I am long overdue to comment on what I sincerely believe to be one of the best new libertarian works from 2011, Judge Andrew Napolitano’s It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong. To a great extent, I am tempted just to stop here and tell everybody to buy the book and read it immediately, but such would make me a very poor reviewer overall. The heroic host of FreedomWatch deserves better than that.

The prime beauty of Napolitano’s work is encapsulated in the Introduction, titled “Where do Our Rights Come From?” Napolitano takes his legal background as a judge and explains the natural law and natural rights (which he says are separate but related concepts) in an incredibly powerful way. He places the natural law and our rights as human beings in contradistinction with the fake “laws” that governments impose. The “legal positivism” philosophy, which says that whatever the state says is law, is denounced as a falsehood. What is more, Christians will clearly see Napolitano’s Christian faith (with a Catholic background) through his discussions of the origins of the natural law.

Napolitano continues in the “chapters” of the book working out this understanding of the eternal law, natural law, and natural rights, approaching a variety of topics including economic freedom and property rights, free speech, freedom of association, self-defense, freedom to travel and immigration, sound money, and doing what you want with your own body. Dealing with these topics is not novel, but what makes Napolitano’s explanation special is the data presented in the book. Example after example is provided that illustrate the principles in enlightening ways, and all the examples are backed up in the notes with websites, books, articles, and various other source materials.

The “Ride on Dr. Feinberg’s Bus” chapter, for instance, was particularly interesting to read. Napolitano poses a hypothetical situation for us to consider, a ride on the bus that becomes annoying and disgusting to the point of absurdity, but that none of the actions, however annoying they may be, can be considered criminal. Without getting too detailed with the specifics, Napolitano then explains why there must be a moral limit upon what kind of actions can be made illegal (hint: only aggressive behavior). Besides colorful examples, the statistics in the book are a terrific resource for future use. Indeed, I have already referenced this book a number of times when writing articles and discussing particular topics (namely, guns and health care) with my non-libertarian friends.

Part of what excites me about the book is that it is clearly targeting people who are questioning the government, but don’t know where to start building their philosophy of government. He says, “If there is any message that I hope to communicate in this book, it is that all of us should be constantly questioning the validity of our officials’ commands… We must stop obeying the unjust laws with which the government enslaves.” Napolitano has gone back to the basics and covers the gamut of personal liberty boldly and convincingly. This is not a new thing to do, but this book is special because it does so in a more accessible way to outsiders than I generally have the pleasure of reading. I cannot imagine someone from the left or right putting down the book and rejecting the fundamental claims about law and rights without understanding that by doing so they spurn all the benefits of Western civilization itself.

I do not know if this will be a book looked upon in a century as a timeless classic. However, this is a book whose time has come. In a day when so many of us do not understand what the basis of law is, Napolitano has provided an accessible book that will remind some, educate all, enlighten our way, and encourage many to take a strong stand against the tyranny of statism.

Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com. Remember that you support the work of LibertarianChristians.com every time you make a purchase at Amazon for 24 hours after clicking an LCC link!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong” Book Review

Understanding the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job) is a difficult task at times. On the one hand, the messages are frequently simple to understand and clearly applicable to anyone at any stage of life. On the other hand, connecting this literature to Jesus in the New Testament is complex. O’Donnell’s book engages the reader to think differently about the Wisdom Literature and see Christ in ways that perhaps he or she has never considered before.

The main body of the book contains seven chapters, six of which are written sermons on the first and last chapters of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job. The seventh chapter covers homiletics itself, in other words, how the Wisdom Literature ought to be preached. The seven main chapters total about 150 pages. The book also includes a brief introduction as well as appendices on Hebrew poetry and further study suggestions.

I found the sermons/chapters on Proverbs to be the strongest sections of the book. Recall that Proverbs 1 begins by telling us that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But what exactly does the "fear" entail? O’Donnell’s study gives us perhaps the best definition of "fearing God" that I have seen in print, and it is worth quoting here from page 37:

"According to the book of Proverbs, ‘the fear of the Lord’ is a continual (Pr. 23:17), humble, and faithful submission to Yahweh, which compels one to hate evil (8:13) and turn away from it (16:6) and brings with it rewards better than all earthly treasures (15:16) – the rewards of a love for and a knowledge of God (1:29; 2:5; 9:10; 15:33), and long life (10:27; 14:27a; 19:23a), confidence (14:26), satisfaction, and protection (19:23)."

Now that is a thorough definition!

You rarely hear a sermon focused on Proverbs 31, which primarily talks about the virtuous wife. The lessons in the chapter, though, are very striking. This chapter reminded me of how blessed I am to have such a wonderful wife myself.

I did not enjoy O’Donnell’s sermons on Ecclesiastes as much as the rest of the book. To me, he seemed somewhat to tow what I might call the standard "Evangelical line," which tends to emphasize the relative superiority of ministerial "church" work to everything else. Perhaps I am not interpreting O’Donnell’s work well, though. To his credit, though, Ecclesiastes is a very difficult book to read and O’Donnell’s contribution to understanding God’s word here is still valuable.

The sermons on Job, I felt, were not particularly novel but still quite encouraging. As is frequently done, he focused on the redemptive aspects of suffering and emphasized the importance of trusting in Jesus Christ for providential care through trouble. Again, the attention given to linking Jesus to the text is worthy of note.

Overall, I found this book enlightening and encouraging in a number of ways. The sermon format, rather than the typical theological book, reads quite well and I found it consistently engaging. While not perfect, it is a worthy addition to the bookshelf of the Christian interested in going deeper into the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament.

Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: A Book Review

1. It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano – The Judge, host of FreedomWatch on Fox Business, has put together an amazing book that analyzes a host of topics from the standpoint of natural law. I will be reviewing this book on LCC soon but I’m going to say it now – you need to read this book. The data and stories he presents in the book make it easily worth every penny and a well-deserved place on your (or anyone else’s) bookshelf.

2. Libertarianism Today by Jacob Huebert – This book was on the list last year, but it warrants another mention because you can get it at a significantly reduced price by purchasing directly from the publisher. Huebert’s book is definitely a must-read, and is one of the best recent books on hardcore libertarianism in the past few years. LCC writer Laurence Vance has called it, “The best introduction to libertarianism on the market.”

3. Bourbon for Breakfast and It’s a Jetsons World by Jeffrey Tucker – Check out the LCC review of Bourbon for Breakfast, and you’ll see that it is a super read for anyone looking to circumvent statist restrictions upon their lives. Tucker’s followup work tells exciting stories of the little everyday miracles of the free market at work.

4. Liberty Defined by Ron Paul – Another gold standard in libertarian literature by one of liberty’s greatest defenders. See the LCC review for the full story.

5. Rollback by Thomas Woods – I am a huge fan of Tom Woods and have known him for over 5 years now. His latest book makes an eloquent case for dismantling pretty much everything the government currently does today.

6. Great Wars and Great Leaders by Ralph Raico – Leaders who take a country to war are often heralded as “great,” but the libertarian perspective dispenses such ideas as folly. War is the health of the state and the enemy of liberty, and Raico’s historical work is great ammunition in the war of ideas that we fight daily.

7. Myth of a Guilty Nation by Albert Jay Nock – This is an old book newly reprinted by the Mises Institute, and I’m excited to see it available again (because I’m a big fan of Nock and haven’t ever read this one). From the Mises.org description: “Nock’s book reminds us of what most everyone has forgotten, namely, that this was sold as a war for freedom and self-determination over imperial ambition. Along with that came some of the most rabid war propaganda ever fabricated until that point in time, all designed to make Germany into a devil nation. Nock’s brave book took on that idea and demonstrated that there was fault enough to go around on all sides. All through the 1920s, a Nockian-style retelling of the facts behind the war led to a dramatic shift in public opinion against World War I.” Awesome!

8. The Bastiat Collection Pocket Edition by Frederic Bastiat – If you haven’t read Bastiat’s The Law, you need to get on that immediately! This book contains all the major works of Bastiat in a very small volume, and makes a great gift.

9. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt – Need to learn a little more about economics? Start with the classic by Hazlitt, and never forget the first lesson again…

10. Christian Theology of Public Policy and Bible and Government by John Cobin – I would be remiss to write a book list on LCC and not mention the excellent work of John Cobin, especially in this volume. As Christian libertarians, these are must reads, and don’t forget to check out Cobin’s free Christian Theology of Public Policy Short Course series on LCC!

Check out other Top 10 book lists and book reviews on LCC for more ideas, and remember that every time you shop at Amazon.com through a LibertarianChristians.com link you are supporting the work of LCC! Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Libertarian Books for Christmas 2011

I remember back in the mid 1990s when I was teaching theology and Zondervan published Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. I thought it was a good book, and now see that it has sold over 300,000 copies. Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw that the author recently wrote an equally massive book on politics. It is not everyday when a theologian is found to have such a different field of interest and, in the case of Grudem, expertise.

As I have mentioned in some of my other reviews of Christian books (see here, here, here, here, and here), because one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I try to read and possibly review any books on these subjects. Although I am usually disappointed, Politics – According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (hereafter just Politics – According to the Bible), although it has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Arizona. He was formerly Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois. Grudem holds degrees from Harvard, Westminster Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Cambridge. He has served as president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

The book is very well written and organized. Grudem divides the book into three parts: Basic Principles (5 chapters), Specific Issues (10 chapters), and Concluding Observations (3 chapters). There is a brief preface and introduction, a very detailed table of contents, clear chapter divisions, footnotes, and Scripture, name, and subject indexes.

The author’s approach to the issues he discusses is threefold: arguments from direct biblical statements, arguments from broader biblical principles, and arguments that do not depend on the Bible but on an evaluation of the relevant facts in the world today.

Grudem is a conservative and a Republican, makes no apologies for it, and doesn’t try to hide it. But although he claims in his preface to "not hesitate to criticize Republican policies" where he differs with them and gives as examples "runaway government spending" and "the continual expansion of the federal government" under conservative Republican presidents, the book is long on criticism of Democrats and liberals (with one direct, negative mention of libertarianism [p. 275], although it is not in the index), and short on criticism of Republicans and conservatives.

Grudem’s whipping boys are President Barack Obama, Jim Wallis, the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, and, to a lesser extent, Greg Boyd, the author of The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church.

Boyd has written what I think is a good book criticizing Christian nationalism and warmongering, although I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it. Wallis is a liberal Christian that I rarely agree with either. I also share Grudem’s aversion to the Marxist, socialist, fascist, corporatist abomination that is Obama. In other words, I feel about him the same way as I feel about George W. Bush.

Bush should go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. He gave us the No Child Left Behind Act, expanded Medicare with a prescription-drug program, started two immoral and senseless wars, justified perpetual incarceration, torture, and innumerable other violations of civil liberties and human rights. He had bailout and stimulus programs before Obama did. He crippled corporations with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, destroyed the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act, waged war on the Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons, and increased farm subsidies and foreign aid. Bush and the Republicans used the federal treasury as an ATM, doubling the national debt, massively increasing government spending, and giving us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit.

Although Bush is mentioned many times in the book, there is only one negative thing said about "George W. Bush’s administration" (p. 573). It is in the Concluding Observations section, and it is just basically a restatement of what Grudem said in the preface that I quoted above about the increase in government spending that occurred "when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate." Taken together, both of these statements imply that there is some criticism of Republicans in the pages between them. But all you will see is some faint criticism of Republicans on pages 274 (a quote from someone else about government debt), 313 (some Republicans opposing change because they are fearful of losing re-election), and 489 (wealthy members of Congress). The only significant criticism of Republicans is on page 474 where Grudem says he is astounded "that anyone in either party, whether Democrat or Republican, would oppose having Congress and the President take the necessary steps to complete a secure and impenetrable border fence immediately." Later in his Concluding Observations section, Grudem reluctantly admits that "President Reagan, a Republican, supported some reduction of the US nuclear arsenal" (p. 582), condemns "hyper-conservative people who have opposed any elements of a plan that would allow any path to citizenship whatsoever for the illegal aliens who are now here in the United States" (p. 584), and criticizes John McCain for being an opponent of "coercive interrogation methods" (p. 582) and a prominent supporter of campaign finance restrictions (p. 585).

Part I

As mentioned previously, the book is divided into three parts. The first section, Basic Principles, actually consists of four distinct elements: what Grudem considers to be five wrong views about Christians and government followed by his "better solution," biblical principles concerning government, a biblical worldview, and the court system as the ultimate power in a nation. The second and most important part of the book is the Specific Issues section. Although there are ten chapters here, there are actually about fifty topics that are discussed, from things one would expect like abortion and private property, to unexpected topics like farm subsidies and CAFE standards. The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book.

Grudem starts out with his five wrong views about Christians and government: "government should compel religion," "government should exclude religion," "all government is evil and demonic," "do evangelism, not politics," and "do politics, not evangelism." The problems with the first two and the last one are obvious, but I think Grudem errs in his treatment of the other two.

In his discussion of "all government is evil and demonic," Grudem is mainly arguing against Greg Boyd and his The Myth of a Christian Nation. Grudem takes issue with Boyd’s reference to Jesus’ encounter with Satan when he was fasting in the wilderness, specifically this:

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (Luke 4:5-7)

Grudem says Boyd is wrong in pointing out that Jesus "doesn’t dispute the Devil’s claim" because Satan is lying, because "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (John 8:44). I think the point here is that Satan was offering Christ the kingdoms of the world now, without the Cross, which was not in the plan of God. Christ later said that his kingdom was not now of this world (John 18:36), although it will be in the future (2 Timothy 4:1). Christ three times refers to the devil as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) – the "present evil world" (Galatians 1:4) that "lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). It could be argued that the devil had this position by usurpation and permission (see Job 1 & 2; Daniel 2:21, 4:25; John 19:11), but he had it nevertheless.

In taking issue with Boyd’s pacifism (which I don’t necessarily agree with), Grudem makes some statements that show where he will go later in the book on the subject of national defense (chap. 11). He reasons that taking the view that "all government is demonic" (how else could you describe the current U.S. government?) "would mean less and less support for a strong military" that could "oppose evil aggressors anywhere in the world" (p. 43). He is concerned about "aggressive nations who would attack us and our allies," blind to the fact that the United States has the most aggressive foreign policy of any country and is the only country currently engaged in foreign wars half way around the world. Naturally, like all apologists for U.S. wars, he is compelled to mention Munich and appeasement, as if that someone justifies the aggressive foreign policy of the United States. (On Munich, see my review of "Buchanan’s Necessary Book.")

In arguing against "do evangelism, not politics," Grudem seems to equate Christians not using political means to transform society with not preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God and not seeking to be a good influence on society. He is arguing here against a straw man. And I think he is incorrect in more than one respect when he says that "God gave both the church and the government to restrain evil in this age" (p. 48). The real purpose of government, as my friend Tom DiLorenzo has said, is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

I have no argument with Grudem’s "better solution" to what he considers to be wrong views of Christians and government of "Christian influence on government." I wholeheartedly concur that "the responsibility of pastors is to give wise biblical teaching, explaining exactly how the teachings of the Bible apply to various specific situations in life, and that should certainly include instruction about some political matters in government and politics" (p. 62). On the subject of Prohibition, Grudem makes the good point that "it is impossible to enforce moral standards on a population when those moral standards are more strict than the standards found in the Bible itself" (pgs. 63-64).

The one problem I see with Grudem’s "better solution" is that it includes voting. Although I think he wisely says that he doesn’t think Christians should only vote for Christian candidates or generally prefer an evangelical candidate over a non-evangelical one (Grudem’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2007 over Mike Huckabee proves his sincerity), he believes that Christians have an obligation to vote. And not only vote, but to do something else like "giving money or giving time to support specific candidates and issues," "writing letters or helping to distribute literature," or "running for office or volunteering to serve in the military" (p. 75). I think rather that Christians would do better to give their money and time to churches and charity work instead of politicians and political parties, distribute religious literature instead of political literature, and run for a church office instead of a political office. And above all, stay out of the military. We are only in chapter two, and once again Grudem’s admiration for the military shines through. He also mentions here the canard of U.S. soldiers dying for our freedoms, including in that number those who were duped to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. One can already see that we are going to have a tough time getting through his chapter on national defense.

In the third chapter of the Basic Principles section, Grudem gives us his biblical principles concerning government. Here we find mostly good, but sometimes a mixed bag. He recognizes that "governments too often attempt to restrict human liberty in ways that are much more extensive and intrusive and that prohibit not only the doing of things that are clearly evil, but also doing things that are morally neutral or good but not favored by the government" and that "every incremental increase in governmental regulation of life is also an incremental removal of some measure of human liberty" (p. 94), but then defends the current airport security system that views all travelers as criminals and expresses support for a federal court decision that prohibited a religious group from using marijuana.

Another example is on the subject of taxes. Grudem mentions how taxes result in lost liberty and freedom and rob people of huge portions of their lives. But he speaks favorably of "tax-supported playgrounds and parks where families can picnic and sports teams can practice and compete" (p. 80). We will see the same thing in his section on taxes in the chapter on economics (chap. 9).

Grudem makes a distinction between "blind patriotism" and "genuine patriotism" (p. 109), and makes some good biblical points about the necessity of sometimes disobeying the government, but does not seem to sufficiently recognize a distinction between a country and its government.

To finish out the Basic Principles section, Grudem has chapter on "a biblical worldview" that is straightforward enough. However, his final chapter on "the courts and the question of ultimate power in a nation," while it contains much good information, concludes with the admonition to vote Republican as "the best way – in fact, the only way known to me – to bring about a change and break the rule of unaccountable judges over our society" (p. 154). Grudem is under the delusion that Republicans generally support "‘originalist’ judges and justices who will rule according to the original meaning of the Constitution." I guess that’s why Senator John McCain voted to confirm to the Supreme Court the liberal, pro-choice justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. It is also delusional to say that justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas "consistently" rule "according to the original meaning of the Constitution" (p. 151). Just look at the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) where Scalia voted with the "liberal" majority while Thomas wrote a blistering dissent that charged the majority with making a mockery of the Constitution. And on the federal appeals court level, in the case of Seven-Sky & American Center for Law and Justice v. Holder, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just recently ruled that the Obamacare "individual mandate" was constitutional. The opinion was written by Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman. (On the legal challenges to Obamacare, see my "The Supreme Court and Obamacare.")

Part II

The meat of Politics – According to the Bible is the Specific Issues section. Each of the ten chapters discusses from four to eleven topics. The best chapter is the one on The Environment; the worst is the one on National Defense. Although Grudem covers about fifty topics, I think some important ones are missing; e.g., civil liberties and the war on drugs.

The Protection of Life

The chapter on The Protection of Life includes the topics of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and self-defense and ownership of guns. Obviously, Grudem, as a conservative Republican, is an opponent of abortion, and states his case quite well, but I take issue with his statement that "every vote for every Democratic candidate for President or Congress undeniably has the effect of continuing to protect 1,000,000 abortions per year in the United States" (p. 177). Earlier in the section on abortion, Grudem says that no government money should be given to pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. But just look at who has been funding Planned Parenthood. This is a blog post I did on April 28, 2010:

I have seen it reported in several places that Planned Parenthood, one of the world’s leading abortion providers, received government grants and contracts of $350 million for fiscal year 2007-2008 and $337 million for fiscal year 2006-2007. I verified this information for myself on the Planned Parenthood website. I also discovered that Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year ends on June 30. This means that Bush the Republican was the president during this time. But after doing a little digging, I also found out that Planned Parenthood received government grants and contracts of $305 million (34%) during fiscal year 2005-2006. During this time we not only had Bush the Republican president but also a Republican majority in Congress. Yet, Planned Parenthood was still funded. And we are supposed to take Republicans seriously when they complain that Obama isn’t likely to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court? Why wasn’t the Republican Party that concerned about abortion when clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood performed 264,943 abortions in 2005?

Although I agree with Grudem on his biblical defense of capital punishment, I think he exceeds the biblical mandate when he says that he thinks "that capital punishment should be the penalty for some other crimes that were intended to or actually did lead to the death of other people" (p. 192). In his otherwise good discussion of gun control, I think he compromises when he says the government should be able to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership including "the prohibition of private ownership of certain types of weapons not needed for personal self-defense" (p. 211).

Marriage

In his chapter on marriage, Grudem shines except for his insistence that "only a civil government is able to define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for a whole nation of whole society" (p. 222). Marriage preceded the state, and does not need the state’s oversight. Furthermore, I think Grudem greatly overstates his case:

Without a governmentally established standard of what constitutes marriage, the result will be a proliferation of children born in relationships of incest and polygamy as well as in many temporary relationships without commitment, and many children born with no one having a legal obligation to care for them (p. 222).

Taking these in reverse order, a child’s parents have the legal obligation to care for it whether they are married or not, there are many children born now as a result of temporary relationships without commitment, and it is ludicrous to think that it is only state oversight of marriage that keeps people from incest and polygamy. This is akin to the drug warrior implying that everyone would be on drugs if all drug prohibitions were lifted.

Grudem unfortunately provides the wrong information on which states have legalized same-sex marriage. In a book the size of Politics – According to the Bible, it is understandable that has to be written over a long period of time. However, every attempt should be made to have facts and figures up-to-date by the time the book is published. We are told on page 229 that three states – Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont – have passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage, but that the voters in Maine overruled the legislature and governor. This leaves two states where same-sex marriage is legal. But on page 596, Grudem tells us that there are four states where same-sex marriage is legal: Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Both of these are wrong. The date Grudem gives at the end of his preface is February 2010. On page 395 he mentions that he is writing in early 2010. Five states plus the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage before the book was published. And since Grudem mentions in one place the latest state to do so – New Hampshire on January 1, 2010 – there is no excuse for the other states and the District of Columbia not being mentioned.

Grudem makes a good point when he says that if the majority of society decides to grant domestic partner benefits, "they should not be limited to homosexual domestic partners, but should apply to all people living together in long-term relationships where there is mutual commitment and obligation to care and support each other" (p. 234).

On the topic of pornography, Grudem begins well: "The fact that something is morally wrong according to the Bible does not by itself mean that governments should have laws against it" (p. 242). Yet, he makes a distinction between laws against looking at pornographic material (he opposes them) and laws against the production, distribution, and sale of pornography (he supports them).

The Family

This brief chapter includes a discussion of educational vouchers. Although Grudem believes that "parents, not the government, should have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children" (p. 248), he believes, unfortunately, that this freedom includes the use of other people’s money to pay for their decision. Grudem wants to see "a system of school vouchers provided by the local government to pay for the education of children in each family" (p. 250). To the objection that parents could use vouchers to send their children to church-related schools, he says, correctly: "The First Amendment was only intended to prohibit the governmental establishment of one certain church or religion as the official state church. It was never intended to prevent all government support for everything that is done by a church." But this does not mean that the government should support anything done by a church. What we need, of course, is a complete separation of school from state, not a continuation of it through a voucher system. (See my articles on vouchers here, here, here, and here.) But as to whether "governments should encourage married couples to bear and raise children" (p. 245), the government should neither encourage nor discourage this decision.

Economics

Overall, this is a very good chapter. Grudem defends free markets, personal liberty, limited government, and property rights while disparaging government regulation, progressive taxation, the "fair tax," and income redistribution. My favorites:

• Every increase in taxes takes away that much more human freedom (p. 286).
• Governments all over the world are notorious for waste and inefficiency (p. 286).
• Higher taxes on corporations are just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices (p. 289).
• A strong argument can be made that the capital gains tax should be completely abolished (p. 291).
• I can see no justification in the Bible for a "progressive" tax rate (p. 292).
• When taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their own money, there is an increase in the amount of personal liberty in society (p. 300).
• Property belongs to individuals, not to society and not to the government (p. 301).
• My conclusion is that the estate tax should be permanently repealed (p. 309).

But in typical Republican fashion, Grudem compromises, and sometimes a great deal. Note carefully the downward progression (emphasis mine):

• Government is never an efficient provider of economic goods (p. 313).
• It is difficult to think of any goods or services that a government might produce that could not be produced better by private companies (p. 285).
• The free market is almost always a better way of solving an economic problem than government ownership or control (p. 275).
• Some services and products needed by the entire society are best provided by government (p. 285).

Therefore, "government should establish and maintain an effective money supply for a nation" (p. 271), "it is necessary for governments to impose some health and safety standards on the sale of medicines and foods or other products such as bicycles and cars" (p. 274), some government regulation is necessary "to prevent wrongdoing such as theft, fraud, and breaking of contracts (p. 276), "there is some need for government-supported welfare programs to help cases of urgent need (for example, to provide a ‘safety net’ to keep people from going hungry or without clothing or shelter)" (p. 281), "it is appropriate for government to provide enough funding so that everyone is able to gain enough skills and education to earn a living" (p. 281), the government should enable "every citizen to live adequately in the society" (p. 281), "there is nothing wrong with the original idea behind Social Security" (p. 312), and "some provision should be made to care for those who truly cannot afford medical insurance" (p. 315).

So, lest there be any misunderstanding about Grudem’s compassionate conservatism:

I want to reaffirm that I believe that it is right that government provide some kind of guarantee of support for those who are genuinely no longer able to work due to old age, disability, or involuntary unemployment. And it would of course make sense to provide provisions for partial benefits to be paid to people who wanted to take semi-retirement and then ease gradually into full retirement (p. 312).

It would make more sense to follow the Constitution, which Grudem says is the highest government authority (p. 153), and that authorizes no such provisions.

It is unfortunate that in this chapter Grudem perverts Matthew 22:17 in maintaining that "Jesus thus endorsed the legitimacy of paying taxes to a civil government" (p. 285) and Romans 13:4 in saying that "governments should do ‘good’ for people." (On the former see Jeffrey Barr on "Render unto Caesar"; on the later see my recent analysis of another perversion of Romans 13.)

The Environment

As mentioned previously, this is Grudem’s best chapter in the Specific Issues section. "It is not wrong in principle, as many environmentalists think it is, for human beings to modify the world" (p. 323), says Grudem. Man was placed on the earth to subdue it and have dominion over it (Genesis 1:28). Grudem demolishes environmentalist wacko claims about global warming, and perceptively sees the issue as a controversy over human liberty versus government control:

If the government can dictate how far you drive your car, how much you heat or cool your home, how much you will use electric lights or computers or a TV, how much energy your factory can use, and how much jet fuel you can have to fly an airplane, then it can control most of the society (p. 380).

Grudem makes the case that there is no good reason to think we will ever run out of any essential natural resource. To this end, he examines data regarding population, land, water, clean air, waste disposal, forests, species loss, pesticides, and life expectancy, and discusses energy sources. I also like his heroic defense of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

National Defense

All good things must come to an end. Grudem’s chapter on National Defense is typical Republican and conservative pro-war and pro-military claptrap.

No one would have an argument with one of Grudem’s opening statements:

Now, if a government is commanded by God to protect its citizens from the robber or thief who comes from within a country, then certainly it also has an obligation to protect its citizens against thousands of murderers or thieves who come as an army from somewhere outside of the nation. Therefore a nation has a moral obligation to defend itself against foreign attackers who would come to kill and conquer and subjugate the people in a nation (p. 388).

He also says later: "No nation has the right ever to use military power simply to conquer other nations or impose their ideas of social good on another nation" (p. 394). But all of this goes by the wayside when Grudem says: "I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were just wars" (p. 414). And especially when he says: "The war in Iraq was a necessary, strategic, and highly significant step in defending the United States against radical Islamic terrorism" (p. 417).

But that’s not all, Grudem, in typical warmongering, interventionist Republican fashion, defends coercive interrogation techniques (he justifies this on the basis of biblical admonitions to discipline children), John Yoo, George W. Bush, the atomic bombing of Japan, the FBI, the CIA (we should "be thankful" for it), NATO, more weapons, missile defense, bigger military budgets, the war on terror, waterboarding ("this procedure does not seem to me to be inherently morally wrong"), and warrantless wiretapping.

Grudem singles out Congressman Ron Paul for his noninterventionist views (p. 398-399). He calls his understanding of foreign policy "deeply flawed." His criticism of the sane noninterventionist views of Dr. Paul is enough to make you want to put down the book. But your reviewer has persevered.

There are some real howlers in the chapter. Like justifying foreign intervention with the Declaration of Independence (p. 397-398). Like bemoaning the vote of the Senate to stop production of the F-22 at 187 fighters (p. 400-401), a decision supported by Senator John McCain, senior military leaders, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and opposed by Democratic and Republican senators because they were concerned about job losses in their districts. Like Saddam Hussein transported his mass of weapons destruction to Syria (p. 415). And like it is all Obama’s fault that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is decreasing (p. 418) when Bush made an agreement to do so in 2008.

Because this review is already too long, I refer the reader to some of my articles regarding things Grudem brings up. On the sixth commandment is only about murder (p. 389), see my "The Unholy Desire of Christians to Legitimize Killing in War." On soldiers in the New Testament not being condemned (p. 389), see my "There They Crucified Him" and "Do Violence to No Man." On the just war tradition being consistent with biblical teachings (p. 389), see my "What About Hitler?" On Romans 13 as a justification for national defense (pgs. 392, 425, 428), see my "Romans 13 and National Defense." On Obama reducing the strength of the military, see my "Rush Is Wrong." On torture being okay if we don’t call it torture (p. 425-433), see my "Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus," "Christians for Torture," and "The Morality of Torture." And on the war in Iraq being a just war (p. 414-418), see my "Christianity and the War."

Foreign Policy

Grudem’s chapter on foreign policy isn’t much better than his chapter on national defense. But this was to be expected since an interventionist military policy is just the other side of the coin of an interventionist foreign policy. No one would argue with the author that the "promotion of human freedom, human rights, and democratic government is consistent with the most foundational convictions of our nation" (p. 441). But it is the way Grudem feels the United States should go about this that is troubling. He applies the command of Jesus to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) to nations, saying that "nations should seek to do good for other nations insofar as they have opportunity to do so" (p. 437). However, the main way this is to be done is through foreign aid; that is, the looting of the American taxpayers (see my many articles on foreign aid here). Grudem supports continuing the Cuban embargo. Grudem is not a dispensationalist, but still believes that "we should treat Israel as a very special and close ally" (p. 467). He again states his disagreement with the noninterventionism of Ron Paul because it is a policy "which opposes any defense alliances with Israel and all foreign or military aid to Israel."

Grudem takes an exceptionally hard line on immigration. "The United States must take immediate action to immediately and effectively close its borders," he says (p. 473). As mentioned previously, Grudem favors the immediate construction of a secure and impenetrable border fence. He sees no valid argument to oppose it or delay it. He favors more effective law enforcement to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants and the E-Verify program. To his credit, Grudem does say that the idea that foreign workers will take jobs away from Americans "is based on a misunderstanding of economics" (p. 481) And he also says that "immigrants who want to come to the United States are, by and large, producers who bring benefit to the economy and helpers who bring other benefits to the society as a whole" (p. 476). One thing he doesn’t say is that the welfare state should be abolished to prevent immigrants draining more resources "from the nation than they provide to the nation" (p. 472). The fact that Grudem lives in Arizona may somewhat explain his views on immigration.

Freedom of Speech

Here Grudem presents a biblical and constitutional defense of freedom of speech. In doing so he harshly criticizes campaign finance restrictions, campus "hate speech" codes, and the Fairness Doctrine.

Freedom of Religion

The only problem I see with the author’s chapter on Freedom of Religion is his advocacy of government-supported "faith-based" programs because they "‘promote the general welfare’ of the nation" (p. 508). He maintains that faith-based programs "actually save tax dollars that would otherwise need to be spent to help the people who are cared for by these religiously based institutions." But just like vouchers don’t lower federal spending on education, so faith-based program funding will not lower federal welfare spending. Our main disagreement is over government funds needing to be spent on welfare in the first place.

Special Groups

The last chapter in the Specific Issues section covers topics like regulators, earmarks, affirmative action, gender-based quotas, farm subsidies, tariffs, tort reform, the NEA, Native Americans, and gambling. Grudem favors "the complete abolition of all affirmative action policies in law and business and government once for all" (p. 524). He opposes farm subsidizes and tariffs on principle, but is willing to make some exceptions. He terms regulators "a vast army of bureaucrats," and labels increasing government regulation as "anti-democratic" and "anti-free market" (p. 517), but allows for "certain product control standards and certain standards for safety and justice in the workplace" to be "enforced by such government agencies" (p. 515). His criticism of the NEA is mainly over its opposition to vouchers. The solution to the Indian problem he sees as private ownership of property instead of the system of tribal ownership.

On gambling, Grudem says he is not aware of any specific Bible verses that directly prohibit participating in gambling" (p. 550), and that it is his personal practice to avoid gambling, but since casinos and state lotteries "bring much more harm to society than the benefits they generate" (p. 551), he would vote against a state allowing a lottery, an Indian casino, or a commercial casino to operate. (See my articles on gambling prohibitions at the state and federal levels.) Since Grudem has a section on gambling, there is no excuse for not having a section on the drug war.

Part III

The third division of the book, Concluding Observations, has three unrelated chapters, two of which depart from the stated purpose of the book. Chapter 16, on "media bias," closes with one Scripture reference at the end. Chapter 18, on "faith and works, and trusting God while working in politics and government," although it contains may Scripture references, likewise departs from the subject of politics and the Bible.

Chapter 17, titled "application to Democratic and Republican policies today," forms the book’s conclusion. It also serves as the author’s solution to policies that don’t line up with the Bible – vote Republican. Grudem criticizes Jim Wallis for writing a book about God not being a Republican or Democrat and then arguing that "‘God’s politics’ are the politics of the Democratic Party" (p. 573), but this is exactly what he has done as it relates to Republicans.

Grudem is deluded to think that the policies and principles of the two major parties represent very different viewpoints (see my many articles on the Republican Party here). He claims that "the Republican Party has been dominated by people favoring smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, traditional standards regarding abortion and marriage, the promotion of democracy, and the promotion of free market economics" (p. 574). Anyone who has studied the history of the Republican Party knows that this is simply not true (again, see my many articles on the Republican Party here). Rather than the teachings of the Bible mostly supporting "the current policies of the Republicans" (p. 573-574), it would be more accurate to say that the teachings of the Bible mostly support Republican rhetoric that they don’t really believe.

One thing that will turn people from, and cause readers not to finish Politics – According to the Bible is its size (619 pgs.). The main reason for this is the author’s departure from the book’s subject, which is not limited to just chapters 16 and 18. This does not mean that all his departures are necessarily bad, but I do think that the book, in its current format, should have been shorter, or else expanded and put into a more encyclopedic format.

To repeat what I said at the onset, although this book has much to disappoint, and much I vehemently disagree with, is still an important and needful work that I can recommend to Christians interested in religion and politics, albeit with many caveats.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on November 17, 2011.

You might not want to read Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Republican Politics According to the Bible” Book Review

Just as all the clowns aren’t in the circus, so all the Republicans aren’t in the 2012 presidential race.

I think that Mike Huckabee – former governor of Arkansas, ordained Baptist minister, 2008 Republican presidential candidate, host of the TV show Huckabee and the radio program The Huckabee Report, chairman of the political organization HuckPAC, widely sought-after public speaker, and bestselling New York Times author – made a wise political decision by not entering the 2012 presidential race. The Republican field is large, and the Democrats have the incumbency advantage. True, twentieth-century incumbents Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, Hoover, and Taft were defeated for reelection, but incumbents Bush Jr., Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Coolidge, Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt were victorious in their bid to return to the White House.

Although Huckabee is not a candidate this time (born in 1955, he is young enough to run in the next few presidential elections), I decided to review his book anyway because it emits the typical Republican hot air that we are hearing from the major Republican presidential candidates right now (except, of course, for the truth machine – Ron Paul).

The first thing I noticed about the book (aside from its high price – $26.95 for a 238-page, small [5.5 x 8.5] hardcover book), is that Huckabee and/or his editor[s] couldn’t decide when the book was actually written. In the introduction, Huckabee says that he is writing "in the fall of 2010." The introduction closes with "Mike Huckabee, October 2010." But on page 207, he says that he is writing "just a few days after the election" while six House seats "are still unconfirmed," which would be November 2010. We know that Huckabee finished writing the book before Congress voted to extend the Bush tax cuts (December 17), because he often refers to the tax cuts expiring and the tax rates going up in January of 2011.

After the introduction, the book has twelve chapters, an epilogue, acknowledgments, notes, and an index. Each chapter has a particular theme (family values, local government, taxes, spending and debt, health care, education, the environment, immigration, and faith in the future), except for chapters 9-11, which I call the warmongering chapters.

Most conservatives and libertarians would agree with many things that Huckabee says in chapters 1-8. Some conservatives and most libertarians would disagree with most of what Huckabee says in chapters 9-11. Chapter 12 is just fluff.

Huckabee disparages redistribution of wealth, public assistance, abortion, Obamacare, out-of-wedlock births, public employee unions, government debt and deficits, tax increases, the estate tax, and government stimulus programs. He talks about the Tenth Amendment and local government. He maintains that "states are increasingly enslaved to the federal masters." He wants Congress to "define all spending as discretionary." On Social Security, Huckabee even calls for raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, delaying payments to the elderly by giving them tax incentives to keep working, and offering those who don’t need Social Security the option of a tax-free, lump-sum benefit payable at their death to their chosen beneficiary in lieu of collecting Social Security benefits. On Medicare, he calls for raising the age of eligibility.

Yet, Huckabee falls short of labeling Social Security and Medicare what they really are – redistribution of wealth schemes that he condemns – and calling for their elimination. This is the problem with Huckabee and most Republicans and conservatives – they fall short, too short and too often.

So, out of one side of his mouth Huckabee can disparage the things he does, but out of the other side he can support government-funded school breakfasts, "the right of every citizen to a free public education," vouchers for Medicare recipients, elimination of the home mortgage interest deduction, the FairTax with its public-assistance, wealth-redistributing prebate, the Race to the Top federal program, a "reasonable deficit" of no more than 3 percent of GDP, and "hefty fines and prison time" for employers who choose to hire whom they wish.

I note also that Huckabee gives some dubious health advice on PSA tests, colonoscopies, mammograms, and cholesterol. (See LRC articles by Dr. Miller, Dr. Mercola, Dr. McDougall, and Bill Sardi).

The worst part of Huckabee’s book is, of course, the three chapters on terrorism, the military, and foreign policy. As mentioned previously, they are the warmongering chapters. Here Huckabee basically calls for perpetual war and defends drone strikes, the TSA, Guantanamo, a European missile shield, and preemptive war while disparaging Miranda rights, the Geneva Conventions, and FISA. Like he did in chapters 1-8, here Huckabee also talks out of both sides of his mouth. He says we should stay out of the Israel/Palestinian conflict but "provide Israel all the moral and military support she needs and deserves." So much for staying out of it. What Huckabee actually believes is that the United States "cannot give up on the wars in the Middle East until we’ve definitively finished the job there." Huckabee maintains that Bush "was only half right when he said that we have to fight them there so that we won’t have to fight them here." He says we should "fight them here, there, and everywhere."

The most disgusting statement in the book is found on page 176. With Huckabee being a Baptist preacher, one would think that he might call for missionaries to go to Iraq and Afghanistan and convert Muslims to Christianity instead of calling for U.S. soldiers to go and kill them:

We’ve had too many of our troops spending too much of their time painting schools and digging wells. They should be allowed to focus on killing Islamic extremists who want us all to die.

Mike Huckabee is a simple-minded warmonger; that is, he is indistinguishable from Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Although it would be sad if he ever ran for president again, even worse is the fact that millions of Christians would vote for him.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on September 20, 2011.

You might not want to read Huckabee’s A Simple Government, but there are plenty of other great books out there for you. Check out LCC’s latest book list and the recently updated LCC bookstore, and support LCC by clicking through a link to Amazon.com. Thanks!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Simple-Minded Warmonger

Christian Libertarian Books

Christian Theology of Public Policy, by John Cobin – A great way to start is to read John Cobin’s short course here on LCC, but his book is a must-have for Christian libertarian thinkers. His other book, Bible and Government (read the LCC review here), overlaps some material bust is worth reading as well.

On Civil Government, by David Lipscomb – Few people in the 19th century had a radical vision like David Lipscomb. His critique of statism from a Christian standpoint is classic. This book is a bit difficult to find sometimes but you can get the text for free here. Laurence Vance has it in stock in his classic reprints series, look for number 117.

Religion and Capitalism: Allies, Not Enemies, by Edmund Opitz – Another great book to help back up your defense of the free market from a Christian perspective. Also a bit difficult to find. (I managed to purchase a SIGNED copy on eBay once, though…)

The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by Edmund Opitz – Read the review here.

Disciple of Liberty, by Jason Rink – Read the review here.

Christianity and War, by Laurence Vance – War is the health of the state, and the enemy of mankind. Laurence demolishes every “Christian” argument for war you’ll ever hear.

Foundations of Economics: A Christian View, by Shawn Ritenour – Every Christian ought to understand some economics, and Shawn’s book is a great way to get a thorough understanding. This one is not for the uninitiated.

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, by Thomas Woods – This book is especially useful for Catholics, obviously, and I highly recommend it.

General “Must-Read” Libertarian Books

For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

Our Enemy, the State, by Albert Jay Nock

Healing Our World, by Mary Ruwart

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas Woods

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, by Robert Murphy – I really like these aforementioned Politically Incorrect Guides because of how they serve as a jumping off point for so many super things to learn and consider.

Rollback, by Thomas Woods

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Bonus Material (for those who want extra challenges)

The Kingdom of God is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy – Read the review here.

Anarchy and Christianity, by Jacques Ellul – Read the review here.

Still looking for more? Check out the brand new-and-improved LCC Amazon Bookstore! Find all of these books and more, and a portion of the sale will go to support LibertarianChristians.com!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to start learning about Christian libertarianism

Christians and non-Christians alike have long debated the question, “What is the proper role of government?” Everyone has their own opinion, and Christians have varying interpretations of Scripture to support their viewpoints. Anarchists on the one hand say that God is the king of all, and so no human king (or state) can claim authority over another human being. Statists on the other hand defend government as specially “ordained” by God in the same way as the church or family, and thus have divine purposes for their existence. Most Christians fall somewhere in between with a nuanced position.

Charles Gutenson’s new book, Christians and the Common Good, seeks to ask perhaps a better question: “How does God intend for us to live together?” The author believes this question is broader than the narrow one about the role of government because it sets the stage for answers regarding our Christian witness, our relationships with others, and our participation in God’s intention for the world. How we answer this question has ramifications for more than just our personal beliefs about politics. It defines who we are as human beings and as a society.

Gutenson aims to clean up the sloppy biblical interpretation habits most Christians have when reading the Bible so that they can see how the Bible has much more to say about our public life than many Christians assume. The key to this understanding is to read what the Bible has to say about the character and nature of God while noticing that throughout the Scriptures God has intended for people to live out the application of God’s character.

Gutenson argues for three steps for us to discern what God intends for society: (1) examine the manner in which we read and understand Scripture, (2) maintain focus on the Scriptures as the foremost about who God is and what God is like, and (3) determine the implications of the divine nature so we can discern how to live together to God’s satisfaction. The rest of the book flows from these three steps, ending with some practical suggestions for public policy for those in the United States (though the suggestions could be similarly applied elsewhere). Preparing readers for what might seem radical, he reminds us that “a major reason for the increasing irrelevance of the church for today’s culture is the inability both to envision and to demand an alternative way of being in the world” (pg 18). Gutenson also warns us of the temptation for political power in both the left and the right. Both sides of the political aisle have grabbed power at the expense of others or have conflated the purpose of the Kingdom with the purpose of political entities.

On Reading Scripture

One of the biggest advantages of this book is Gutenson’s treatment of how we ought to read the Bible. Most Christians are conditioned to ignore the context of passages or trained to “mine Scripture” for little golden nuggets of truth to apply to our lives. What’s important, says Gutenson, is that we be trained to “appropriate the Bible holistically” (pg 27). Instead of focusing on more narrow definitions regarding salvation, Gutenson believes we have been led away from political concerns. When salvation is only about the individual, public concerns get pushed to the margins or are considered optional for followers of Jesus, when Jesus himself advocated strongly for those at the margins of society.

Gutenson uses a few examples of how many people have proof-texted the Bible and used it as evidence for their own political opinions. He explains how Romans 13 needs to be read in light of Romans 12, which explains how God expects humans to live together. While avoiding advocating that governments enforce Romans 12, he does explain that whatever form government takes it must serve God’s agenda. He also examines the oft-cited passage Luke 20:20-25 where Jesus says to “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give unto God that which is God’s.” Gutenson rightly points out that nothing in this passage indicates that Jesus intended to guide us on how Christians should view public institutions. As a general rule, Gutenson warns us that we must “be cautious about concluding too much by reading more into the story than it will bear” (pg 33).

If we take Scripture seriously while allowing for differences between our culture and culture described in the Scriptures, Gutenson believes we can avoid some common errors. When applying Scripture, we must consider the following questions:

• What is the underlying problem or opportunity that God is dealing with in giving this command to the people of that particular time?
• Do similar problems or opportunities face us in our contemporary setting?
• What role might public policies and institutions play in helping to resolve these problems or taking advantage of these opportunities?

Gutenson starts with the nature of God as indicative of how we ought to live together. The Trinitarian belief that God is three persons in one is probably the most dominant characteristic of God’s nature because it reveals the God who interacts with creation. God’s self-giving love embodies interdependence among the members of the trinity, specifically in God’s sending of the Son to heal the broken relationship between the world and God. The incarnation shows us what God is like, and reveals to us “how humanity, as God intended it, is to be and act” (pg 64). It is through Jesus that we see what God has intended for us as human beings, both personally and socially.

Biblical Vignettes

After spending nearly 80 pages exploring how we should read the Scriptures and laying some guidelines for how we discern implications for our public lives today, Gutenson comes to the biblical passages he feels gives us vignettes into the overarching narrative of Scripture. Gutenson explains God’s vision for humanity by touring the Bible from the beginning.

A few snippets:

• Exodus 20 is a set of instructions for how our lives are to be lived together in a way that pleases God. Leviticus 19 shows God’s demands that neither rich nor poor get preferential legal treatment; all are to be treated “equally under the law.”
• In Deuteronomy 15 God promises that there will be nobody in need among Israel when they have obeyed God’s intentions for living together.
• Isaiah 10 warns us that lawmakers have a strong temptation to use their powers to slant the playing field, robbing the poor of their rights. It is an explicit recognition that institutional evil can be built into the laws governing a particular society.
• Jeremiah 29 demonstrates the beginnings of God’s initiative for Israel to be a blessing to its former enemies by permitting it to intermarry with foreigners.
• Ezekiel 16 reminds us that a special revelation from God (like Israel had) is not required for God to hold societies accountable to their obligation to hear the cry of the needy.
• The entire book of Amos reminds us that “to be quiet in the midst of perverse societal structures is to effectively participate in the exploitation of those on the margins” (pg 102).

In the New Testament, Gutenson tours Matthew 5-7, 25, and 26, explaining to us that Jesus lives out God’s intention for us but also speaks out about what God’s expectations are. A classic text regarding the poor, Matthew 26, is discussed briefly. For those most inclined to believe that Jesus wasn’t interested in relieving the plight of the poor since they will “always be with us” (which is in a sense an everlasting statistical fact), Jesus intended to communicate that his followers are and would be the types of people who would always be among the poor, serving them and advocating for them.

When Gutenson comes to the apostolic letters, he gives special attention to 2 Corinthians 8:12-15, which says in part, “The one who had much did not have too much, and the one who had little did not have too little.” This passage, Gutenson believes, implies that God intends for economic life to be structured so that wealth disparity does not grow too large. He then uses the book of James to demonstrate the link between faith and works, and more specifically, the tendency of rich people to feel threatened by those who are poor. Gutenson follows up with other passages, but these are sufficient to show where he is going.

His conclusions? Humans must be imitators of God, live in ways that embody self-giving love, and take seriously our obligation to use our resources for the benefit of others. He also concludes that governments are ordained by God, society can be judged by how well it cares for its most marginal members, and God intends for human economies to be structured so that there will be no poor.

With the exception of some of his conclusions, Christians sympathetic to the libertarian viewpoint will have minor quibbles with Gutenson, perhaps disagreeing on some details (Gutenson believes we are a liberal democracy) or on the interpretation of “ordained by God.” What cannot be denied is that the one story of God as revealed in the Scriptures has plenty to say about our public life together, and is not simply a book about individual salvation or eternal destinies.

Gutenson is right that God wants us to live together peacefully, in harmony, and in mutual interdependence. Gutenson does not, however, get into detail about the relationship between governments and society. We have the luxury in 21st century Western culture to assume that governments carry out the will of the people, and thus the question about living together in society is inextricably linked to the state that governs us. But it has not always been so throughout history. God’s intention for humanity may indeed be living together as Gutenson demonstrates. But it is neither explicit nor implied in Scripture that governments must be the mechanism by which people are encouraged to live this way.

Human Governance and Public Policy

Gutenson will have a bit of difficulty convincing libertarian Christians with his suggestions for public policy. He calls them suggestions in order to be careful to not prescribe exact policies as “the right ones” and because his purpose is to foster discussion on what it means to live out God’s desires for human relationships.

What will trouble many readers not automatically sympathetic to his political viewpoints is his belief that our governing structure is a “liberal democracy.” Last I checked, the founders of the United States established (for better or worse) a constitutional republic so that the United States would be a nation of laws governed by a document designed to protect people from tyranny and establish a “general welfare” with specific descriptions on how to do so (whether they were successful or not is another serious question). Remarkably, Gutenson doesn’t discuss at all how the Constitution of the United States relates to how we live together under God’s intentions. Ignoring the most obvious point about how our society is arranged cannot be a mistake. Gutenson, who clearly has spent much energy into the intersection of faith and politics, likely ignored the Constitution intentionally because most progressives would love to disabuse us of the notion of a constitutional republic.

A second troubling aspect of the book is his explicit statements that God’s intentions for government are outcome related. Art Carden has pointed out that “the important question in social science is not really evaluating the moral quality of the outcome, but evaluating the institutions that produce the outcome.” Gutenson does state, thankfully, “that when the powers fail to serve [a kingdom agenda], they become demonic and serve to be destructive of the very things they were created to serve” (pg 128). Yet while Gutenson makes no mention of the United States straying far from its constitution, many are calling it back to that “governing authority” (to cite Romans 13). Even if the Constitution isn’t one’s cup of tea, it doesn’t take too much examination to realize that the Federal Government of the United States has become an institution delivering far more evil than it does good. It should be critiqued and abandoned for social institutions that actually accomplish the agenda God has for the world. Putting faith in government only exacerbates social injustices when the institution itself is corrupt and unredeemable.

Gutenson warms my heart with statements like this about the voice the Church must have in society: “The role of the church is to just be the church, but in so doing the church should both embody and speak critique to the powers that have been corrupted and no longer serve a kingdom agenda” (pg 143). That is why I’m a libertarian! Jesus confronted the empire, showed an alternate way of living together, and demonstrated self-giving love. Implicit in the proclamation “Jesus is Lord” is the claim, “Caesar is NOT!”

Gutenson’s least-convincing chapter is the last. While not completely void of good suggestions, in it he proposes different policies that are supposed to encourage human beings to live together in a way God intends.

While the purpose of this review isn’t to rebut every suggestion made by Gutenson, it is important to realize that the most specific public policy suggestions explored below are ones based merely on good intentions. But policies cannot be backed by mere intentions. Not only must they actually work, they must also achieve their outcomes ethically. Some of Gutenson’s suggestions neither achieve their intended outcome nor demonstrate God’s intention for human beings. In some cases they run contrary to God’s intentions.

The progressive income tax, according to Gutenson, helps to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few and aims to ensure that taxes don’t prevent access to essential goods and services that the poor among us rely upon. Yet there is no explanation as to how a progressive income tax per se is what ensures such outcomes. The ethics of an income tax on the fruits of one’s labor is questionable, yet even if it were morally permissible, there is no reason to believe that living in mutual interdependent self-giving love requires more confiscation by the state from those who have been successful at producing goods for society. A flat tax can be considered “progressive” because the wealthy pay more because they produce more and make higher profits.

Social Security and Medicare are the sacred cows of the progressive movement. Gutenson cites Social Security’s “remarkable success” in “lifting the elderly out of poverty” (pg 155). Outcomes are dominant in this line of thinking. Little regard is given to the insolvency of both programs while the ethics involved in acquiring the money to redistribute are ignored. Whether we think taxation or redistribution is theft or not, Social Security is a legally authorized Ponzi scheme continued only by pandering to the fears of the people who have become dependent upon it. While the intention is for us to live together in a community of self-giving love, the result has been a society divided by the ones who feel unjustly “taken from” and those who feel entitled to something that is not their own.

Most importantly Social Security is nothing but a veneer of God’s desires for society when at its core it is neither social nor secure. If Christians are serious about ways that we can be mutually interdependent and live in a society that God intends for us, we ought to seek opportunities for such an outcome in ways that bring people closer together rather than allow or cause them to drift apart. The taxes I pay for Social Security do nothing to bring me closer to the elderly folks I’m supposedly helping. If anything it gives me more incentive to not have to care about them!

Minimum wage laws are probably the clearest example of a policy backed by good intentions that does precisely the opposite of that which it intends (even the original intentions of minimum wage laws are suspect). Christian economist Art Carden recently cited a study that shows that minimum wages laws disproportionately burdens young African Americans with unemployment. Carden writes of the minimum wage:

“I oppose minimum wages for a couple of reasons.  First and most obviously, they hurt the poor.  Second, the minimum wage is one of the most visible ways that the anti-economic way of thinking manifests itself in the policy arena.  If we are going to make policy that privileges the wants and needs of the least of these among us, then the minimum wage has to go.”

Carden provides his own sources for his claims here, here, here, and here, and endorses another here. If one is interested in social justice rather than social control, this is a good article.

Access to health care, it is proposed, should be available to all human beings regardless of their ability to pay for the services needed. Gutenson starts this section with “It is hard to imagine that God’s intentions that all should flourish could be satisfied without health care access” (pg 159). Perhaps this is so, and since there is no explicit mention of health care services in the Bible, it isn’t completely out of the picture that God’s intentions are for people to be living healthy lives. We must seriously consider this as part of God’s desire for society.

Yet access to health care, as Gutenson explains (and nobody denies), is expensive. Insurance companies deny claims based on “preexisting conditions.” The uninsured are charged higher rates at the doctor despite being unable to afford insurance. Whatever the injustices of the health care system, Gutenson fails to address the reasons behind why such injustices are prevalent. Regulation after regulation bars competition into just about every field of medicine from nursing to pharmaceuticals. Competition is virtually nonexistent, so prices do not fall. Government grants monopoly privileges to pharmaceutical companies through patents that last for years, while the FDA literally prevents experimental life-saving drugs to enter the market.

The government has distorted the health care industry in so many ways, it is no wonder that prices have soared while in industries like technology where there is virtually nonexistent intervention and regulations prices plummet. If we are to imagine a way to live as God intends, a state solution is the last mechanism that will actually accomplish this.

Estate and inheritance taxes are often justified by Christians as a modern-day application of the Years of Release and Years of Jubilee from the Old Testament. God’s intention is that there not be a permanently dispossessed class of people while the vast accumulation of wealth stays in the hands of a few. Gutenson claims there is nothing inherent about this particular application of those principles in the estate and inheritance taxes, but he misses the point of contention among those who disagree. First, the presumption that without such laws wealth continues to accumulate into the hands of the few is unfounded. Second, most anti-estate tax folks are against it for moral reasons. Third, it is an economically destructive tax that confiscates the fruits of those who have been productive and distributes it to a political class that has no incentive to allocate the capital or resources wisely, efficiently, or in a way God intends.

Another unintended consequence of the inheritance tax is that it unjustly removes capital and sometimes labor from the economy when the stewards of such wealth intend for it to be used for Kingdom purposes. In my corner of the world many entrepreneurs are using their capital to benefit the Kingdom of God around the globe. Not only do these businessmen have to waste energy prior to their death avoiding Uncle Sam from taking God’s money for another kingdom, after their death their wealth cannot be used for the Kingdom purposes God has intended for these entrepreneurs to carry out. The very people who intend to live out their own obligation to use their resources for the benefit of others are robbed from the opportunity to do so by those who have no intention nor incentive to use those resources wisely.

Monopolies are a favorite target of interventionists, and it’s ironic that Gutenson argues for legislation against monopolization of markets when the very reasons monopolies exist is government protection of business interests at the expense of others. What Gutenson claims is “undue market power” must be examined in light of the federal government’s granting of monopoly privileges. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws claim to prevent Big Business from harming “the little guy,” but they do nothing of the sort. The source of everlasting monopolies is government protection.

Even more ironic is that Gutenson seems to have no problem with an institution (government) that has a monopoly on the use of force to accomplish the ends by which he claims ought to be God’s intention for us as human beings. I’m anti-monopoly, too; but I apply this to governments as well.

Concluding Thoughts

I have focused plenty on some of the problematic suggestions Gutenson gives near the end of his book. I expected this before reading it, but what I didn’t expect was to nearly wholeheartedly endorse his guidelines for how we enter the biblical text and apply to our personal and public lives. Gutenson gently yet persuasively challenges the reader’s assumptions about Scripture in a writing style superior to most progressive Christian authors I’ve read. Most impressive is his clear and succinct way of exploring how Christians ought to engage culture and think about public life without using rhetoric filled with ideological passion that detracts from what he is saying. Gutenson aligns with God’s intentions for humanity and has done us a favor by exploring the relevant passages in Scripture that deal with God’s intention for humanity.

As I’ve suggested throughout this review, Gutenson fails to address some critical questions about the nature of states and the relationship between society and government. It is not a natural conclusion that “we” are the government, and thus whatever the government does it is acting on behalf of the people. To take seriously what God intends for our public life means we must define and understand what “we” means, whether or not that entails political action, and what (if any) relationship that has with the state. Gutenson doesn’t address these important questions, which may be disappointing for a libertarian reader.

Christians and the Common Good is an outstanding introduction to understanding the intentions of God through the narrative of Scripture. It gloriously dismisses faulty interpretive habits while challenging the assumptions about particular passages or precepts found in the Scriptures. When it comes to the biblical journey, Gutenson has written a wonderful book. But if we are to follow Gutenson’s own standard— “the best policies are ones that are consistent with the life of faith, satisfy God’s intentions, and actually work” (pg 146)—careful economic and historical examination will lead us to reject many of his policy suggestions.

Gutenson writes early in the book that Christians have become irrelevant to the culture because they’ve been unable to envision an alternative way of being in the world. Indeed, this is why the Christian anarchist might suggest that Gutenson reconsider his own theology of the state and society. John Maynard Keynes said, “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”

Imagining a world wholly different from our own indeed takes a radical vision. But advocating state-based solutions to social problems is neither imaginative nor radical.

Please consider buying Christians and the Common Good at Amazon.com and LCC will then get a small kick-back from the sale. Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Christians and the Common Good” Book Review

Carl Trueman is confused, but not as confused as his book’s title and subtitle indicate. He is trying to describe with one term both his political and religious viewpoint.

It is rare that an author clearly states his thesis upfront instead of making you wade through the whole book wondering just what it is the author is trying to prove. Although it is not clear from the book’s title or subtitle, Trueman’s thesis, which he states in different forms in his acknowledgments and his introduction, makes it clear that he is a religious conservative and a political liberal:

Religious conservatism does not demand unconditional political conservatism.

Conservative Christianity does not require conservative politics or conservative cultural agendas.

The author is living proof that his thesis is true. As am I. But that is where our similarities end. Trueman fears that his book will merely confirm that he is a “bleeding-heart liberal,” that it is just “a tract for the Left,” and that it is “little more than the special pleading of a confused political liberal.” After reading the book I must say that his fears are justified. But what did he expect?

Trueman favors gun control and nationalized health care (although he is quick to point out that he is “not a socialist”). He holds dear as important political issues poverty, sanitation, housing, unemployment, and hunger. He also has “concern for the environment.” He believes the government “has a role to play in health care and helping the poor.” He disdains capitalism and feels that “pure private enterprise is not adequate for meeting all of society’s needs.”

Yet, he finds himself “politically homeless, restless, and disenchanted.” This is because, although “a man of the left,” Trueman, as a theological conservative, is pro-life and anti-gay marriage. No wonder he feels that any of the secular Left reading the book will find him “woefully inconsistent.”

So why am I, a theological conservative and a hardcore libertarian, even bothering to review a book that I find so muddled and moronic that I have to say is not worth reading?

One, Trueman makes some good points about both the Right and the Left that I feel are worth mentioning. And two, Trueman makes some bad points about Christianity and capitalism and Christianity and politics that I also feel are worth mentioning.

Let me first give some brief information about the author and his book.

Trueman is originally from Great Britain. He did not move to the United States until 2001. He was a member of the British Conservative Party in the mid-1980s, but became disillusioned and made a “leftward turn.” He is now the vice president of academics and professor of historical theology and church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. This is a conservative seminary that was founded by J. Gresham Machen. Trueman holds a Ph.D. in church history from Aberdeen University.

Trueman’s book, Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative, is a small book of 110 pages that takes longer to digest than to read. It contains six chapters. The first chapter, with the catchy title of “Left Behind,” is a critique of the Left. Chapter 2 is about the secularization of American Christianity. Chapter 3 is a critique of Fox News. Chapter 4 is a critique of Max Weber and capitalism. Chapter 5 is about politics. Chapter 6 is a “Concluding Unpolitical Postscript.” The book also contains an introduction by the author and a foreword by a politically conservative colleague who recounts how, when visiting the grave of Karl Marx with the author, he was careful to stand to the right of the bust of Marx while Trueman stood to the left.

In his critique of the Right, Trueman correctly criticizes the idea that America should be identified with God’s special people. He cautions against the temptation for the “dominant nation at any point in world history to identify its mission with the mission of God.” This “must be resisted at all costs.” In this context, he specifically mentions The American Patriot’s Bible, a nationalistic and militaristic Bible published recently that I have negatively reviewed here. Trueman terms one of the claims in this Bible’s promotional video “puerile, blasphemous nonsense.” Even worse though is the painting One Nation Under God, which portrays Jesus holding the Constitution while surrounded by deists Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. “To include them pictorially,” says Trueman, “in some nostalgic plea for a Christian nation is historically ignorant, blasphemous, and, quite frankly, risible.”

Trueman has nothing good to say about Fox News, the station where “any dissent from the most robust conservative philosophy was seen as a sign of basic moral failure.” He especially focuses on the shortcomings of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Fox’s owner, Rupert Murdoch. I like Trueman’s suggestion that “when it comes to listening to the news; Christians should be eclectic in their approach and not depend merely on those pundits who simply confirm their view of the world.”

Trueman has a good eye for the hypocrisy of the Right, like this insight: “While the Christian Right is intolerant of any personal peccadillo on the part of liberals, it is often very forgiving of the private failings of its heroes.” The description of John McCain and Sarah Palin as mavericks he finds “clearly absurd.” And of good ol’ boy George W. Bush, there is “no one more elite.” Trueman points out the inconsistency of the Right holding “a deep suspicion of the federal government in a domestic context,” but decrying as “unpatriotic and un-American” any criticism of the government when it invades some foreign country. On the issue of abortion, Trueman astutely perceives that “it seems to be something the Right often uses as little more than a means to drum up cheap votes for its candidates.” He questions the real commitment of Bush, McCain, and the Republican Party to the pro-life cause.

As a political liberal himself, Trueman’s critique of the Left is naturally limited. As mentioned previously, our author deviates from the Left on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. He believes that the Left has been hijacked by identity politics. When the Left made gay rights and abortion touchstone issues, “those of us with strong religious convictions on these matters found ourselves essentially alienated from the parties to which our allegiance would naturally be given.” In advocating gay rights, “the Left frequently finds itself opposed to the values of the very people it was originally designed to help.” On abortion, Trueman wonders “how many on the Left have ever taken the time to address the issue of how the right to abortion became so inextricably linked to the notion of women’s rights.” He thinks that abortion “would seem to be a classic cause for the Left” since the Left “prides itself on speaking up for the oppressed, especially for those who cannot speak up for themselves.” He considers it “quite stunning” that a rhetorical connection has been forged “between the oppression of women and the denial of on-demand abortion.”

There are some other insights in the book as well. Trueman has some good remarks on the Manichaean nature of American politics. He is especially perplexed that Christians “who have a great capacity for subtle thinking in matters of theology seem to prefer to think in terms of very straightforward, black-and-white, if not Manichaean, categories when it comes to politics.”

Trueman has issues, not just with Max Weber’s understanding of the “affinity between Protestantism and the capitalist ethic,” but with capitalism itself. Christians should be wary of capitalism because:

• it promotes a view of life rooted in material accumulation;
• it can tend to drive all social relations and values to being determined by cash transactions;
• and when given spiritual significance, it can become something that looks a little too much like the prosperity gospel.

Trueman’s strained attempt to say that a capitalistic society is conducive to euthanasia and abortion is ludicrous. Oh, capitalism doesn’t necessarily lead to euthanasia, “but it creates one of the kinds of societies where such discussion might well take place.” Well, some ancient pagan cultures didn’t just discuss human sacrifice; they practiced it. They certainly had no idea what capitalism was. I think rather that the opposite of what Trueman says is true. He also maintains that “access to abortion” is “not unconnected” to capitalism. I suppose this is why there were so many abortions in the Soviet Union – under communism.

Yet, according to our author, who, you will remember, is “not a socialist,” there is “no alternative out there.” Capitalism “has its great benefits” and “brings much good in its wake, not least the creation of wealth and the facilitation of social mobility.” Clearly, Trueman is confused about capitalism.

On capitalism from a secular perspective, see my brief review of Robert P. Murphy’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s How Capitalism Saved America. On capitalism from a Christian perspective, see my The Myth of the Just Price.

But in addition to Trueman’s bad points about Christianity and capitalism, there are his remarks about Christianity and politics.

Trueman believes it is part of the Christian’s “civic duty” to vote even as they “feel pain when they mark the relevant box, knowing the trade-offs they are having to make as they do so, and how their action belies the complexity of reality.”

But I don’t know why Trueman thinks Christians should feel pain or be making trade-offs when they vote since he believes that, apart from abortion, there are no issues upon which Christians can have opinions shaped by Scripture:

I believe that on certain issues there is no obviously “Christian” position. I am inclined to include among such issues the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the appropriateness of trade unions, rates of direct and indirect taxation, etc. To make any of these things acid tests of Christian orthodoxy is to go well beyond anything the Bible teachers or that the church has felt it necessary to define over the two thousand years of its existence.

It is not obvious to me from reading Scripture that God really cares one way or the other about how health care is delivered. . . . I would suggest it means that believers should consider heath care a good thing and want to see as many people helped by it as possible. How that is done, to what extent the state is involved, etc., are legitimate subjects for debate and not something that should divide Christians as Christians.

Beyond abortion, there are a whole host of issues on which the Christian pundits have strong opinions, from gun control to defense spending to financial regulation to education. The problem is, of course, that whether there is a distinctly biblical position on these matters that can thus be pressed on the church is debatable.

As Christians, we should be able to disagree vigorously on, say gun control.

If there are no “Christian” positions on these issues – all of which involve theft and/or violence by the state – then there are no “Christian” positions on any issues and the Bible is completely irrelevant to modern life.

For a book that was written because of the author’s “belief that the evangelical church in America is in danger of alienating a significant section of its people, particularly younger people, through too tight a connection between conservative party politics and Christian fidelity,” it contains surprisingly few references to Scripture. I only count five, and most of them are on one page (p. 71). Trueman doesn’t actually quote any Scripture, and neither does he give any real references (book, chapter, & verse). He merely refers to 2 Corinthians 1, the Book of Acts, 2 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 1 & 2, and Ecclesiastes 2.

I think I see Trueman’s political problem. He makes this statement on page 81: “There does not appear to be a grand, unifying theory in politics that allows all these areas to be tied together into one coherent and necessary whole.” The grand, unifying theory that Trueman overlooks is, of course, libertarianism. Our author does mention libertarianism twice, but each time with a negative connotation. Once he remarks that having a commitment to untrammeled markets leads toward “a form of libertarianism – economic at the outset but profoundly moral in the long run.” Then, in his conclusion, Trueman talks about the Right shifting “in a more socially and morally libertarian direction.” So not only is Trueman confused about capitalism, he is confused about libertarianism as well. I would refer him to my recent ASC lecture, “Is Libertarianism Compatible with Religion?”

Carl Trueman may be a liberal conservative, but he is a liberal conservative statist.

Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Article originally published on LewRockwell.com on June 17, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Oxymoronic, or just moronic?

Dilbert author Scott Adams finally explains how to get a real education.

ExxonMobil’s Perspectives Blog tells the truth about government restrictions on oil supplies.

It’s ridiculous that Barry Bonds can catch the attention of congress by being dishonest about steroid-use and have the government spend nearly $100 million trying to prosecute him, but dishonesty about war by presidents gets zero consideration. This country is off its rocker.

That being said, there are a few interesting presidential candidates now in the field. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has officially announced, as has Lee Wrights in the Libertarian Party. Note Lee’s campaign slogan: “Stop All War!”

Some books I have read this past month:

The Devil Reads Derrida, by James K.A. Smith – When I saw this title at the bookstore, I had to buy it. It is an interesting set of essays on a variety of topics ranging from art to politics. Smith is not a libertarian, but he is anti-war and definitely has an aversion to power in general. I think he may at times be confusing political libertarians with the philosophical position of libertarian free-will; such a mistake is forgivable even though I do not really agree with him on free-will either. Still, it is good reading.

Accompany Them With Singing, by Thomas Long – This book compiles Long’s research into Christian funerals. Considering how bizarre the modern funeral has become (at least to me) this was refreshing. Definitely recommended for the ministers out there.

Art for God’s Sake, by Philip Graham – This short work gives a good perspective on the use of art in society from a Christian perspective. Thankfully, the author does not make the mistake of saying all art must be religious to be valuable. However, I have some minor quibbles with some of his definitions. It is well worth the time to read it, which is only about 90 minutes anyway since it has less than 100 pages.

Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell – How do successful people become successful? I am fascinated by people who are at the top of their game, doing the biggest and best things in the marketplace, and I like to hear their stories. That is not exactly what Gladwell’s book covers, but it is thought-provoking nonetheless. Essentially, Gladwell tells the reader that success is due to a multitude of factors, many of which are not in anyone’s control whatsoever. In his estimation, there is no such thing as a “self-made man.” I would tend to agree, but you can always push certain factors toward falling in your favor.

The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath – The so-called “New Atheists” are exceedingly vocal (not to mention insulting) these days, and there is a growing body of literature where theologians, philosophers, and scientists respond to their work. The Dawkins Delusion is a fairly short response directly to Richard Dawkins’s latest book The God Delusion.

UPDATE: Apparently, Ron Paul is going to announce on Tuesday that he is running!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Potpourri of Sorts

Most of literature I have read on Martin Luther quickly brushes over his “Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms” likely because it is difficult to understand and to explain. Not so with Paul Althaus’ work The Ethics of Martin Luther originally written in German in 1965, but available for us monolingual Americans as well in a 1972 translation by Robert C. Schultz. Althaus’ primary focus is an explanation of Luther’s “Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms” – Luther’s view on the role of government and its relationship to Christians.

It is couched in the understanding of the Doctrine of Justification that Luther forms his Ethics. It is because of the freedom we have in Christ through his death on the cross for our sake that we are not burdened by God’s ethical demands. We are not called to be ascetics or moralizers, but to be free to love God and our neighbor.

Althaus writes, “Thus faith sets the Christian free. He is free to do his work with joy, in contrast to slavish worry, insecurity, and unhappiness of the man who has no faith, doubts how he stands with God, and does not know how he will satisfy God.”

The doctrine of the Two Kingdoms is to Luther’s way to explain the relationship of man to government. This doctrine should be of particular interest to Libertarian Christians as Luther argues for the separation of Church and State (against the Roman model of the times) and for government to be limited to its proper Biblical roles of punishing evildoers and keeping order in society.

Luther’s views can be summarized as follows:

1) Government is to punish evildoers (as the Left hand kingdom of God).
2) The church, The Right Hand Kingdom, is not to be involved in government itself, but in preaching the gospel.
3) The church and the government shouldn’t cross roles. People are never to be coerced into belief.
4) Christians must submit to the governing authorities. Christians should never rebel against a government even when the government commits crimes.
5) A person should never use violence as a person, but it is allowed when used in its office. This “office” can be either in the government (executioner, judge, soldier, etc) or in the family (the parents).
6) Laws should be formed by “reason.”
7) Christians are not necessarily better at government than non-Christians.
There is no “best” form of government.

Althaus also does a superb job explaining Luther’s views on vocation, marriage, and economics. His views on economics obviously predate marginal utility theory by centuries so he shouldn’t be condemned to strongly for suggesting a way of arriving at a reasonable price based on the cost of materials and the risk taken by the businessman. Despite this view, Luther argues “that Christ has not given us specific direction in the area of buying and selling but has left the regulation of this area to reason.”

I recommend Althaus’ Ethics of Martin Luther for its in-depth treatment of the difficult areas of Luther’s ethics. The book wasn’t persuasive enough to convince me of all of Luther’s views on government, but significantly improved my understanding.

Please consider buying The Ethics of Martin Luther at Amazon.com and LCC will then get a small kick-back from the sale. Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“The Ethics of Martin Luther” Book Review