Right click here to download the entire mp3 audio file.

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What Happened to the Southern Baptists?

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: audiobook, baptists, Christianity, podcast, southern baptist convention, theology, war, war on terror

Related Content:

• Podcast: The President’s Prayer (0)
• Podcast: The Hypocrisy of Christian Warmongers (1)
• Podcast: The Christian Axis of Evil (0)
• Podcast: Christianity and War Part 1 (4)
• Speedlinking Friday (1)

Right click here to download the entire mp3 audio file.

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast: Lots of Updates (and the new FAQ)

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Blog News, christian libertarian, theology

Related Content:

• New FAQ Questions Added (2)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (1)

In the world of literature on liberty, books fall into three distinct categories. First are the books for experts scholars, deeper works that address high level concepts, social or economic theory, and philosophical ideas. Next are the books for the informed reader, those that have a working knowledge of libertarian ideas and seek to improve one’s understanding of the philosophy of liberty. Finally, there are books for those just starting their journey in liberty, those who have little knowledge of economics or libertarian theory. Jason Rink’s Disciple of Liberty falls into the latter category, and it fills a particularly useful void in libertarian literature: an easily accessible explication of liberty to the Christian newcomer, from the Tea Party proponent to the disillusioned conservative or liberal.

Rink’s key point, made very early in the book, is that Christians do not need to wonder if it is appropriate or biblical to get involved in politics to defend liberty. On the contrary, it is good and right to become informed and take a stand for what is just, good, and right, we ought to get involved in some way. One cannot simply look at Romans 13 and say that “obeying the powers that be” is all we should do. For those “on the fence,” Rink says to get on board.

But Rink does not simply tell us “just do something, anything!” without a care for what we stand for. “Just get out and vote!” is not a compelling message at all. Rather, he takes the minarchist, constitutionalist position, and defends it wholeheartedly. Rink identifies seven priority areas to which Christians should pay special attention:

• Define the limits of authority – The government cannot, and should not, have unlimited power. Limits must be clear and precise.
• Demand fidelity to the Constitution – The limits of authority for the United States Federal Government are found in the Constitution, period. We should continually demand that representatives follow it.
• Defend liberty for all people – If we expect to have liberty, we need to defend liberty even for people with whom we disagree with their choices. This is a difficult, yet absolutely essential element part of our way of life. Rink quotes Thomas Paine:

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

• Despise debt – We know that individually we cannot spend more than we make; it is unsustainable and irresponsible. The same should be true of the government. No more can they be allowed to spend like a drunken sailor. And this isn’t even about welfare programs either, which account for a small fraction of total government spending. Rather, we must oppose spending on everything that is unconstitutional, from the FCC to the military-industrial complex.
• Demand honest money – The US Federal Reserve and it’s fiat monetary system is fraudulent, backed by nothing but empty promises. A return to the gold standard should be at the top of our priorities, for it is the ultimate check against runaway spending by the State.
• Desire peace with all nations – A Christian is called to love his enemies, not bomb them. We need to understand the history of our current wars in the Middle East and demand that the government cease interventionism.
• Disciple others in liberty – It is time to get involved in the fight for freedom, and we all can play an important role.

Disciple of Liberty has many commendable strengths. The book’s length, about 100 pages long plus reprints of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, is very appropriate for a reader who is not ready to tackle a tome about libertarianism quite yet. It is fast paced and lively, yet gently brings the reader to see from a different point of view. The seven principles he outlines are really good, all are worth understanding in detail. Striking a balance between length and depth of material is quite a challenge. Overall, Jason Rink has put together an interesting and useful book that can help Christian newcomers to libertarian thinking grasp some fundamental ideas about liberty.

However, there are a few things in the book (or not in the book) that I don’t like. For one thing, the sources and bibliography are surprisingly short. A bit more along the lines of what to read next would have been nice. If I may be so bold, I’d recommend Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and Ron Paul’s Revolution: A Manifesto (which, I should note, was mentioned in the Bibliography).

Another minor point of contention I have with the book is its interpretation of Romans 13, but it is an admittedly debatable topic. Of course, Rink easily disproves the “you just have to obey the government” line that so many evangelicals take. He take’s Chuck Baldwin’s approach, which emphasizes that our contemporary “powers that be” are the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, whereas my own approach is quite a bit different. Detailed exegesis, though, is difficult to distill when you are trying to reign in the length of a book, so it is understandable. But following on this point, overall I have certain doubts about making Constitutionalism our prime directive. Personally, I see the Constitution as a bludgeon or mirror, something we can use to say the Federal Government is so terrible that it does not even follow its own rules and never has. We need to remind people that government is aggression, and that our “resistance” against aggression is to expose such truth without apology. Now, Jason does mention each of these things in the book, so this is just the hard-core anarcho-capitalist in me talking. In no way am I downplaying Jason’s work.

As a personal friend of Jason now, I can honestly say that I am very proud of what he’s done despite my reservations on a few points. This is a great book for liberals, conservatives, or Tea Party supporters, who are all in need of some perspective about what liberty should mean to us. I think that it would be great to give to your Christian parents, relatives, or friends who are fed up with the Federal Government and are looking for an alternative. I encourage you to use Disciple of Liberty to strengthen your own resolve and plant new seeds of liberty in Christian hearts.

Visit Jason Rink at www.jasonrink.com. Buy his book here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Disciple of Liberty by Jason Rink

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: christian libertarian, Christianity, conservatism, constitution, liberalism, libertarianism, Tea Party, theology, war

Related Content:

• New FAQ Questions Added (2)
• What Happened to the Southern Baptists? (0)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• Links for this Memorial Day (0)
• How Libertarian Are You? (1)

Q1: When Paul wrote Romans 13, the government was distasteful to our 21 century sensibilities for sure. Yet Paul commands believers to honor the rulers, even calling them "servants of God." Coupled with Peter’s instructions to honor them, pray for them, etc., this shows that God has a role for government. Is it possible to determine if Paul personally prefers a small or large government? If God has a purpose for government should Christians be advocating it’s disappearing?

A: The problem with saying that Romans 13 proves there is "a role for government" is that it is conflating government being within God’s plan with government being sanctioned and declared inherently moral by God. When one considers the numerous negative references to the State in the Bible, such as Matthew 4, 1 Samuel 7, Genesis 11, and the book of Revelation, one cannot but admit that the State is, at core, rooted in rebellion against God. So while it is impossible to speak directly for Paul, it seems to me that the State itself is the problem and not merely the size. In conclusions, a Christian can admit that the State is not outside of God’s plan, and yet still advocate for it’s abolition as the greatest oppressor of the innocent in history.

Q2: What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should subscribe to the ideas of libertarianism?

It would be incorrect to say outright "God/Jesus is a libertarian," but what I find very compelling in Scripture is that Christian ethics and libertarian ethics end up being very similar. Other instances: (1) The Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 is very similar to the non-aggression principle. (2) Scripture is consistently skeptical toward power concentrated into the hands of rulers (cf. 1 Samuel 7). (3) The "Kingdom of God" is never characterized with the aggression of the State. Can you think of any more?

But besides Scripture, libertarianism has more or less emerged from the Western tradition, which is tied very strongly to historical Christianity. It’s ideological predecessor, classical liberalism, was primarily promoted by Christians in its infancy. So, we have an interesting historical argument as well supporting libertarianism from a Christian perspective.

Q3. What in the Bible suggests that followers of Jesus should not subscribe to the ideas of statism?

Besides all the positive reasons that support libertarianism, one of the greatest rejoinders to statism I know of is Matthew 20:25-28, where Jesus says: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Q4. Where does LibertarianChristians.com make a distinction between resistance to unjust Government action and the directive to "submit himself to the governing authorities"? (Romans 13, NIV)

The position of LibertarianChristians.com is that Romans 13 is about prudence in action toward governmental intrusion in life. While civil disobedience is not immoral and certainly is great to do in certain cases, one must be very careful in executing such measures. For instance, my first responsibility is the caretaking of my family, and then serving the church. I will not do things that bring unreasonable risk upon them. Frequently enough there are better ways of making a difference. But most of all, LibertarianChristians.com does not and will never advocate violence as the answer to our problems.

Would you like to add anything to these answers? Comment below. Or if you like, ask your own question today!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

New FAQ Questions Added

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Blog News, christian libertarian, Christianity, government, history, libertarian christian, libertarianism, Romans 13, romans13, statism, The State, theology

Related Content:

• Edmund Opitz – Minister to Liberty (0)
• Disciple of Liberty by Jason Rink (7)
• Announcing the Christian Libertarian FAQ (5)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)

Russian writer Leo Tolstoy is considered one of the greatest novelists of all time. War and Peace and Anna Karenina have inspired millions over the last century. Less well-known about Tolstoy, though, is that his interpretation of Christian ethics has had a profound effect upon the world, especially regarding non-resistance and pacifism. In this paper, I will examine the development of these themes in Tolstoy’s philosophy as they appear in The Kingdom of God is Within You.

Leo Tolstoy was born in 1838 into an aristocratic family. He was the son of Count Nicholas Ilich Tolstoy and Princess Marya Nikolayevna Volkonsky, whose marriage was one of negotiation and convenience. Social class meant everything in eighteenth-century Russia, and the Tolstoys were part of the upper echelon of power. Leo’s ancestry included generals, diplomats, and ministers of the Tsarist rulers. Thus, Tolstoy enjoyed the privileges of the high class, such as the ability to attend university. As a young man, he lived a profligate and wild life while attending the University of Kazan, struggling to find a purpose in his life. He decided to join the military and went to war. Seeing the grim reality of war motivated him to write, and he achieved some early success in his publications while on the front. He finally married at age 34 and settled down to begin the major portion of his literary career. He also began to re-explore religion and came to a realization about God, the church, the state, and self. It was during this time that he reflected upon the writings of anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and saw that non-resistance was the only means of lasting change to be found.

In 1884, Tolstoy expounded upon his beliefs in What I Believe, and this work was promptly banned in Russia for its negative imagery of the state and the Russian church. However, it was read widely outside of Russia and garnered much attention, especially by those advocating non-violence in other countries, such as the Quakers in America. Despite the ban, Russian secular and religious intellectuals circulated copies and began attacking Tolstoy’s ideas. In 1894, Tolstoy published The Kingdom of God is Within You, which is a further explanation of his beliefs and a response to his opponents. He writes in Kingdom of the newfound criticism: “These [criticisms of What I Believe] the government tolerated, and even encouraged. So that the refutation of a book which no one was supposed to know anything about was even chosen as the subject for theological dissertations in the academies.” (30) Of course, any work that criticizes the status quo tends to stir such desperate measures.

Tolstoy’s Russia was a country dominated by an elite class of aristocrats, government bureaucrats, military “heroes,” and religious officials. The peasant class was bitterly oppressed through legal maneuvering, taxation, conscription, and a church that legitimized the oppression. An unholy alliance of church and state provided the pretense to keep the peasants from improving their condition. I believe this led Tolstoy away from a traditional creedal Christianity, which to him emphasized conformity, status quo, and doctrines that few people actually believed. Tolstoy viewed the church-state alliance as a complete aberration and perversion of true Christianity for the purpose of keeping the elite in power and the poor supplying their material well-being. He even rejected (though not consistently) the notion of private property, at least as it existed enforced by the state at that time. In contrast, Tolstoy’s conception of Christianity took the words of Jesus with utmost seriousness, elevating the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as the supreme good.

Tolstoy abhorred violence of any kind. In particular, he viewed the state and its wars as the chief enemies of peace. While normal men interact on a peaceful level the overwhelming majority of the time, war very quickly brings peace and prosperity to ruin:

“Warriors are the scourge of the world. We struggle against nature and ignorance and obstacles of all kinds to make our wretched life less hard. Learned men – benefactors of all – spend their lives in working, in seeking what can aid, what be of use, what can alleviate the lot of their fellows. They devote themselves unsparingly to their task of usefulness, making one discovery after another, enlarging the sphere of human intelligence, extending the bounds of science, adding each day some new store to the sum of knowledge, gaining each day prosperity, ease, strength for their country. War breaks out. In six months the generals have destroyed the work of twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius. That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous materialism.” (152)

Tolstoy saw through the veneer of goodness the state wears, with its promises of protection, order, and justice, for what the state really is: organized, institutionalized violence. By its very nature, government cannot reduce violence whatsoever. Tolstoy writes, “Government authority, even if it does suppress private violence, always introduces into the life of men fresh forms of violence, which tend to become greater and greater in proportion to the duration and strength of the government.” (170) Government appears on its face to have some semblance of voluntary nature, but this is a façade since everything a government is capable of doing is only possible because of coercion. “All state obligations, payment of taxes, fulfillment of state duties, and submission to punishments, exiles, fines, etc., to which people appear to submit voluntarily, are always based on bodily violence or the threat of it.” (166)

Yet people accept statism as inevitable, even as right and good, despite the oppression and murder the state perpetrates. In Tolstoy’s words, men know that murder is wrong but are assured by their supposed betters in state offices that what they do is moral, just, and good. They see this inconsistency but believe it is their ignorance that prevents them from understanding the contradiction. “The very grossness and obviousness of the inconsistency confirms them in this conviction.” (304)

Thus, men have become deluded by the state into submission, especially with regards to the use of force. Everyone is under “the condition of the hypnotized,” and like a hypnotized person they will feel and act as they are commanded. The state influences the people such that they lose the power of criticizing state actions, and therefore they follow wherever the state leads them either by example, precept, or suggestion.

How shall mankind overcome the leviathan state? Tolstoy’s answer was Christianity, the absolute dependence upon and practice of the teachings of Christ. Tolstoy derived his ethical principles primarily from the Sermon on the Mount. To him, Christianity was not a mystic religion but a “new theory of life” (hence the subtitle of The Kingdom of God is Within You). Jesus ushered in the new divine theory of life, which “recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life – in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family and social welfare.”

The state uses force to push its agenda forward, but must a Christian respond in kind to improve his own situation or bring Christianity to others? Tolstoy appeals to Matthew 5:39, “Resist not an evil person,” as the pinnacle of Jesus’ teachings and as the ultimate means of opposing violence. He treats Jesus’ words not as a theoretical proposition to be pondered and somewhat assented to, but as a realistic, actionable command. Indeed, every person must decide how to respond when he is attacked: “People often think the question of non-resistance to evil by force is a theoretical one, which can be neglected. Yet this question is presented by life itself to all men, and calls for some answer from every thinking man.” (186)

The Christian life, to him, was a progression toward divine perfection, and is characterized by a life of loving others. This love drives us not only to love those that love us, but to love our enemies even to the point of practicing pacifism towards aggression, especially that of the state. He reasons there is no other way of interpreting Jesus and acting otherwise is contrary to the Gospel message. Thus, the Christian cannot use the tools of the state at all. To Tolstoy, the statist theory of life, emphasizing aggression for the purpose of order, was irreconcilable with the Christian life. The state never has been and never could be the Kingdom of God, in fact the Kingdom of God makes government irrelevant. “No honest and serious-minded man of our day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity – the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love – with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars.” (237)

Tolstoy would say Christianity is the only rational option for peace, and always has been so. In the present age, Jesus’ teaching has become self-evident even in practice, since all efforts of returning violence for violence with the state has progressively made the world worse. The state theory of life requires violence to persist, and only results in the escalation of violence. He even preemptively answers the “mutually assured destruction” strategy to maintain peace in the presence of weapons of mass destruction:

“It is often said that the invention of terrible weapons of destruction will put an end to war. That is an error. As the means of extermination are improved, the means of reducing men who hold the state conception of life to submission can be improved to correspond. They may slaughter them by thousands, by millions, they may tear them to pieces, still they will march to war like senseless cattle. Some will want beating to make them move, others will be proud to go if they are allowed to wear a scrap of ribbon or gold lace.” (206)

But how could someone possibly adopt this teaching, when living in an age of the totalitarian state? Tolstoy would answer simply: give up one’s previous way of life, one’s previous way of thinking, one’s allegiance to all but the source of life, and live free of hypocrisy. “A man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters which seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of themselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a bird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place [if] directly it took to its wings.” (210) The understanding Christian is no longer under “the condition of the hypnotized.” But these Christians transcend those who simply want a different government; they will act in freedom right now, despite state oppression, and eventually the state must fall. “Revolutionary enemies attack the government from without. Christianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it destroys all the foundations on which government rests.” (231)

Why has this remarkable teaching not already spread throughout the world? Actually, it has. There always have been Christians willing to live consistently with the teachings of Jesus, but they are not always visible to us. Moreover, Tolstoy would say the church as an institution has perverted the message of non-resistance, sometimes deliberately hiding this message of Jesus from Christians. Even though he painted the Russian church of his day in an especially negative light, he showed that churches throughout history had suppressed this ethic. Why has the church done this? Because of the love of power. The state church always held a privileged position, and church officials always preferred to keep their status rather than tell the truth. The ramifications of this practice were clear to Tolstoy; he understood the wars and oppression by the state as a direct result of the church’s refusal to practice the message of Jesus as a new way of life. Though perhaps an overly harsh assessment of the church as an institution through millennia, one cannot deny that churches have indeed been complicit in legitimizing aggression against others. The rhetoric of evangelical churches today glorifying the war in Iraq and Afghanistan confirm that this behavior continues (even if there is no “state church”). The only solution is to return to Jesus’ teaching, believe in it wholeheartedly, and practice it consistently with no reservation. Tolstoy may not have accepted traditional creedal Christianity, nor held traditional dogmas, but his faithfulness to the teachings of Jesus is truly admirable.

Tolstoy believed Jesus’ peaceful message would persist through “the foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor. 1:21), but it is remarkable to see the effects Tolstoy’s own words had upon the twentieth century. The Kingdom of God is Within You was immediately banned in Russia upon publication, but had far reaching influence elsewhere. Mahatma Gandhi read the book and was “overwhelmed” by its message, and it greatly influenced his non-violent revolution in India. Martin Green writes, “In Gandhi the book certainly ignited an explosion, and its impact on others around him spread like the bombardment of particles in an atomic pile, so that before the chain reaction was over, the British Empire was blown open and India was a free country, under the aegis of non-violence.” (v) Through Gandhi, Tolstoy influenced Martin Luther King and the non-violent progression of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

Contrast these men of non-violence with the history of Russia, where The Kingdom of God is Within You was banned. Seven years following Tolstoy’s death, violent revolutionaries seized control of the Russian government and instituted communism – the Red Revolution. The result was the death of untold millions under one of the most horrible political regimes ever to exist. In fact, the twentieth-century could be described as a century of war. Despite massive advances in science, engineering, medicine, and business, statism is a primary cause of untold millions of deaths from world wars, countless military interventions, and totalitarian regimes. If only Tolstoy had been heeded, such unnecessary death might have been prevented.

Tolstoy writes with clarity and a passion for logic that penetrates deep into the soul. He challenges the contemporary Christian to reconsider the use of force at every turn, to accept Jesus’ teaching as the authority for life, and to reject the state. Far worse than a necessary evil, the state is an unnecessary parasite. Finally, Tolstoy levels a damning charge of complacency and inconsistency against the church today, serving as a reminder to obey God rather than men.

Please consider buying The Kingdom of God is Within You 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!

References:

Leo Tolstoy. The Kingdom of God is Within You: Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life. Trans: Constance Garnett. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1984.

Leo Tolstoy: The Centennial Anniversary. www.tolstoycentennial.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Leo Tolstoy Against the State

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Book Reviews, Gandhi, government, leo tolstoy, Martin Luther King, non-resistance, pacifism, recommended books, The State, theology, violence, war

Related Content:

• Tolstoy On Violent Revolution (1)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• Leo Tolstoy and Non-Resistance (9)
• New FAQ Questions Added (2)

Now, to be clear, I have very little against “contemporary music” save the vacuity in some percentage of the lyrics. What I do have an issue with is churches that allow themselves to be caught up in an entertainment-centered culture, and let their worship services reflect such values. It may be done even with decent motives, but nevertheless it simply is not who we are called to be. The Church Universal is called to new life, and this new life will in many cases make us look fundamentally different than the surrounding culture.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Sunday is Coming!

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: fun, humor, theology, video, worship

Related Content:

• Watch out for the H-bomb (0)
• The Full Socialization of America is Nigh (0)
• Seminarians of the World, Unite! (0)
• Politicians sure can be ridiculous… (0)
• My interview with MotorHome Diaries (5)

Libertarianism is founded on the belief that individuals have universal rights – specifically rights to life, liberty, and the possession of property. Despite fairly widespread recognition of these rights, their universal defense (that is, an explanation of why these rights apply at all times and in all places) can often be difficult to articulate. Three predominant sub-groups within libertarianism attempt such a defense, each with a unique approach. Consequentialist libertarians focus on utility, deontological libertarians look to nature, and Ayn Rand’s followers turn to what they term ethical egoism. At first glance, each of these seems to offer a reasonable defense of universal rights; but closer inspection reveals their flaws. Conscientious defenders of liberty realize that without a solid defense, protection and preservation of rights cannot be guaranteed. Fortunately, there is a firm defense to be found within the pages of God’s Word. In the Bible, God lays out laws and moral constraints, commanding humans to obey. In so doing, God establishes man’s basic human rights; these rights are based on morality and morality originates in God. Therefore, the origin and only solid defense of rights are found, not in utilitarian economics, nature, or egoism, but in the Word of God.

Consequentialist libertarians would disagree, believing they need only look as far as the utility of rights in order to find a suitable defense of them. They believe that rights of life, liberty, and property ownership should be protected because those rights lead to positive utilities, such as prosperity, efficiency, or happiness. The argument quickly falls apart, however, as soon as one realizes that there is no practical unit of measurement for utility. Neoclassical economists devised a unit called a utile, but this concept should be discarded as nonsense. The utility of rights is ultimately immeasurable because happiness, efficiency, and prosperity are impossible to quantify.  Even if one could measure a single individual’s happiness, prosperity, or efficiency, these things could not be aggregated across all people. The total utility of rights for a society is indeterminable, and therefore, the consequentialist defense must necessarily be discarded, at least insofar as using it as a solid defense of universal rights is concerned.

Deontological libertarianism’s argument is not quite so easily dismissed, though ultimately, it, too, is a flawed defense. Deontological libertarianism claims that rights are based on the moral principle of non-aggression: You leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone; to do otherwise would be immoral. This principle is derived from the concept of self-ownership, meaning that a person ought to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. Murray Rothbard argued that self-ownership is a natural law because it is what is naturally best for man. In his essay, “Justice and Property Rights,” Rothbard writes:

Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

In Rothbard’s estimation, man’s end goal is “to survive and flourish,” and rights must be preserved and defended as a means to that end. If, however, there is a single case in which ignoring rights helps a man to survive and flourish, then logically, rights cannot be considered universal because they would no longer be applicable at all times and in all places or for all people. The unfortunate truth is that there are plenty of instances in which infringing upon another’s rights can secure one’s own survival. That is precisely how nature operates: survival of the fittest. If stealing or killing advances one’s position, then nature seems to encourage the decision to do so. Nature, then, can be deemed as neither the source of nor a defense of universal rights, as “rights” by nature’s standard are entirely situational. Because that which is situational cannot also be universal, it is necessary to conclude that situational rights are no rights at all.[i]

Ayn Rand’s view is even less helpful in the search for a defense of rights because her argument based on ethical egoism, like deontological libertarianism, actually contradicts the universality of rights. At first glance, Rand’s worship of life as mankind’s highest goal and value seemingly implies that rights are also to be valued. After all, life and happiness are relatively difficult to attain if one doesn’t first have the right to pursue them. However, an ethical egoist does not believe he is morally bound to respect the rights of others if doing so would end his own life or happiness. Thus, to the ethical egoist, rights are not universal, but situational. This is a frightening thought – it is impossible to expect one’s rights to be respected by others if there is no actual reason or motivation for others to do so. Without universal constraints on people’s interpersonal moral decisions, universal rights cannot be effectively defended.

That is where Scripture comes in. Scripture provides the moral constraints necessary to establish the existence of and the defense of universal rights. Three examples of interpersonal moral constraints laid out by God in the Bible are “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The first two laws[ii] establish individuals’ rights to life and to the possession of property. The third provides the moral constraint that allows men to expect their rights to be recognized by others. When a man loves his neighbor as he loves himself, he understands that any action that would be detrimental to himself should never be taken against others. No one wants to be harmed, therefore no one should initiate harm on another. The moral constraints against killing, stealing, and so forth, are primary ethical norms. They are, to coin a term, “non-rights.” Man does not have the right to kill or to steal. From these Biblical maxims, one can logically derive the universal rights of life, liberty, and property.

Whenever it is said that one ought or ought not to perform some action, there must be a reason or motivation to abide by such a statement. The motive to restrain oneself from infringing upon the recognized rights of others is simple and entirely self-serving. Simply put, abiding by ethical laws is in alignment with man’s most basic ethical goal: his own best interests. Generally speaking, a man will seek what is best for himself. Perhaps this means seeking utilities such as happiness and prosperity. Perhaps it means “to survive and flourish.” It stands to reason that as man’s creator, God is also aware of that which is best for man. Scripture declares that a right relationship with God should be man’s highest goal. A relationship with his Creator endows a man with fulfillment, wholeness, and happiness. A relationship with God sets man up to survive and flourish eternally. While mankind’s eternal salvation has been secured by the death and resurrection of Christ, man is still responsible for living out his life on earth in a way that is God-pleasing (man does this not to earn salvation, but in response to that which has been done on his behalf). The deepest kind of satisfaction can be attained in both this life and the life to come, but only if one has a right relationship with God. Recognizing and respecting the moral constraints God established is part of that.[iii] If a man is motivated to achieve his goal of happiness and satisfaction, then logically, he should seek to remain in a right relationship with the One who can provide that desired end result, both now and in eternity.

A person whose only goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life could easily believe that rules, ethics, and rights can all be violated for his own sake. Any system, then, that sets a goal solely applicable in this life necessarily excludes acknowledging rights. If man’s goal is “goodness” or “happiness” only in this life, then he need only acknowledge the rights of others when it is in his own best interest, and never otherwise. In that case, rights are no longer universally applicable rules to follow and are therefore no longer rights. If life ends at death, then it makes perfect sense that one should do whatever he can to make himself happy during his lifetime, even if that means causing harm to others. However, Scripture reveals that there is more to life than the years spent on Earth. Life extends into eternity and man does not have to sacrifice his acknowledgement of rights in his earthly life in order to reach his goal of happiness and fulfillment in eternal life. A person whose goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life AND in eternal life will recognize that the means to this end goal involve the recognition and defense of rules, ethics, and rights – not as way of earning eternal life, but as a way of enjoying completeness with the Creator, Savior God.

Scripture, then, acts as revelation to Christians. It reveals man’s universal rights and identifies God as their source. It provides awareness of the possibility of eternal life and of the beauty of a relationship with God. With that knowledge comes a motivation for respecting the rights of others. The origin of and motivation for respecting the rights of mankind combine to form a solid basis for the universal defense of the rights Libertarians hold so dear.

So ultimately, rights are not something that should be defended simply by observing their utility within a society. Nor are rights something that can be defended solely by saying they come from nature, for nature would more often have men violate each other’s rights in an effort to survive. Rights are instead established by God Himself and preserved for posterity in the Bible. Scripture provides the origin of rights and the defense of their universality. Rights do not have to be ignored in certain cases in order to reach the end goal of happiness or fulfillment because life does not end with death, and happiness and fulfillment are found in a right relationship with God. And a right relationship with God is attained through Spirit-inspired faith and obedience to God’s Word. Libertarians who desire to know and discuss the source of their inalienable rights should therefore look not to worldly philosophical arguments, but to the Bible and its author, our author, God the Creator.

[i] Another problem inherent in Rothbard’s view is that it doesn’t give self-ownership to those who by nature can’t “choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish.” Therefore, in his view, a person in a coma has no rights, nor does a fetus, nor an infant. Only the Christian view is consistent, giving all humans rights at all times and in all conditions.

[ii] Not all of the laws in the Bible establish rights, only those that deal with interpersonal action. The law to remember the Sabbath and the law against worshipping idols are personal, not interpersonal. Although breaking these laws may indirectly affect other people, the laws themselves are not direct moral constraints on interpersonal interaction. Therefore, it must be noted that Biblical Law goes beyond interpersonal actions and addresses personal concerns as well. In this sense, libertarian rights are established from only a subset of the laws of God.

[iii] To preemptively address a potential issue, it may be important to note that rights only exist as they apply to relationships among men, as morality only applies to men. Rights don’t constrain God, nor do they constrain nature. To say that man has a right to life means that all other people ought not to kill man; it does not mean that God ought not to kill man nor that an animal or a volcano ought not to kill man.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Proper Origin of Rights

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Ayn Rand, Bible, christian libertarian, ethics, libertarianism, Objectivism, philosophy, rights, theology, theonomy, utilitarianism

Related Content:

• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• On Rand and Altruism: A Defense of Christian Self-Interest (18)
• About LCC (2)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)

A theological tradition is a behavior, doctrine, or practice of Christians, passed from generation to generation, informing participants within the tradition about their own identity in the church and in the surrounding culture. Theological traditions exist to help explain reality in the light of biblical reasoning and wisdom, that one may better live out the Christian way of life. Traditions inform dogmas (essential things to be believed), doctrinal values, ethical values, or church organizational principles; they often serve to resolve tensions or concerns experienced at the time by the church. Hence, theological traditions are a critical part of the life of the Christian, even if the Christian that thinks, albeit naively, that “all traditions in the church are just man’s addition to real Christianity, and thus worthless.” While this skeptical thinking has merit in certain cases, the concept of tradition in and of itself is neutral. Traditions can be good or bad. Lets consider how traditions work in more detail.Many factors influence how theological traditions develop. First, some emerge as a result of conflicts within the church. Such traditions are generally formed by consensus so that Christians can address a problem or confusion using the best theological reasoning possible. Examples include organizing church polity, means of church discipline, and ways a church chooses to worship.

Second, conflicts with the surrounding culture often force the church to respond in a unique way, and thus form the basis of new theological traditions (in this case, it is like establishing a precedent). For instance, pietist tendencies in the American church have influenced how we respond to cultural media as it has become more sensual, violent, permissive of deviant lifestyles, and the like. How many times have you talked in Sunday school or heard from the pulpit about “separating ourselves from the world” that does action X, Y, or Z? And rightly so, it is the responsibility of church leadership continually to encourage Christians in right living as well as right belief.

Third, the church forms new theological traditions as it encounters and deals with its own prior history and traditions. In other words, the church is always responding to passed down beliefs as well. One example of this kind of tradition, which happens to replay itself every century or so, is the tension of love vs. force, especially as it relates to participation with and justification of the state.

In summary so far, we are constantly building, tearing down, reforming, and revisiting theological traditions. For the most part, this is done in an effort to seek first the kingdom and follow God as best we know how.

Besides the rather obvious notion that traditions need to be grounded in the core of Christian belief, effective theological traditions have two critical components. The first is that the meaning or content of the theology contained in the tradition is clear. In theological literature, this is often called traditum. If the tradition is not understood, it will be displaced by something that is. The second component is that the tradition needs a concrete means of being taught to the next generation, often called traditio. Traditions not passed down inevitably die.

One of the greatest challenges the church faces today in the development and maintaining of traditions is the continued encroachment of the State into every aspect of life. In no other era in history has the State had so much power. Now, in America of all places, the state can birth you, feed you, educate you, provide you with a job (or at least purports to do so), provide you sustenance when you don’t have a job, give you protection, give you health care, give you transportation, give you objects of worship like flags and uniforms, give you opportunities to pledge your allegiance to it, give you hope, give you change, give you retirement — it even can regulate your own death.

In short, the State is like never before attempting to play god. And God only knows the long term effects of Christians attempting to live within this utter contradiction.

Churches could address this issue by exposing this system for what it is, but I am afraid that neither church leaders nor the average American church member are willing to hear such a critique right now. But ready or not, I would tell them three  things that will dissemble the system from the ground up. First, stop saying nothing. Silence, in this case, says so much more in consent than it does in even modest dissent. The state is the enemy of Christ, not the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. Second, stop giving away your kids to the state via compulsory public schooling. As I have said many times at LCC and elsewhere, the school system is not built either to educate or to make children better people, but rather to enslave their minds to what the state wishes them to believe. Proverbs 22:6 does not say “let the state train a child in the way he should go…”; this is an injunction to the parents. And if parents really will train their children in the way they should go, then “when he is old he will not turn from it” and we will have a peaceful revolution on our hands. Third, stop encouraging kids to forsake the church by joining the biggest international war-making, killing enterprise ever conceived – the U.S. military (or any other military, for that matter, if you’re outside the U.S.). Can you imagine how much better off the church (and the world) would be, if every military church kid became productive in the church rather than train to be a tool of destruction?

So become aware and take action. Your church, whatever denomination that is, is taking part in the forming of Christian character through theological traditions. What are you going to do about it?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Theological Traditions

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Bible, ethics, The State, theology, tradition, violence, war

Related Content:

• Leo Tolstoy Against the State (2)
• Tolstoy On Violent Revolution (1)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1) (0)
• Podcast: The Warmonger’s Beatitudes and Humpty Dumpty Religion (1)

Right click here to download the entire audio file. [~21 minutes, mp3]

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1)

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: church, ethics, foreign policy, theology, war, war on terror

Related Content:

• What Happened to the Southern Baptists? (0)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• Speedlinking Friday (1)
• Podcast: The Wicked Bible and the Wicked War (1)
• Podcast: The Unholy Desire of Christians to Legitimize Killing in War (1)

Tolstoy’s Russia was a country dominated by an elite class of aristocrats, government bureaucrats, military “heroes,” and religious officials. The peasant class was bitterly oppressed through legal maneuvering, conscription, and a church that legitimized the oppression. I believe this led Tolstoy away from a traditional creedal Christianity – which to him emphasized conformity and status quo around doctrines that none actually believed (at the time) – and toward a view of Jesus that elevated the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount as the supreme good.

Matthew 5:39, “Resist not an evil person,” was the pinnacle of Jesus’ teachings to Tolstoy. He believed in “Christianity not as a mystic religion but as a new theory of life” (the subtitle of the book). Jesus ushered in the new divine theory of life, which “recognizes life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life – in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family and social welfare.” The Christian life, to him, was a progression toward divine perfection, and this life is characterized by loving others. This love drives us not only to love those that love us, but also to love our enemies even to the point of practicing strict pacifism towards aggression. He reasons that there is no other way to interpret Jesus, and to act otherwise is completely counter to the Gospel message.

Tolstoy would say the church as an institution has perverted this message of non-resistance, even deliberately hiding this message of Jesus from Christians. He saw the Russian church in an especially negative light, but showed that throughout history the church had suppressed this ethic. Why? Because of the love of power. The state church always held a privileged position, and church officials always preferred to keep their status rather than tell the truth. The ramifications of this practice were clear to Tolstoy; he declared the wars and oppression by the state as a direct result of the church’s refusal to practice the message of Jesus as a new way of life. The only solution is to return to Jesus’ teaching, believe in it wholeheartedly, and practice it consistently with no reservation.

The Kingdom of God is Within You was immediately banned in Russia upon publication, but had far reaching influence elsewhere. Mahatma Gandhi read the book and was “overwhelmed” by its message, greatly influencing his non-violent revolution in India. Martin Luther King also held Tolstoy in great esteem. Tolstoy may not have held to traditional Christian doctrine, but his determined adherence to the words of Jesus is remarkable. It brings to mind the words of Gandhi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I certainly do not admonish Christians to adopt his beliefs in full, because I do believe that God was in Christ reconciling himself to the world as believers have said for two millenia. However, taking Tolstoy’s philosophy of non-resistance to heart is instructive and valuable. Tolstoy challenges the contemporary Christian to reconsider the use of force at every turn, leveling a damning charge of complacency and inconsistency against the church today.

For more information on Leo Tolstoy, check out the Tolstoy Centennial Website.

UPDATE: I failed to mention that I have an exegesis of Matthew 5:38-42 posted here at LCC. Again, I’m not really a strict pacifist but I’m very sympathetic and am very willing to listen.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Leo Tolstoy and Non-Resistance

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: non-resistance, pacifism, recommended books, theology

Related Content:

• Leo Tolstoy Against the State (2)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• Tolstoy On Violent Revolution (1)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)