Can Libertarianism Be Reconciled With Your Christian Tradition?

Our work at the Libertarian Christian Institute is based on our conviction that libertarianism is the most consistent expression of Christian political thought. This is, of course, a highly debatable contention, one that won’t be resolved in this essay.

Whereas libertarianism emerged out of the insights and convictions of an 18th century European movement that is now called “classical liberalism,” Christianity was birthed in the first century A.D. Why then, if Christianity and libertarianism are fundamentally compatible, did it take so long for libertarianism to come about?

This question could also be asked of the many different political philosophies that Christians have held over the centuries–progressivism, conservatism, communism, Christian nationalism, to name but a few. That fact on its own simply doesn’t mean that none of these modern positions are compatible with our faith. When we are developing a Christian view of politics, we must ask what the universal principles of our faith have to say about the political realm; then apply it in our own context. When we do so, certain perspectives will show themselves to be more compatible with Christianity than others.

Libertarian Christians argue that key biblical emphases like individual accountability, freedom of faith, the danger and corruptibility of political power, condemnation of unjust violence, and love for neighbor are best applied in the political sphere by strictly limiting the domain in which government force can be exercised. By limiting this violence to only what can be justified by the principle of non-aggression, we and our neighbors may flourish as we pursue our own and each others’ interests through voluntary trade and mutual support.

To make this argument cogent, we must start by examining the values of the earliest Christian communities which produced the New Testament.

Was the Early Church a Libertarian Community?

The early church was a voluntary community. Within that community social pressure like exhorting, teaching, shunning, and even the occasional guilt trip (see Philemon 1:19) was exerted to regulate ethical behavior and keep Christian fellowships on the same page, but participation in the community was nevertheless always a voluntary choice. Christians who left other religions could often no longer count on their former network of support, so the church stepped in to care for those in need – without anyone having to pick up a sword or send a tax collector to do it. When conflict did arise between brothers, it was considered shameful to use secular law courts to force a desired outcome (1 Corinthians 6:1-8).

However, the church did not apply all of these principles to the realm of secular politics. Early Christians saw the church as unique. They did not expect the government to operate exactly the way the church did. Instead, they expected the pagan magistrates of their day to do the following:

1. Be able to discern a basic sense of right and wrong even without an explicit knowledge of Christ or Scripture (Rom. 13),
2. Pose a threat to evildoers who harm others (1 Pet. 2:14; Romans 12:19, 13:4),
3. Leave Christians alone to practice their faith in peace (1 Tim. 2:2, Acts 5:29).

When taken together, these data points suggest that the purpose of government is to enforce principles of natural law and justice; that is, to protect the innocent from those who would hurt, kill, or steal from them. The most consistent application of these biblical principles in the political sphere is libertarianism.

What changed?

Historians such as Tom Holland and Larry Sidentop have traced the moral influence of Christianity throughout western thought. Christian apologist Glen Scrivener, in his book The Air We Breathe, argues that the western emphasis on the values of equality, compassion, consent, and freedom can be traced back directly to the New Testament. For good measure, he also contrasts the ancient world’s acceptance of infanticide, rape, and class-based double standards with the values it advocated after the West’s widespread conversion to Christianity. They conclude that the best thoughts and values of the Christian tradition have made western civilization better than it would be otherwise.

Unfortunately, the opposite has also been true: once church and state began to influence one another, the worst values of those in power have far too often shaped the theology of the church. For instance, while the 5th century theologian Augustine of Hippo sought to limit the carnage of unbridled statism by devising “just war” principles which good rulers were expected to follow, he also called on the state to punish his theological opponents the Donatists. The Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century created an opportunity for Christian principles to reshape the world for the better, but it also allowed the world to reshape Christianity for the worse. One negative outcome, judged by the principles which the earliest church espoused, was that the church became integrated with the state and its violence–Christianity went from a voluntary community to a compulsory one.

A few isolated European thinkers here and there flirted with the idea of separation of church and state, but it could not win mainstream support until Martin Luther’s example of following his own conscience and questioning the Roman Catholic Church. As Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg church, the door to freedom of conscience also began to open–though only a crack at first. The delay was the result of the belief of the Protestant Reformers that instead of the pope, earthly rulers had a right to dictate the religion of their land. Part of this mistaken belief was the result of the cultural zeitgeist which presumed that uniformity in religious opinion was necessary for a peaceful and ordered society.

As people slowly learned to tolerate each other’s religious differences, rulers saw that a state religion was not necessary to a proper order. Furthermore, believers began to see that, far from keeping Christianity strong, state churches placed Christian leaders in comfortable positions in proximity to power in a way that weakened the church’s prophetic witness. In the last five hundred years, the Western church has given more serious consideration to the principles of freedom and individual conscience, in both its Catholic and Protestant variants.

Is Catholic teaching compatible with libertarian thought?

Catholic teaching has increasingly embraced freedom of conscience and many of the ideas promoted by classical liberalism, but it has had a more complicated relationship to the principles of capitalism due to its potential association with greed.

For instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “a theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable” (2424). In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis critiques “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation [and thus] reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control.”

On the other hand, Pope John XXIII wrote in Mater et Magistra that “it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a community what private enterprise and industry can accomplish.” In the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX similarly defined as a dangerous error the notion that, “the State… is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.” Pope John Paul II lived out his opposition to this error in inspiring Polish resistance to communism and its anti-religious authoritarianism.

All of these sources give direction to Catholics, but applying them is a more complicated matter. While Catholics hold to the doctrine of papal infallibility, it doesn’t apply to every statement uttered by a pope. And even principles of Catholic social teaching – like the life and dignity of the human person, the option for the poor and vulnerable, creation care, and the dignity of work – must be considered contextually in the light of data that compels us to the best method for applying these values. Catholic libertarians are persuaded that the best way to protect these values and many others besides is through increasing freedom, limiting government, and creating more prosperity–all of these libertarian values. As Fr. Robert Sirico, priest and president of the Acton Institute, put it:

“The arrogant assumption [on the Christian left] is that if you’re not advocating for government to be the normative way in which the poor are helped, then you’re not a Catholic. And that idea is not Catholic. The first people to act on behalf of the vulnerable should be individuals, acting as neighbors, acting in communities.”

Can Protestant traditions be reconciled with libertarianism?

Protestant thought has also had both libertarian and non-libertarian strains.

The Anabaptist movement, which birthed communities such as the Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, and the Amish, emerged out of a principled rejection of state religion and participation in state violence, even though many of its modern proponents have been politically progressive. Restorationist movements like the Church of Christ produced leaders in its early years like David Lipscomb, whose book Civil Government has become a libertarian Christian classic.

Reformed theology gave us the theonomic reconstructionism of R.J. Rushdoony, which tends to advocate for a more authoritarian theocratic state. But it also gave us Abraham Kuyper’s limiting principle of sphere sovereignty–which Reformed libertarians like Gregory Baus, Kerry Baldwin, and Jacob Winograd regularly appeal to in their thinking.

Methodism’s John Wesley remained a faithful subject of England and spoke against the American Revolution, but he also directed his movement to oppose slavery, writing in his book Thoughts Upon Slavery, “liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air; and no human law can deprive him of that right which he derives from the law of nature.”

Despite the rise of dominionism in contemporary charismatic circles, early Pentecostals were marked by a moral suspicion of the state. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) founder A.J. Tomlinson spoke against voting; as did the early theologian of speaking in tongues Charles Parham, who also wrote in an essay in Electing Not to Vote, that “fighting by sword or ballot arouses all the carnal there is in people.”

While these examples are not fully-formed expressions of the libertarian ideological systems which we’ve come to know in the last hundred years or so, they are stepping stones directing us to a more consistent application of the “no king but Christ” philosophy which libertarian Christians hold to.

Conclusions

While the first century church always attempted to maintain a peaceful relationship with the Roman empire, they ultimately saw it as a satanically-empowered beast (see Revelation 12-13) and were convicted that when human laws opposed the law of God, “it is better to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Christianity’s status as a state religion complicated this picture, but we’ve nevertheless seen countless examples of various Christian traditions advocating for ideas and policies which are consistent with religious freedom, individual rights, and other voluntaryist and libertarian principles. Of course, we’ve also seen authoritarian ideas advanced within all kinds of Christian denominations and traditions.

The primary question is not whether one can find examples of Christian nationalist thought within one’s tradition or denomination–recall that Jesus Himself had disciples who utterly failed to understand his mission. Instead, it is this–what is the best and most biblical thought within my tradition? As a libertarian Christian, I would urge you to seek out that thought within your own Christian community and build on it to further a theology that looks more like Jesus than Caesar.

Christians drawn to libertarianism may find themselves looking for a Christian community that is more compatible with their voluntaryistic or nonviolent commitments. For those who are looking, the following suggestions may be useful:

1. Examine the history of denominations and church networks that you’re interested in to see what voluntaryist or anti-war threads run through their history. Being able to point to these threads will give you a strong foundation to argue for your own place within that tradition.
2. Talk to elders and pastors in local congregations that you’re curious about to determine whether your views will be sympathized with (or at least tolerated!), and whether that church has a commitment to partisan politics in a way is likely to create conflict in the future as your own perspective is made known.
3. Decide for yourself how central your political theology is to your faith. If there is a tradition which you share many core convictions with, but in which your libertarian leanings would make you an outlier, should that be a dealbreaker? Perhaps, if the difference is particularly extreme. For instance, I would not want to join a church that is so committed to defending a politician that it makes me question if their ultimate allegiance is to Jesus; but I might be willing to join one that tends to lean politically left or right so long as their theological and discipleship commitments are generally quite good.

Being part of a church with some diversity on politics can even be valuable as it gives you more opportunities to understand and love your neighbors better. As you make these determinations for yourself, be open to the leading of the Spirit as well as the direction of Scripture and of godly people around you.

For more on the topic of finding a good church, you can listen to Libertarian Christian Podcast Episode 148: “Church Worth Getting Up For”