If a stranger told you he’s an evangelical Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin and that the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, which political label would you ascribe to him? Odds are good you’d assume he’s a conservative, because, well, those seem like the calling cards of a right-winger.
On the other hand, if he told you he believes government should get out of marriage (or at least allow gay marriage), decriminalize drugs, and stay out of the morality business, you'd probably assume he was a liberal. Because, well, those seem like the calling cards of a left-winger.
And if the stranger told you he subscribes to both statements above, you might just assume he was severely confused. But is there not a third way?
It's all too common these days to link political and religious convictions, as if a particular theological worldview necessarily denotes a particular political ideology. If one is a conservative Christian, how could one also be a social liberal? And why in the world would an evangelical advocate the legalization of pot?
I am a conservative Southern Baptist (yes, one of those Baptists). For years, I believed in using government to bring about certain social policies. The change came for me not because I compromised or watered down my religious beliefs, but because I began to appreciate both the Christian doctrine of free will and the destructive nature of government.
Free will is often overlooked by Christians, but is absolutely integral to our faith. Nothing in the Bible justifies the use of force to convert or punish non-Christians. Forget all you know about the Inquisitions and Crusades. Christ said, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” (Rev. 3:20 NIV). Note that Jesus did not say He would knock the door down if you don’t open it. The lesson here is that nothing in the Bible supports the notion that force should be used to spread the Gospel.
Besides, if a man is compelled to confess faith in the Lord, then he is acting only out of fear rather than genuine conviction. He may speak one way with his mouth, but feel completely different in his heart. This sort of “faith” is meaningless, and the Christian who accomplished it via force has wasted his time.
Free will also has significant implications for policy questions. On all matters, social and economic, it is simply wrong to use government to compel individuals to behave a particular way. The only obvious exception is if the person’s behavior would violate another’s negative rights. Punishing individuals for acting or not acting a certain way disrespects the innate value of the individual.
The battle between liberals and conservatives only obscures the matter while hampering liberty. The left and right are thought of as polar opposites, when in reality they are ideological cousins. The only difference between the two, for the most part, is the area of society in which they desire to use force. Liberals usually seek to regulate the boardroom, and conservatives often want to control the bedroom. Few realize the inconsistency of letting people love whomever they want while telling them how to spend their money (and vice versa).
Clifford Thies, professor of economics and finance at Shenandoah University, once wrote: "Because we are commanded to love one another, we cannot be morally neutral. But because we respect the limits on our authority, and we trust in God's plan of salvation, we do not violently intervene into the lives of others."
He makes a good point. And while the purpose of government should be to protect individual rights, the purpose of church and community is to improve individual lives. Real political freedom is recognizing that everyone owns their own life and destiny, and should be free to do as they please - provided they afford others the same respect.
For this Christian libertarian, that’s a long overdue message.
Comments
Kris, few things I disagree with:
1) Drugs cause altered states of mind which sufficiently make a person into someone "else" -- such that they may murder, steal, etc. This altered ego state of mind has no innate rights that we must protect, so I disagree with libertarians here.
2) Marriage is entirely a religious thing, and thus government cannot step in the place of God by allowing something which is not possible: homosexual marriage. The government can say the sky is orange all day, but it doesn't make it a reality. So, civil unions (extent of their ability) sure...but gay marriage isn't theologically possible, much less condonable by some government.
Also, every law is a judgment of morality...thus morality IS the business of every government and law-making body...be it tiny or huge.
Good article bro! keep it up
Richard,
Regarding your first point, how does one's rights depend on one's state of mind? I am really missing the logic.
Concerning marriage, I agree that marriage is "entirely a religious thing"; it is a holy covenant before God. God has set limitations on that, which man should not break. This gives us at least two reasons why the government should have nothing to do with marriage; 1) It is a question of religious freedom, and 2) it devalues the covenant which must be made before God. If people decide to redefine marriage or violate the covenant, the Lord can and will take care of the consequences.
Morality cannot be created by law. Laws are only defensible when they prevent one person from violating another's rights.
Kris - there are a growing number of Christian libertarians. May I recommend my list of Christian libertarian blogs at my blog, "The Holy Cause"? Many of them are quite good. Google "christian libertarian blogs" to find it.
Keep the faith brother!
We hold it for a fundamental & undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator & the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason & conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction & conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
...the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, & throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
...During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride & indolence in the Clergy, ignorance & servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry & persecution.
James Madison, 1785
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.
Thomas Jefferson, 1782
Richard,
Everytime I smoke pot, I want to go out and murder someone. If I get really high, I like to get in bar fights and become really loud and obnoxious. That's why I think it should stay illegal. But when I drink alcohol, I get really mellow and just chill out and sit around peacefully with a bag of Doritos. Get it?
People can use drugs peacefully and their using it doesn't necessarily put someone at more risk than does, say, someone driving when they're sleepy. Maybe we should outlaw that too.
The real question is, can a Christian be anything BUT a libertarian? Jesus did not teach us to use violence to get our way, but that's how the other political parties govern. Pay taxes or men with guns will come take your money. Libertarians oppose the use of force, except in self defense. That is the basis of every libertarian idea.
There's a whole passel of Christian libertarians in the Yahoo group: Christian_libertarians.
It's really not too difficult. Simply because I hold to a certain religious belief, it doesn't give me the right to ask the government to initiate force, or violate the rights of others as a means to those ends.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!