Catholic libertarians like myself have become accustomed to being lectured by priests, bishops and Catholic pundits about the inherent incompatibility of Catholicism and libertarianism. This assertion, whether presented in writing or as a harangue from the pulpit, is generally accompanied by a set of reliably tried-and-true myths about libertarianism that often demonstrates a poor grasp of what libertarianism even is. Of course, one never encounters a wholesale condemnation of Liberalism or Conservatism, mainly because large numbers of American Catholics generally self-identify as one or the other. Given the relatively small number of libertarians among the faithful however, one can safely denounce it, and neither courage nor erudition is required.

The opposition to libertarianism stems from a handful of myths that are circulated among Catholics about libertarianism.

Myth #1: Libertarians are libertines

It is certainly true that some libertarians are libertines, just as some people who profess to be Catholic are libertines as well. There is certainly nothing in the libertarian philosophy that precludes a person from being a libertine. Libertarianism after all, is a political theory only, and is based on the idea that it is immoral, except in cases of self-defense, to engage in violence against other persons. The state, being an organization that maintains a monopoly on the means of coercion, is based on the use of coercion and is thus inherently violent. To the libertarian then, the cases in which states can act morally must be either constrained to a very small number of situations or must be eliminated entirely.

So, libertarians merely argue that it is not moral for states to fine, imprison, kill persecute or otherwise coerce human beings who wish to behave in immoral ways that do not involve physical violence against others. For example, if a person wishes to smoke a joint, it is not moral for the state to persecute such a person since he or she has not done anything violent.

Mind you, there is nothing to prevent a private voluntary organization, such as a family or church or club or business from discouraging or denouncing such behavior in its members of employees. Indeed, libertarianism argues strongly in favor of private organizations like churches and families and businesses being free to demand whatever behavior they wish from their own members and employees.

This situation, of course, is what has predominated historically in Christendom. Drug laws, for example are an invention of the 20th century. Did Christians walk around high on drugs every day prior to the prohibition of marijuana use in the 1930s? Obviously not. Indeed one could argue that drug use is far more prevalent among Christians now than it was before drugs were made illegal. Saint Thomas Aquinas famously spoke against civil governments attempting to outlaw human vice. His contention that "[a]ccordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred," wasn’t a declaration that moral vices like prostitution were morally permissible. It was simply a recognition of the fact that to have the state outlaw a vice was often a cure worse than the disease.

Myth #2: Libertarians hate the poor

Those of us who have been involved in right-wing politics for years have all seen how some people might get this impression. Among Conservative and Republican pundits and activists, who often unconvincingly claim to be in favor of "free markets," one will often hear denunciations of poor people who are presumably lazy, deceptive and foolish. This, apparently, means that poor people and their children "deserve" to be poor.

It is very rare that someone will encounter this attitude with a libertarian who is not just a Conservative pretending to be a libertarian in an attempt to appear more hip.

In fact, a major reason that libertarians are so opposed to state power is that we recognize that the state causes most of the poverty that it later then turns around and claims to be eradicating. The current depression is a perfect example. There are now at least 8-10 million unemployed Americans. The current bust is the result of at least 20 years of economic meddling and wealth destruction encouraged by the government through manipulation of the money supply and through a runaway regulatory state. This has led to the current situation of a stagnant economy and rampant unemployment and underemployment.

As the middle class shrinks and millions descend into poverty, thanks to the state, how can we say that the state’s most vulnerable victims, the poor, "deserve" their present situation?

Libertarians recognize that providing for one’s self and one’s family is a difficult job and that people need to be as free as possible in pursuing those goals. Those people should also have more control of their income and their wealth so that they can provide more fully for their Churches as well. As it is, millions of working Americans give 40-50 percent of their income to fund massive government departments in Washington, DC, endless warfare and the bailouts of billionaires. Meanwhile, the government that we are taxed to fund is causing the poverty we’re told it can fix. The argument that the government is the best way to provide poverty relief is naïve in the extreme. Indeed, when it comes to letting the government be in charge of reducing poverty, one might as well put communists in charge of food production.

Myth #3: Libertarians neglect solidarity

Many libertarian Catholics, like Thomas Woods, have often made the point that libertarian ideals of a just civil government and just economy are well grounded in the subsidiarity principle –the idea that any act of government should be performed at the most local level possible- that has long been favored by Catholic theologians and popes.

Some Catholic pundits, such as Mark Shea, claim that libertarians inflate a concern for subsidiarity at the expense of solidarity. This notion of course, is based on an acceptance of Myths #1 and #2.

This myth can be dispelled in two different ways. First, we can note that libertarianism is not opposed to the success and legality of non-governmental organizations. Secondly, we note that libertarians oppose the organization that has done more to destroy human solidarity than any other organization in human history: the state.

First, there is nothing in libertarianism that makes libertarians opposed to the success and propagation of organizations and bodies on which solidarity is built. These include families, churches, clubs, association, schools, and even labor unions. Libertarians believe that all of these organizations should be free to exist without molestation from the state. For the Catholic libertarian, the most important foundations of society are of course the family and the Church. Under a libertarian regime, these organizations can be freely supported by any person, and he or she may peacefully encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, libertarians oppose the state. It is difficult to image just how exactly pro-state Catholics imagine that the state actually promotes solidarity. Does it promote solidarity by sowing class warfare through the stealing from one class to give to another? Is it the crony capitalism that impoverishes the poor for the sake of billionaires? Do the endless wars promote solidarity? Did the dropping of atomic bombs on women and children help solidarity? How about all the famines caused by governments from Ireland to China? Did the mass murder of priests in Mexico during the twenties promote solidarity?

Some Catholics will say, "You libertarians are too extreme. You want to cut back government too much just because some states have been really awful. If we can just vote in the right people, bad things like that won’t happen." In response I have one question: How has that been working out for you?

Myth #4: Libertarians support liberty only because it is in their self-interest

This one is the most easily disproven. Anyone who has been involved in libertarian activism knows that being a libertarian is not exactly a great career move. It is likely to make one unpopular and, if one is lucky, he will merely be considered to be a harmless eccentric by his co-workers and family members. Often, people are not that charitable. Most libertarians support libertarianism because they think it is the right thing to do, and not because there is some kind of expected material benefit. Very few libertarians expect major libertarian victories in the near future anyway.

Although there are real victories, such as the end of global communism in 1989 and the fact that Keynesian economics is now virtually discredited among everyone except government employees and academic economists, no libertarian actually expects to benefit in any meaningful way from the advance of libertarian ideas in his lifetime. For example, a great libertarian victory would be major cuts in military spending and the ending of the government’s many foreign wars. How that would monetarily benefit any libertarian who advocates for such a turn of events is hardly obvious.

Myth #5: Libertarians want to persecute Christianity

There are no doubt some libertarians who wish to persecute Christians, but if those libertarians actually adhere to libertarian principles of not using government power against people, then we don’t have much to fear from them, now do we?

On the other hand, a strong government is one of the most dangerous weapons in the hands of those who seek to persecute the faith (and also in the hands of those who don’t.)

One need not be a historian to notice that Catholicism in the United States has been persecuted to a much smaller extent than in many countries, including many so-called Catholic countries.

This is due in no small part to (quickly-waning) libertarian traditions in the United States regarding how the state interacts with religions. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment is born from a tradition that comes to us from many lessons learned over the centuries in both Britain and in the American colonies. The colonials had learned that religious majorities tend to persecute religious minorities, and many of the framers of the Constitution came to the conclusion that the best way to promote Christianity was to leave it alone. Many Catholics have bought into the incorrect contention made by leftists that the establishment clause was the work of secularists, and that the separation of Church and state is somehow detrimental to Churches.

On the contrary, the separation of Church and state in America has been one of the greatest obstacles in the path of those who might have sought to persecute Catholics in what, for most of its history, has been a country imbued with anti-Catholicism.

Why is it, for example, that there have never been anti-clerical purges in the United States as there were in Mexico during the twenties? Why have Catholic women and children never been gunned down specifically for their faith as was the case in Spain during the thirties? Why were attempts at outlawing Catholic schools struck down as illegal? The answer is that there is a tradition in America, when it comes to religion, in which it is believed that the state which governs best, governs least. We call that philosophy a libertarian philosophy.

Unfortunately, in our present age of the unlimited state, the old constraints on the state, even in matters of religion, are breaking down at an increasingly rapid pace.

Not helping matters is the fact that there has long been a pro-state element within the Catholic clergy and hierarchy that has been whooping it up for all types of socialism in the name of poverty-relief.

Recently after decades of naïve pro-government boosterism, the bishops finally figured out that a state that is powerful enough to wage total war and to distribute wealth and regulate on a massive scale, is big enough to persecute and prosecute Catholics who refuse to commit sin in the face of government regulations.

Obviously, such a situation would never come to pass under even a militantly secularist libertarian regime since libertarians would never regulate health care. Catholic doctors, pharmacists and hospitals would be free to govern themselves in line with their Catholic faith.

Myth #6: Libertarians are not pro-life

There is no doubt that libertarians are split as to whether or not abortion should be legal. Since this is an open debate among libertarians, there is no "libertarian position" on the legality of abortion, and any claim that libertarians are "pro-abortion" is simply contrary to the facts.

On the other hand, we can note that libertarians are far less bellicose toward babies that are ex utero than are either Conservatives or Liberals. Both look the other way or actively defend horrific injuries to children in the name of "national defense" or "global democracy." Rare is the Conservative or Liberal who will denounce, for example, the firebombing of Japan as a crime against humanity, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese women, children, toddlers and infants were burned to death horribly, as can be seen here.

The final document issued by the Second Vatican Council, known as Gaudium et Spes states that "[e]very act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

Conservatives and Liberals routinely defend this sort of violence against civilians in the name of the war on terror or ridding the world of evil or some other unattainable and impractical utopia, yet it is the libertarians who are supposedly anti-Catholic.

The state is not our friend. Many Catholics oppose libertarians because apparently, some Catholics still cling to notions about government that have never been true, but have contended that states are somehow built on consent and virtue and that they do more good than harm. The reality is much different. Even the most uncorrupted and constrained states sow discord among their people, expropriate massive amounts of wealth to dole out to the politically well-connected, wage wars against civilians, suppress dissent, supplant the family and persecute the religious.

Clearly, this institution that is supposed to bring us so many blessings, is not nearly constrained enough.

The state is fundamentally an institution founded on violence. Saint Augustine once famously compared secular rulers to pirates. According to historian Ralph Raico:

In City of God, St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate’s answer was "elegant and excellent."

Alexander sought to bring civilization and enlightenment to the world. Our own government seeks the same. The times are different, but the outcomes are the same.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on January 4, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

6 Myths Catholics Tell About Libertarians

A quick excerpt:

“Through libertarianism, many Christians have found a way to move past their previous beliefs about politics and embrace a more consistent, more biblical political philosophy. The message of abolishing government power is powerful on its own. In Ron Paul, many Christian libertarians see a leader who points to principles that conservatives and liberals have long forgotten… Libertarianism is not going away, and it surely will take an increasingly prominent place in the political discussion of Christians for years to come.”

Many thanks to the Washington Post for this great opportunity.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

LCC is in the Washington Post

I have some simple yet pointed questions for Christians who subscribe to, or can be characterized by, the above things:

• Is the president of the United States God?
• Is America the nation of Israel?
• Is the United States the client state of God?
• Is the U.S. military the Lord’s army?
• Does the United States enjoy a special relationship with God that other nations don’t have?
• Is the Christian’s sword anything but the word of God?
• Does the Bible command any Christian to kill any adherent of a false religion?
• Does the Bible command any Christian to go on a crusade against Muslims?
• Does "obeying the powers that be" mean that Christians should always do anything and everything the government says?
• Does the Bible say that anyone other than God should receive unconditional obedience?
• Is it okay for Christians to participate in U.S. government wars just because God commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to go to war?
• Does the Lord approve of everything the U.S. government does?
• Does the Lord approve of everything the government of Israel does?
• Is being patriotic more important than being biblical?
• Is the Republican Party the party of God?
• Is it more scriptural for a Christian to be in the military than in the ministry?
• Does God need America’s help to protect Israel?
• Does God need the U.S. military to maintain order throughout the world?
• Is the U.S. military a godly institution?
• Is the CIA a godly institution?
• Did God command the United States to build over 1,000 foreign military bases?
• Did God command the United States to station troops in over 150 countries?
• Does God always approve of U.S. foreign policy?
• Is it biblical that churches send more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries?
• Did God appoint the United States to be the world’s policeman?
• Does the New Testament command churches to hold special military appreciation days?
• Does the New Testament command churches to glorify the military on the Sunday before national holidays?
• Have U.S. wars always been just, right, and good?
• Are all Muslims terrorists?
• Was every Iraqi and Afghan killed by the U.S. military a terrorist?
• Does the New Testament encourage Christians to wage war against anyone or anything but the world, the flesh, and the devil?

If you are a Christian and answered in the affirmative to one or more of these questions, then I understand why you are an imperial Christian. Repent.

But if you are a Christian and answered in the negative to all of these questions, then why are you an imperial Christian? Why do you make apologies for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, its imperialism, and its interventionism? Why are you so devoted to the Republican Party? Why do you sing songs to the state in church on the Sunday before national holidays? Why do you encourage Christian young people to join the military? Why do you recite meaningless prayers for God to bless U.S. troops engaged in unjust wars?

Think about these things. Pray about them. Meditate on them. Just don’t be an imperial Christian.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on September 28, 2011

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Are You an Imperial Christian?

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

If the Christian “nation” is comprised of every nation, how can it be right for Christians to be nationalists in the common sense of the term? Regrettably, modern cultural dynamics have led many Christians to embrace the sin of nationalism. The dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations”.(¹⁾ Absent a theocracy, the New Testament clearly stands out against nationalism. Christians are “strangers and pilgrims” in this world and are comprised of brethren from “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Hebrews 11:13; Revelation 5:9b).

The Christian’s King is Jesus and his “country” is a heavenly one where ethnicity is not important and all speak the same, delightful language of “Beulah” (Hebrews 11:16b; Isaiah 62:4b). That fact implies, in short, that nationalism is a prideful sin that is deleterious to Christian thinking, to missionary endeavors, and to personal sanctification. Indeed, the tightest loyalty a Christian should have in this world is to other believers—no matter what political realm they belong to. The moment a believer is more American, British, Argentine, Peruvian, Chilean, Czech, etc. than he is Christian, he is guilty of nationalism. At any time a Christian favors the people of “his country” (e.g., fellow Americans) more than Christians in other countries he is guilty of the sin of nationalism. Are we loyal to Jesus and His church first and to our fellow citizens only secondarily? Or have we succumbed to nationalism?

Is it right for Christians to oppose immigration of foreigners through public policies? Legal immigration is probably not a concern for Christians, but what about illegal immigration? By now it should be clear that the only true outsiders to a Christian are the unbelieving “dogs” of this age—especially those political and wealthy figures who revel in ungodliness (Matthew 7:6; Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15). Christians around the world are superficially separated by language and political boundaries but are unified by the Holy Spirit—even though many Christians apparently ignore this fact. Sadly, at times they enthusiastically advocate the bombing of other countries, adversely impacting other Christians. How many Christians were killed or injured by the American bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Baghdad? Does the perceived necessity of bombing a country override our obligation to protect innocent human life— especially the lives of our brethren, the poor, and the oppressed? A Christian foreign policy should be distinct from that of unbelievers because it is influenced by biblical principles.

Christians are pilgrims in this world who seek a heavenly country (Hebrews 11:6). They are told by Christ to “flee” persecution (Matthew 10:23; 24:16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21), as Joseph and Mary did (Matthew 2:13)—along with countless other believers throughout history. Such obedient fleeing might entail a Christian having to enter another country, perhaps violating the country’s immigration policies. But so what? Christians are remiss if they make the well-being of their country the primary focal point for deciding the veracity of immigration policy rather than the well-being of God’s beloved people.

On the one hand, a Christian’s nationality is irrelevant and Christians should welcome believing immigrants with open arms—whether they are legal or illegal in the state’s eyes. For Christians, borders and the legality of migration are trivial or extraneous when it comes to obeying Christ’s command to flee persecution or to love and prefer one another in Christ (Philippians 2:2). How can Christians who financially and prayerfully support national pastors and church members living under tyrannical regimes hinder those same people from fleeing to America (or freer countries) by any means? The sanctimonious divine right notion that Christians may only flee when it is legal to do so—and then only immigrate to America after they have clearance from state bureaucrats—is fallacious, hypocritical, and unbiblical.

On the other hand, a Christian may support the limited government where he lives, procuring better self-defense of life and liberty. A Christian is called to steward his private property too (Proverbs 27:23-24).(²⁾ To those ends, Christians may justly back reactive public policy to safeguard national borders, oppose any migration that undermines the common defense of life, liberty, and property, and even (by default rule) oppose the illegal immigration of ordinary unbelievers. Such reactive immigration policy will be most efficiently and effectively carried out through market-based solutions rather than clumsy and venal attempts by government enforcement.

But an American Christian must always be a Christian first and an American second. He must think and consider each issue on its own merits before supporting or rejecting any particular migration policy. He must avoid jumping on an absolutist bandwagon that opposes any and all illegal immigration out-of-hand that would cause him to shirk his biblical responsibilities or trammel his brethren.(³⁾ He must prefer Christians of any nationality over unbelieving Americans. And he should “do good” to poor or oppressed unbelievers when possible too (as Galatians 6:10 mandates) by facilitating their migration. Thus, in the final analysis, a Christian should oppose any proactive immigration or foreign policy that curtails his biblical obligations, and only support proper reactive immigration and foreign policies.

⁽¹⁾ That is, “nations” in the modern sense of the word. I have covered issues regarding the sin of nationalism more extensively in Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (Alertness Books, 2003), pages 41-48.

⁽²⁾ “Be diligent to know the state of your flocks, and attend to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations” (Proverbs 27:23-24), along with many other verses promoting good stewardship.

⁽³⁾ A biblical understanding of nations leads us to embrace a theology of public policy that differs widely from that advocated by many Christians—especially in America. Christians should not absolutely oppose illegal immigration. Christians should not obey men rather than God.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on September 28, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christians cannot be nationalists

Thank you Campaign for Liberty for the opportunity to speak about a subject I feel so passionate about. I would like to speak to you today about Christianity and War. Although I am a Bible-believing Christian and a theological and cultural conservative, I write extensively about the biblical, economic, and political fallacies of religious people, and especially on the topic of Christianity and war. This is a subject where ignorance abounds in both pulpit and pew, and most of it willful ignorance. This is a subject that exposes Bible scholars as Bible illiterates. This is a subject that turns Christians into disgraceful apologists of the state, its leaders, its military, and its wars. This is a subject that reveals pro-life Christians to be two-faced supporters of wholesale murder.

If there is any group of people that should be opposed to war, torture, militarism, the warfare state, state worship, suppression of civil liberties, an imperial presidency, blind nationalism, government propaganda, and an aggressive foreign policy it is Christians, and especially conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who claim to strictly follow the dictates of Scripture and worship the Prince of Peace. It is indeed strange that Christian people should be so accepting of war. War is the greatest suppressor of civil liberties. War is the greatest destroyer of religion, morality, and decency. War is the greatest creator of fertile ground for genocides and atrocities. War is the greatest destroyer of families and young lives. War is the greatest creator of famine, disease, and homelessness. War is the health of the state.

But modern-day Christianity is in a sad state. There is an unholy desire on the part of a great many Christians to legitimize killing in war. There persists the idea among too many Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor violates the sixth commandment’s prohibition against killing. Christians who wouldn’t think of using the Lord’s name in vain blaspheme God when they make ridiculous statements like "God is pro-war." Christians who try never to lie do so with boldness when they claim they are pro-life, but refuse to extend their pro-life sentiments to foreigners already out of the womb. Christians who abhor idols are guilty of idolatry when they say that we should follow the latest dictates of the state because we should always "obey the powers that be." Christians who venerate the Bible handle the word of God deceitfully when they quote Scripture to defend the latest U.S. military action. Christians who claim to be dispensationalists wrongly divide the word of truth when they appeal to the Old Testament to justify U.S. government wars. Christians who claim to have the mind of Christ show that they have lost their mind when they want the full force of government to protect a stem cell, but have no conscience about U.S. soldiers killing for the government.

Many Christians have a warped view of what it means to be pro-life. Why is it that foreigners don’t have the same right to life as unborn American babies? There should be no difference between being for abortion and for war. Both result in the death of innocents. Both are unnecessary. Both cause psychological harm to the one who signs a consent form or fires a weapon. Why is it that to many Christians an American doctor in a white coat is considered a murderer if he kills an unborn baby, but an American soldier in a uniform is considered a hero if he kills an adult? In January of every year, many churches observe Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. Fine, but we need ministers who are as concerned about killing on the battlefield as they are about killing in the womb.

Much of the blame for Christian support for war must be laid at the feet of the pastors and church leaders who have failed to discern the truth themselves so they can educate their congregations. They are blind leaders of the blind. It is tragic that many so-called Christian leaders moonlight as apologists for the Republican Party. Many pastors are cheerleaders for current U.S. wars. We hear more from pulpits today justifying American military intervention throughout the world than we do about the need for missionaries to go into all the world. Our churches have supplied more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries. It is appalling that instead of the next U.S. military adventure being denounced from every pulpit in the land, it will be conservative preachers who can be counted on to defend it.

If there is any group within Christianity that should be the most consistent, the most vocal, the most persistent, and the most scriptural in its opposition to war and the warfare state, it is conservative Christians who look to the Bible as their sole authority. Yet, never at any time in history have so many of these Christians held such unholy opinions. The association they have with the Republican Party is unholy. The admiration they have for the military is unholy. The indifference they have toward war is unholy. The callous attitude they have toward the deaths of foreigners is unholy. The idolatry they manifest toward the state is unholy.

The result of Christian support for war reminds me of a story in the Old Testament about two sons of the patriarch Jacob. In order to avenge the rape of their sister by some foreigners, the sons of Jacob told their leader that if his people consented to be circumcised, then both groups of people could intermarry and the rapist could have their sister to wife. However, after all the foreigners were circumcised, when they were sore, two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, came and slew all the men who were incapacitated and spoiled their city. When their father Jacob heard about this, he told his sons: "Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land."

Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, Religious Right warvangelicals, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Christian warmongers have made Christians to stink among the non-Christian inhabitants of the United States. After almost ten years of the senseless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some of the greatest defenders of these wars continue to be Christians. The morality of going to war in the first place, as well as the number of dead and wounded Iraqis and Afghans, is of absolutely no concern to most American Christians. Every dead American solider is, of course, a hero, no matter where he fought, what his motive was, or how he died.

Support for the war on terror among Christians remains so pervasive that I’m inclined to agree with Mark Twain in saying that "if Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian." I’m sorry to say that blind acceptance of government propaganda, willful ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, persistent support of the Republican Party, and childish devotion to the military are the norm among the majority of conservative Christians instead of the exception.

Non-Christian Americans should know that Christian enthusiasm for war and the warfare state is a perversion of Christianity, an affront to the Saviour whom Christians worship as the Prince of Peace, a violation of Scripture, contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament, and an unfortunate demonstration of the profound ignorance many Christians have of history and their own Bible.

The early Christians were not warmongers like so many Christians today. They did not idolize the Caesars like some Christians do Republican presidents. They did not make apologies for the Roman Empire like many Christians do for the U.S. Empire. They did not venerate the institution of the military like most Christians do today. They did not participate in the state’s wars like too many Christians do today. If there was anything at all advocated by the early Christians it was peace and nonviolence.

Aggression, violence, and bloodshed are contrary to the very nature of Christianity. There is nothing in the New Testament from which to draw the conclusion that killing is somehow sanctified if it is done in the name of the state. As explained by the famed nineteenth-century British Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon: "The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel."

There has, unfortunately, persisted throughout history the theologically schizophrenic idea among some Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but the killing of one’s neighbor violates the sixth commandment. I have termed this the Humpty Dumpty approach. But as the aforementioned Spurgeon said: "If there be anything which this book denounces and counts the hugest of all crimes, it is the crime of war. Put up thy sword into thy sheath, for hath not he said, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and he meant not that it was a sin to kill one but a glory to kill a million, but he meant that bloodshed on the smallest or largest scale was sinful."

Back before the so-called Civil War in the United States, a Baptist minister writing in the Christian Review demonstrated that Christian war fever was contrary to the New Testament: "Christianity requires us to seek to amend the condition of man. But war cannot do this. The world is no better for all the wars of five thousand years. Christianity, if it prevailed, would make the earth a paradise. War, where it prevails, makes it a slaughter-house, a den of thieves, a brothel, a hell. Christianity cancels the laws of retaliation. War is based upon that very principle. Christianity is the remedy for all human woes. War produces every woe known to man." There is nothing "liberal" about opposition to war. There is nothing "anti-American" about opposition to militarism. And what could be more Christian than standing firmly against aggression, violence, and bloodshed?

So when did the early church go astray? Undoubtedly, it was the accession to power of the emperor Constantine. When the empire allied itself with the church, it was the church that changed more than the empire. Instead of spreading Christianity by persuasion and being persecuted for it, some Christians began persecuting those who could not be persuaded. This Constantinian mindset is alive and well today. When Jerry Falwell said that America should chase down terrorists all over the world and "blow them all away in the name of the Lord," he was expressing a sentiment widely held by conservative Christians.

After Constantine came just war theory.

War is mentioned over two hundred times in the Bible. The overwhelming majority of these instances concern in some way the nation of Israel. This fact is extremely important, because the president of the United States is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, the Christian’s sword is the word of God, and the only warfare the New Testament encourages the Christian to wage is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

But just war theory has nothing to do with war in the Bible. Christian just war theory began as the attempt by Augustine to reconcile Christian participation in warfare with the morality of New Testament Christianity. In its essence, just war theory concerns the use of force: when force should be used and what kind of force is acceptable. The timing of force relates to a country’s justification for the initiation of war or military action; the nature of force relates to how military activity is conducted once a country commits to use force. The principle of the just war is actually many principles, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. A just war must have a just cause, be in proportion to the gravity of the situation, have obtainable objectives, be preceded by a public declaration, be declared only by legitimate authority, and only be undertaken as a last resort. A war that is not justifiable is nothing short of mass murder.

Yet, just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met, because some of its tenets are impossible to realize, because the criteria of just war theory are too flexible, because it contradicts itself in that it sanctions the killing of innocents, which it at the same time prohibits, and because it is used to justify rather than to prevent war. Indeed, just war theory can be used effectively by all sides to justify all wars. Every government, every ruler, every soldier, every citizen – they all think their country’s wars are just.

Just war theory says that a war is just if certain conditions and rules are observed. But how can you make rules for slaughter and mayhem? By sanctifying war while attempting to curtail its manner and frequency, just war theory merely allowed Christians to make peace with war. That just war theory is used to defend the war in Iraq shows just how useless it is. Waging the war in Iraq is against every Christian just war principle that has ever been formulated.

But not only is just war theory not based on Scripture, it is rooted in blind obedience to the state, which, the last time I read my Bible, is not a tenet of New Testament Christianity. War is nothing but a form of state-sponsored violence. It is the state that decides to go to war, not the people, most of whom want nothing to do with war. The state always claims that it is acting defensively, has the right intention, has the proper authority, is undertaking war as a last resort, has a high probability of success, and that a war will achieve good that is proportionally greater than the damage to life, limb, and property that it will cause. What good is just war theory if it can be used by both sides in a conflict?

After just war theory came the Crusades, where conquest was conflated with conversion, followed by the continual wars of religion among European Christians. The ultimate picture of the folly of war is the bloodbath perpetrated by the Christian nations in World War I. From 1914 to 1918, in battle after senseless battle, Christian soldiers in World War I shot, bombed, torpedoed, burned, gassed, bayoneted, and starved each other and civilians until twenty million of them were wounded and another twenty million lay dead. The conduct of Christians in the United States before and during the Great War was shameful.

But even without the massive government propaganda campaign that was undertaken during World War I, we see the same shameful conduct among Christians regarding the war in Iraq. When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 with the announcement that our cause was just, Christians lined up in droves to support their president. They enlisted in the military. They put "W" stickers and yellow ribbons on their cars. They implored us in church to pray for the troops. They began reciting their patriotic sloganeering, their God-and-country rhetoric, and their "obey the powers that be" mantra. They dusted off their books on just war theory. They denounced Christian opponents of the war as unpatriotic, anti-American, liberals, pacifists, traitors, or Quakers.

Why? Why have so many religious people gotten it so wrong? As I have explained in many of my articles on Christianity and war over the years, there are many reasons: thinking that the war in Iraq was in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks, believing that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler, supposing that Iraq was a threat to the United States, seeing the war in Iraq as a modern-day crusade against Islam, assuming that the United States needed to protect Israel from Iraq, viewing Bush as a messiah figure, equating the Republican Party with the party of God, blindly following the conservative movement, deeming the American state to be a divine institution, failing to separate the divine sanction of war against the enemies of God in the Old Testament from the New Testament ethic that taught otherwise, having a profound ignorance of history and primitive Christianity, reading too much into the mention of soldiers in the New Testament, possessing a warped "God and Country" complex, holding a "my country right or wrong" attitude, and adopting the mindset that brute force is barbarism when individuals use it, but honorable when nations are guilty of it.

I believe the two greatest reasons religious people have gotten things so wrong are American exceptionalism and American militarism.

Many Christians are guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry. They have bought into a variety of American nationalism that has been called the myth of American exceptionalism. This is the idea that the government of the United States is morally and politically superior to all other governments, that American leaders are exempt from the bad characteristics of the leaders of other countries, that the U.S. government should be trusted even as the governments of other countries should be distrusted, that the United States is the indispensable nation responsible for the peace and prosperity of the world, that the motives of the United States are always benevolent and paternalistic, that foreign governments should conform to the policies of the U.S. government, that most other nations are potential enemies that threaten U.S. safety and security, and that the United States is morally justified in imposing sanctions or launching military attacks against any country that refuses to conform to our dictates. These are the tenets of American exceptionalism.

The result of this American exceptionalism is a foreign policy that is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. This is why U.S. foreign policy results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States. We would never tolerate another country engaging in an American-style foreign policy. How many countries are allowed to build military bases and station troops in the United States? It is the height of arrogance to insist that the United States alone has the right to garrison the planet with bases, station troops wherever it wants, intervene in the affairs of other countries, and be the world’s policeman, fireman, social worker, security guard, mediator, and babysitter.

The other reason religious people have gotten things so wrong is American militarism. Americans love the military, and American Christians are no exception. There is an unseemly alliance that exists between certain sectors of Christianity and the military. Even Christians who are otherwise sound in the faith, who treasure the Constitution, who don’t support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who oppose an aggressive U.S. foreign policy get indignant when you question the institution of the military. It doesn’t seem to matter the reason for each war or intrusion into the affairs of another country. It doesn’t seem to matter how long U.S. troops remain after the initial intervention. It doesn’t seem to matter how many foreign civilians are killed or injured. It doesn’t seem to matter how many billions of dollars are spent by the military. It doesn’t even seem to matter what the troops are actually doing – Americans in general, and American Christians in particular, believe in supporting the troops no matter what. Americans are repulsed by the serial killer who, to satisfy the most basest of desires, dismembers his victims; but revere the bomber pilot in the stratosphere who, flying above the clouds, never hears the screams of his victims or sees the flesh torn from their bones. Killing women and children from five feet is viewed as an atrocity, but from five thousand feet it is a heroic act. It is sometimes suspicious when a soldier kills up close, but never when he launches a missile from afar.

Christians of all branches and denominations have a love affair with the military. To question the military in any way – its size, its budget, its efficiency, its bureaucracy, its contractors, its weaponry, its mission, its effectiveness, its foreign interventions – is to question America itself. One can condemn the size of government, but never the size of the military. One can criticize federal spending, but never military spending. One can denounce government bureaucrats, but never military brass. One can depreciate the welfare state, but never the warfare state. One can expose government abuses, but never military abuses. One can label domestic policy as socialistic, but never foreign policy as imperialistic.

It is the U.S. government that is the greatest threat to American life, liberty, property, and peace – not the leaders or the military or the people of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, or Yemen. And as James Madison said: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Christians should vigorously dissent the next time some warmongering politician says there is some great evil in the world that must be stamped out by the U.S. military. As John Quincy Adams said: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy." Christians should stop regarding the state’s acts of aggression as benevolent. Christians should stop presuming divine support for U.S. military interventions. And because just war theory merely allows Christians to make peace with war, they should reject it just as they would any theory of just piracy or just terrorism or just murder. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward peace and a foreign policy of nonintervention. It is Christians that should be leading the way toward the ideas of Ron Paul.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on August 22, 2011.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christianity, War, and Ron Paul

Not only are the great majority of rulers recorded in the Scriptures wicked, they also share certain common immoral character traits. And such bad behavior even arose in otherwise good theocratic rulers. While it is said that “anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), it also seems to rest in the bosom of kings and other civil authorities. Pharaoh got “angry” (Genesis 40:2; 41:10) and King Saul became both “angry” and “displeased” (1 Samuel 18:8), as did King David (2 Samuel 13:21) and the princes of the Philistines (1 Samuel 29:4). Good King Asa was likewise affected, being enraged with a seer and oppressing some of God’s people (2 Chronicles 16:10), and King Uzziah was angry with the priests over the divine technicalities of a ritual (2 Chronicles 26:19). Nebuchadnezzar responded “in rage and fury” to the faithful Jews (Daniel 3:13). King Ahasuerus’s “anger burned in him” after Queen Vashti refused to obey him (Esther 1:12). Sanballat was angered by the Jews’ rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls “and took great indignation” (Nehemiah 4:1, 7). The “princes” were angry with the Prophet Jeremiah, beat him, and cast him into prison (Jeremiah 37:15). Herod was “exceedingly angry” with the Magi (Matthew 2:16). Herod had also been “very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon” (Acts 12:20a). Herod hated Jesus too and desired “to kill” Him (Luke 13:31). Perhaps political power tends to promote the sin of anger? Or is this tyrannical anger induced from within a ruler by the hateful adversary of good, viz. the devil?

Instead of being for “praise” those who do “good” (cf. Romans 13:3), as many Christians today suppose the civil authority should be, rulers have proven to be a violent and terrifying foe of good people. From the time of His birth, even Jesus Christ was assailed by bad public policy: “…for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him” (Matthew 2:13). Eventually, the civil authority did abuse Jesus: “Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate” (Luke 23:11). Moreover, since a servant is not above His master (Matthew 10:24), the church also suffered persecution by the hand of the state. “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church” (Acts 12:1). A civil junta of “the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees” (Acts 4:1) hated the Apostles and had determined to “severely threaten them” (Acts 4:17, 29). Enraged, Satan pledged to “make war” with the church by means of his “beast” of civil authority (Revelation 12:17-13:1).

Alternatively, Jesus Christ was never angry. While civil rulers became enraged as a result of self-indulgence in their own lusts and pride, Jesus only assailed other men (e.g., harassing the money changers in the Temple or mocking the Scribes and Pharisees) when “zeal” to please His Father inspired him (John 2:14-17). Angry civil rulers throw tantrums when they do not have their way, but Jesus—and all Christians who desire to imitate Him—only participate in social upheaval out of a zeal for the glory of God. So it was for the Christian Founders in America. They fought tyranny for the glory of God. As a result we enjoy the fruits of prosperity for our lives and the Gospel that has been unparalleled in the history of the world.

Harry Stout postulates: “When understood in its own times, the American Revolution was first and foremost a religious event” (Christianity Today, Spring 1996). At the time of the War for American Independence, perhaps eighty percent of the 2.3 million free Americans attended Protestant churches regularly (with the overwhelming majority being Calvinists). Baptists and Methodists were growing rapidly, and would eventually eclipse all other denominations. They dominated Virginia and overwhelmed areas of the South and elsewhere (notably Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) with Evangelicalism. And preachers en masse backed the revolt against King George III. Were the faithful sinning? Was the Christian church dreadfully backslidden? Tory preachers affirm this sentiment and pronounce that God was merely working through—and in spite of—the sinful actions of the rebellious colonists in order to bring about His purposes. That’s euphemistic parlance meaning “Yes, the American colonists sinned but we still like the results anyway.” But perhaps their actions were not sinful.

Jesus taught his disciples to not only be concerned about the evil doctrine emanating from false religion but also to beware the evil public policies of the civil authority. “Then He charged them, saying, ‘Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod’” (Mark 8:15). Herod’s leaven was promulgated through wayward public policy. Christians have many enemies in the world, both religious and secular (or civil). If Christians cannot flee (Luke 21:21), then perhaps some of them will have opportunity to defend their families from criminals and tyrants. If they can neither flee nor fight, then they will surely become martyrs to the Glory of God (Revelation 2:13).

Ultimately, we win. The Bible says that “kings of the earth” and the “rulers” take a stand “against the Lord and against His Christ” (Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26), but their actions (as any other action of Satan) are under the control of God’s foreordained and predetermined purpose (Acts 4:27-28). The Bible teaches that satanic forces hold sway over civil rulers and turn them against God’s Kingdom: “For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty” (Revelation 16:14, cf. 13:1). Nevertheless, civil authorities will not prevail against God or His people. “It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth the kings of the earth” (Isaiah 24:21).

The day is coming, dear Christian, and dear lover of liberty, that you too might join the ranks of the Founding Fathers in resisting tyranny. Are you really prepared to take a stand against the “kings of the earth”? If not, now’s the time for a paradigm shift in your public policy theology.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on May 4, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is it time to resist tyranny?

In my previous two columns, I outlined the two historical schools of Evangelical thought regarding the nature of the state and public policy: (A) the Integrated Authority School and (B) the Competing Kingdom School. In this column, I pick up that discussion by delineating in greater depth the principles of Competing Kingdom School, and the two views associated with it.

The competing kingdom school views the state as an entity entirely distinct from the church and family insofar as promotion of the Kingdom of God is concerned. Some proponents of this school would see the state as benign, although it often rears up its ugly side to assail the church of God. Others would view it as significantly aligned with Satan’s kingdom and his efforts in the world. Either way, the state is not a special sphere of authority along with the family and the local church.

The first branch of this school is the Anabaptist (strict separationist) or pacifist view. Leading Evangelical theologians of this perspective include Menno Simmons, Mark Roth, Harold Bender, and Heinrich Bullinger. Submission is passive for the Anabaptist, and even though rebellion is unavoidable in most lifetimes (as Christians inevitably come into contact with trying public policies), armed revolt is never the role of a Christian. Hence, the Anabaptist view holds a passive or non-confrontational public policy theology. However, like the divine righters, the Anabaptists do not make a very compelling or consistent case for reconciling the plain meaning of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 with the fact that Nero was in power.

The Anabaptist view is the least sophisticated branch of the competing kingdom school and at some points (like divine right) is attenuated by some apparent logical contradictions in its structure. For instance, the Anabaptist preacher tells believers that it is sinful to be involved with the state’s “social security” plan, running for office, jury participation, military service, or voting because the state is effectively evil. The state is also exposed as the frequent afflicter of the church, persecuting God’s people. Yet many of this persuasion hold, paradoxically, that the malevolent state is in some way doing God’s bidding by restraining evil in the world and punishing criminals. While Anabaptists view the state as a separate, competing kingdom (some even see it as having a satanic nexus), they also see the state (even in Nero’s Rome presumably) as an instrument of God to punish criminals or those who do evil in God’s sight. This fact is rather odd given that Anabaptists, who are presumably the good guys in general, have suffered more persecution at the hands of state than perhaps any other Christian group.

The second branch of the competing kingdom school may be aptly termed liberty of conscience. Although this term has not been commonly used historically to describe theological views of public policy, many theologians and pastors have held it. Proponents include Baptists at the time of the American War for Independence such as Isaac Backus, John Leland, and John Wallers, as well as Roger Williams and probably John Bunyan (who at least held the seeds of the liberty of conscience view). Any Christian who holds to a dispensational or a “new covenant” Calvinistic perspective of biblical interpretation will tend to embrace this view, along with Baptists in general. Such Christians prize volunteerism and freedom of thought among believers and in society, shunning the notion of using Old Testament law or public policy to coerce people into behaving in a proper manner. For instance, few of them would want to force people to abstain from working on Sunday and to attend church services instead. Few of them would want to enlist the tools of the state to better evangelism by compelling people to hear the Gospel. Only God has a right to “compel” sinners to come to Him (Luke 14:23; Psalm 65:4).

The liberty of conscience view is developed and applied in a practical way in my book Bible and Government: Public Policy from a Christian Perspective (2003). In the same way that theonomy is the logical outcome of a Presbyterian and postmillenarian theology, liberty of conscience is the logical outcome of a Baptist theology (whether premillenarian or amillenarian). More resolutely than its Anabaptist counterpart, liberty of conscience views the state as evil, having a strong link with Satan and his kingdom. Yet Christians are left to their liberty with regard to where and when to resist the state, work within the state, or participate in revolution. Like theonomy, liberty of conscience holds a transformational, active or involved view of public policy theology. It is morally wrong at times to rebel against the state, but not always. Yet the state is never viewed as something to be transformed or that can ever become anything other than evil. The state is not the benign entity of the divine righters.

Moreover, those who hold a liberty of conscience view have a well worked out and cogent view of the words good and evil used in Romans 13:3-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14. Unlike the divine righters, they do not try to make Nero into an overall bad ruler that nonetheless did imperfectly bring law and order to society. And unlike the Anabaptists, they do not try to impose a godly role on the state as an occasional punisher of criminals. They do not share the theonomic quest to idealize the passages and push them off as a theological abstraction with little practical significance for the Christians at Rome. Instead, they interpret the words good and evil to mean good and evil as defined by the state (or Nero) rather than as defined by God. So a state may consider Christians to be “evil” and punish them with the sword (as Nero did), while rewarding adulterers, idolaters, and murderers that it deems to be “good”.

The liberty of conscience view (which is my perspective) permits Christians to disobey public policy at times. Even though the general rule is for them to submit to rulers and public policies, Christian submission to civil government must be passive rather than active. The Greek verb ‘upotassesqw, translated “be subject” in Romans 13:1, is in the present tense, passive voice in the original language. Likewise, Paul uses the passive voice in Titus 3:1 (‘upotassesqai), as does Peter in 1 Peter 2:13 (‘upotaghte). In other words, Christians are to obey whenever directly called upon to do so, so long as God is not defrauded or any sin committed, but it is not their duty to actively pursue a course wherein they scour the “law of the land.” They do not need to make sure that they are in compliance with every point of public policy if the state does not directly pressure them to do so. Accordingly, Christians do not sin by violating government rules per se. They sin if their actions sidetrack them from their primary mission, cause harm to a neighbor, or detract from the glory of God. Being unduly harassed by the state for things of miniscule importance (from an eternal perspective) must not be the primary focus of a kingdom-minded saint. But acts of disobedience—even revolution—are both permissible and righteous.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on April 27, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Competing Kingdoms School of Public Policy Theology

See more Ron Paul highlights from the debate at RonPaulFlix.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul on Faith and Prayer

In my last column, I outlined the two historical schools of Evangelical thought regarding the nature of the state and public policy: (A) the Integrated Authority School and (B) the Competing Kingdom School. In this column, I pick up that discussion by delineating the principles of Integrated Authority School, and the two views associated with it, in greater depth.

The integrated authority school views the state as a special sphere of authority along with the family and the church. The state has a useful purpose in directly advancing the kingdom of God in the world. 7 In his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion (book 4, chapter 20), John Calvin stated that the Christian finds himself under two governments: one secular and the other ecclesiastical. The secular or civil government has the obligation to be godly and promote the Christian religion. The ecclesiastical government provides spiritual discipline and administers the sacraments. Since the civil government punishes those who are condemned as evildoers by God’s word, they must know God’s rules. Thus, in order for the state to know what it should promote and condemn, the church has a responsibility to preach the word of God to civil rulers.

Theonomy (or Christian Reconstructionism) forms the first, and most sophisticated, branch within the integrated authority school. Although its doctrine is far more refined than Calvin’s, theonomy (which is almost exclusively Reformed) has consistently carried Calvin’s ideas. Theonomy embellishes Calvin by including all of the Old Testament laws that are not explicitly repudiated in the New Testament (although there is some disagreement between theonomists about what has been repudiated, e.g., dietary rules). Revolution is a proper and useful function, so long as an alternative authority structure is preserved, in order to maintain a godly quality in civil government. Some of the major Evangelical proponents of theonomy include Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Rousas John Rushdooney, Pastor John Weaver (an outspoken modern American “patriot”), and John Calvin. Theonomy holds a transformational, active or involved theology of public policy, and is characteristically postmillennial.

Theonomists like Greg Bahnsen, in his work Theonomy and Christian Ethics (chapter 19), hold that passages like Romans 13:1-7 apply to an idealized state. For instance, Paul was stepping out of a very practical section of his treatise to the Romans to describe what a good government should be like either now or in some future golden age. Paul was not describing the actual, current experience of the Christians in Rome, nor was he reveling in some fancy that Nero was serving the Lord by upholding His law. Instead, he was explaining what a proper civil government should look like in the world (and what it will be like during the postmillennial golden age). Thus, theonomists avoid the problem of reconciling the plain meaning of the text with the fact that Nero was in power by viewing Romans 13:1-7 as an abstraction.

The second branch within the integrated authority school is what could be termed the revitalized (or reshaped) divine right of kings view—denoted simply as divine right for short. Evangelical proponents of this view include, Samuel E. Waldron (a leading, modern Reformed Baptist), John Eidsmoe (a modern theologian and writer on public policy motifs), pastor John Macarthur, English Baptist John Gill, Charles H. Spurgeon (most likely), and probably Martin Luther (who would otherwise be a theonomist). Recall too the Tory preacher (mentioned in Part 1 of this series) who proclaimed that “Rebellion against authority is rebellion against God.” He holds a divine right perspective.

According to this view, the state is a special sphere of authority along with the family and the church. The state has a useful purpose in directly advancing the kingdom of God in the world, but the parameters under which the state must operate or decree public policy have not been very well delineated theologically. Unlike theonomy, where the state and church are more closely linked, the state serves God directly without necessary intervention from the church, restraining chaos and sin in society. Believers owe allegiance to the state and nation in a way that is tantamount to their allegiance to their local church. The American flag is proudly displayed in church sanctuaries, and pastors fondly commemorate national holidays.

The state becomes a sort of oracle of God, although not in a fully inspired sense. Christians must obey virtually any command of public policy as if the decree had come from God Himself. For a divine righter, breaking either the “letter of the law” or the ‘spirit of the law” is sin. For example, speeding, hiring an illegal alien, or not coming to a full and complete stop before the limit line before the stop sign would be morally wrong (in nations where such activities are illegal). In the divine right view, the state is benign or even innocuous. Like a television set, the state can be good when good things (men) participate in it. But when evil things (men) dominate then the state will be evil. A few favored biblical rules are declared to be within the proper range of civil government function. However, the biblical principles that underlie state rules often end up being an arbitrary selection of 8 favorite behavioral ideals (e.g., (1) enforcing the Ten Commandments, or (2) just the 5th through the 9th Commandments, or perhaps (3) enforcing all New Testament rules as well as a few Old Testament ones regarding sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.). Unlike theonomists, which are more consistent in selecting what biblical principles apply to the state, the divine righter becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong in a social sense and, therefore, what particular moral issues should be enforced by the state and which ones should be left to church discipline.

Revolution and civil disobedience are frowned upon, including the American Revolution and the so-called Civil War. The instigation of either war is widely considered to have been sinful. Hence, divine right holds a passive or non-confrontational view in terms of public policy theology. With respect to apostolic doctrine, divine right seems to have the most difficulty of the four views in avoiding the problem of reconciling the plain meaning of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 with the fact that Nero was in power. As incredible as it might seem, some argue that Nero was (albeit imperfectly) punishing those who did evil in the sight of the Lord and rewarding those who did well in God’s sight. Others seem to have never really thought about the implications of what the words good and evil might mean in the cultural context of Nero’s Rome.

For my part, I think that the divine right view is an embarrassment for American Christianity. Although it is convenient, amicable, and mollifying, the divine right view is also naïve and lacks a cogent and consistent understanding about the nature of the state and the Christian’s response to public policy.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on April 20, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What is the Integrated Authority School of Public Policy Theology?