The non-aggression principle is the basic statement of libertarianism in general, that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish so long as it they do not execute aggression upon another person. Aggression is defined as the initiation of force against another person. Self-defense, however, is not aggression because it is a response to prior aggression.

Often Christian scholars are less visible than their secular counterparts because they do not hold high positions in government or at large public universities but rather are church leaders, missionaries, or professors at Christian colleges. Their views as Christians may overshadow their libertarianism since politics is only one part of a Christian worldview.

Many Christians hold to some variety of limited government and could be considered libertarians in that sense. However, as Christians are less commonly supportive of abortion, for example, their libertarianism is at variance with that of, say, Murray Rothbard.

Some of the more prominent 20th Century Christians who hold to political beliefs which could be described as libertarian include:

• Edmund Opitz – Congregationalist Minister, Senior Staff Member at FEE
• Hans Sennholz – Economist in the Austrian School, Professor at Grove City College
• Gordon H. Clark – Christian Philosopher, Professor
• J. Gresham Machen – Theologian, Professor, Orthodox Presbyterian Church
• Ron Paul – Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Presidential Candidate
• John Howard Yoder – Mennonite Theologian, Christian Pacifist

Others deserving a mention include John W. Robbins and Rousas John Rushdoony, although Rushdoony was a proponent of theonomic reconstructionism rather than libertarianism per se.

Furthermore, there are a number of Christians associated with think tanks such as the Mises Institute, Cato Institute, and Independent Institute, including Jeffrey Tucker, Tom Woods, Robert P. Murphy, Lew Rockwell, Gary North, William Grigg, Ryan McMaken, David Theroux, and Doug Bandow. Others that should be mentioned include Chuck Baldwin, Steven Yates, Laurence Vance, and our own Norman Horn.

The Wikipedia entry you mention suggests that “libertarian Christianity” comes from a specific blend of systematic and biblical theology. They suppose they are distinct from “Christian libertarians” because of their “Bible-based legal philosophy using biblical hermeneutics that are different from those used by Christian libertarians.” (That’s a Wikipedia quote.) To me, this sounds more or less like theonomic reconstructionism, a view I respect but with which I very much disagree for a variety of reasons.

In contrast, “Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning human nature and dignity with libertarian political philosophy.” (Also a Wikipedia quote.) Christian libertarianism looks for the congruence of libertarian political thought and Christian theology because of a firm belief in the harmony of natural law with sound theological principles. I have written a few essays that take this approach, including an article for the Washington Post.

This is fundamentally why you will never hear me describe what I believe as “libertarian Christianity.” As it is, the terms comes a bit too front-loaded for me. However, I have no problem calling myself a libertarian Christian OR Christian libertarian. In fact, I’ve written a bit more on that topic in this blog post.

This question has multiple levels, and thus I want to wade carefully through the various issues wrapped in it. First off, just because there are plenty of atheist libertarians does not mean that it is a political philosophy only for atheists. On the contrary, I would argue that Christianity has lots in common with libertarianism and very little in common with statism. A philosophy that is essentially founded upon “treat others the way you want to be treated” would naturally see Christianity as favorable. See my Lessons in Liberty article for more.

As for religious expression by governments, Christian libertarians do not want to see government taking on vestments of Christianity whatsoever for two reasons: (1) the State isfounded in rebellion to God and it should not be covered in Christian garb to look better than it is. We should always look to expose the State’s evils rather than “baptize” it to gain benefits; and (2) the Church universal needs to be internally protected from the trappings of the State in order to stay pure. The more governments get wrapped up in Christianity, the worse it will be for the Church.

I wouldn’t say that libertarians “hate” Huckabee because they fear theocracy (hate is a strong word anyway). Still, there is much to despise in his politics. Huckabee is a warmonger, pro-big government, pro-drug war, economically illiterate, anti-free market, anti-immigrant, and a supporter of the police state. If he supports these things because he thinks that’s what God wants, then he’s completely off his rocker and that’s worth criticizing in its own right.

I have many non-Christian, libertarian friends. Some of them love Ayn Rand, some don’t. But I have rarely had any issue in sharing my faith or dealing with sensitive topics because we have a common desire to treat others with respect. Here’s the bottom line: liberty brings people together. Libertarians come from all over the belief spectrum, but the commonality of seeking liberty transcends boundaries. As a result, you have many opportunities to live out the gospel to those around you.

As of 2013, I am a member of the University Avenue Church of Christ in Austin, Texas. The Churches of Christ come from the Stone-Campbell Restorationist tradition of the 19th century. I think it’s safe to say that the Churches of Christ are congregationalist in nature, believing that local churches should be independent and thus there is no hierarchy/synod/etc. that specifies creeds or confessions that identify us. If anything, we believe in the Apostle’s Creed because of its simplicity and essential nature to our shared faith. In the past, the Restorationist tradition has said things such as “No creed but Christ!” in order to make clear that our interest is in the unity of believers, rather than the dispersity of belief sets.

Rapid fire answers: Protestant? Yes. Evangelical? Sort of. Calvinist? No. Baptist? I’m a big fan of baptism. Confession? I like confessing, but not to you.

Christian libertarians do not believe that you can solve moral problems through legislation. Insofar as law exists, we seek to reduce its grasp on individual action that is not aggressive in nature. Instead, we want to use the power of social change, leveraged through the Church and local communities, to fix such problems.

Libertarians understand that the government cannot do anything right for an economy. Thus, if the government is to exist at all, it should not involve itself in anything other than the protection of basic property rights. (And many libertarians, myself included, think the State cannot even protect rights without becoming corrupt!) Hence, the government should abolish all income and property taxes and not involve itself in trade whatsoever.

Besides that, Jim DeMint is not a great example of someone being “libertarian” on fiscal issues. If you’re going to look anywhere in Congress, look to Ron Paul!

I think 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?

Besides Scripture, libertarianism has more or less emerged from the Western tradition, which is tied very strongly to historical Christianity. Christians were, in fact, the “early adopters” of classical liberalism, which was libertarianism’s ideological predecessor. Thus, we have an interesting historical argument as well supporting libertarianism from a Christian perspective.

Paul says elsewhere that it is good if you can obtain your freedom. See 1 Corinthians 7:21-23; “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.” In one epistle, Paul even gently rebukes a slave owner – Philemon – admonishing him to free the slave Onesiumus.

The reason Paul wrote to the Colossians in this way was to advise prudence. With the newfound freedom a Christian in bondage has found, he might make a rash decision to buck his presumptive “owner” and put himself in a terrible position for his health and witness.

Also, this is actually an encouraging message to someone in slavery. Perhaps after hearing the gospel of Christ and the freedom it brings, the slave may think that there is no way he could possibly be included in this salvation – for he is in physical bondage. Paul’s meta-message is that all are included in the gospel.

Remember what Paul says in Galatians 3 to all Christians everywhere: “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

No matter where we are, whether in physical bondage of slavery or oppressed in a dictatorship, the body of Christ – the Church universal – prevails forever.

(Additionally, you might be interested in the LCC blog post on Slavery in the Old Testament.)

Abortion is a sensitive issue that well-meaning libertarians can disagree upon. However, the reasonable conclusions of most libertarians, including those Christian libertarians, are that (a) the State does a terrible job of protecting life, liberty, and property in general, (b) the United States Federal Government does not have abortion in its purview, and (c) making abortion “illegal” does not really solve the problem. Government solutions will tend to increase government power, and the focus of all libertarians ought to be the reduction of government power. In doing so, we believe that abortions will surely become a thing of the past.

Two other articles at LCC may also help explain the issue: Libertarianism and Abortion, andAbortion, Religion, and the Presidency, both by Laurence Vance.

Libertarians in general should not think marriage “licensing” by the government is any better than occupation licenses by the government, and are not within the purview of governmental power. If government has any purpose at all in this arena of life, it is to be a storehouse for consensually agreed upon contracts, of which Christian marriage or other arrangements such as those between homosexuals could be included. However, it is not up to the state to decide how to regulate such contracts.

Christian marriage is an institution of the church, not that of the government. Therefore, the government should have no power to tell churches what they can and cannot do regarding Christian marriage.

Similarly, it is not the right of Christians, regardless of their view of homosexuality, to tell others how they are to arrange their own consensual contracts. Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. With regards to any tax benefits, of course I support any and all measures to reduce the sum total that the government steals from people, provided that spending is also reduced in corresponding measure rather than the shortfall being printed out of thin air. Taxation and government spending are always bad.

However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

Most importantly, and I think this is the key point, all of this is only an issue not because of our lack of “separation of church and state” (though I certainly want the government out of the church, it’s far too corrupt) but because we have a state in the first place that constantly infringes upon our civil liberties. Power to regulate personal relationships in any way, including marriage, should never be given to the state. The beauty of the free society is that we can still live at peace with each other even if we do not agree with certain lifestyle choices that others make. What I am proposing in the above paragraphs is simply that restoring civil liberties involves getting the government out entirely.

This is a terribly difficult question to answer. In sum, I do not believe that being a pacifist is a requirement for a Christian libertarian, but being anti-war is mandatory.

Proper wars – military conflicts – are almost always begun by states, between states. Other instances of wars, such as the Revolutionary War, are few in history. Since the Christian libertarian’s understanding of the state is that it is founded in rebellion against God and is evil in nature, we also understand that its reasons for executing violence against others must also be impure, vile, and evil. We must assume until proven otherwise that any war is unjust. (Even the Revolutionary War’s necessity is debatable, honestly.)

Just war theory, as proposed by Augustine first and many others following him, seeks to limit the state’s justifications for going to war, but there is a downside with the theory as well. Robert Brimlow has addressed this in his book What About Hitler?, and Laurence Vance had this to say in his review of Brimlow’s work: “Brimlow then demolishes the finer points of just war theory itself, even taking on the theologian Thomas Aquinas. The author considers just war theory, ‘as developed and defended both by church theologians and secular philosophers,’ untenable, and for three reasons: (1) Just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met. (2) Just war theory is untenable because some of its tenets are impossible to realize. (3) Just war theory is untenable because it used to justify rather than to prevent war.

Go to Laurence’s full article for even more elaboration. I find it compelling. Just war theory has been used to justify terrible wars, including every American intervention/war of the 20th and 21st century. Why, then, would I want to adopt it?

Again, I do not think pacifism is the ultimate answer, but I think Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, and Dietrich Bonheoffer make strong cases for it. Here at LCC, Doug Douma has made persuasive arguments as well. On the other side, I don’t think we can claim that Jesus saying “turn the other cheek” completely excludes all forms of self-defense (see my exegesis of Matthew 5). Who knows, perhaps I will be convinced of pacifism someday, I don’t claim to have this nailed down yet. Currently, I think understanding the use of force through a careful viewing of natural law and ethics reveals the appropriateness of basic self-defense to protect one’s life, family, and property. But, you had darned well better be sure if you ever, ever raise your hand against another person.

The Christian libertarian recognizes the fundamental nature of self-ownership, which states simply that with respect to other human beings you own yourself. Thus, it is not right for me (or others) to claim ownership over your body by making laws telling you what you can and cannot do with it. I cannot initiate force against you. I may, Lord willing, use my personal influence to urge you to behave differently, but I shall not lift a hand against you. The argument that these substances are illegal because they can do you personal harm is, quite frankly, completely ludicrous. People consensually agree to do dangerous things with physical substances all the time — such as football, boxing, or riding in cars. The argument that these substances might “influence” you to do harm to others is barely more sane. If you cause harm to someone else “under the influence” then you can be prosecuted as a criminal, but there is no legal principle under the sun that states you can be prosecutedbefore doing anything wrong. (Remember the “pre-crime” unit of Minority Report?)

One way you can avoid accusations of being a “pot user” is, quite simply, not to use it. Live such an exemplary life that someone could never think to impugn your consistency and honesty. Honestly, I care very little if someone has smoked anything. I see no fundamental difference between cigars, cigarettes, and marijuana, and I condemn no one for any such use. One the government has declared illegal, and the others not. (I am convinced that it has medical uses as well.) Nonetheless, I choose not to participate in such activities in order not to put a stumbling block before any brother or sister. Perhaps this is one of those areas where, at the current time, “everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

The best way to reduce substance abuse is to remember that it is a health issue, not a legal issue. Prohibition leads to increased violence, as is evident from the immoral and foolish alcohol prohibition era and the current War on Drugs. Thus, all true libertarians call for complete legalization, as it is the only ethical position one can take.

Also, check out other posts on LCC about the War on Drugs.

The way I see it, there are three levels to how Christian libertarians should handle these issues:

1. As it pertains to the United States, we should never condone the Federal government handling any kind of marriage issue. Such legislation would not be Constitutional. Instead, we should promote the elevation of individual rights always superseding the government.
2. At the state level, Christian libertarians should not support further government intrusion into marriage in general. This is unacceptable power given to the government. For example, I do not think it right for state governments to pass marriage amendments that either legalize or make illegal the practice of “gay marriage.”
3. Christian libertarians should, in general, support the recognition of all consensual contracts, including those of the “civil union” type. This is especially reasonable considering that any money the government does not steal is a good thing.

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Just as other libertarians have said, your rights do not change based on your sexual preference. Correspondingly, you also do not get special rights because you are homosexual. An individual or government cannot, for instance, force a minister to perform a wedding ceremony against his will. This is simply a re-statement of the non-aggression principle.

Had I the opportunity, yes I would have supported the repeal of sodomy laws before the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Any activity between consenting individuals should not be punitively punished by the state.