’s helpful to make a declaration that we are ‘under God’? Isn’t that a bit flippant?”
Whether we stand up to say the pledge or abstain, we are standing for something, and we should always be ready to explain our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, we are allegiant to King Jesus, challenger to the Kingdoms of this world. We might even love our country, but the United States of America is not immune from being manipulated by the devil, who Greg Boyd refers to as “the CEO of the kingdoms of this world.” A pledge is reserved solely for the King of Kings, not for a demonic state whose past sins include leading the world in “the incarceration rate, the total prison population, the divorce rate, car thefts, rapes, total crimes, illegal drug use, legal drug use, and Internet pornography production.” As Christians, Jesus is our King. Above him there is no other.
(By the way, check out Cobin’s work on Theology of Nations for more interesting thoughts on nations and nationalism.)
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the About Page. You can write him a note or ask a question at the Contact Page. Follow him on Twitter.
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 