Posted on 01/01/2012 6:20:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Stereotypes and broad brush labels are common in the current political climate. If someone says they believe homosexuality is a sin and that drugs ignite societal problems, they would almost immediately be placed in the “Christian right-wing” category. If another person says that the government should not be in the marriage business and that drugs should be decriminalized, then that person would likely be labeled a “liberal.”
But what if a person believes both sides of the argument?
Enter the Christian libertarian.
A Christian libertarian is generally aligned with the core moral beliefs of Christian conservatives but emphasizes free will to the extent that they are considered socially liberal.
However, there are many Christians, on both sides of the political aisle, who have taken aim at the Christian libertarian, saying that they do not practice true Christianity with their political philosophy.
THE BIBLICAL CASE AGAINST CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIANISM
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and executive editor of The Christian Post, said that “of course libertarians can be Christians – but so can racists.”
“If you are a Christian and a libertarian, you would have to basically ignore all of Romans 13 where God lays down a specific role that the government is divinely ordained to play which is to reward those who are right and punish those who are evil.”
“Libertarians are not being consistent in applying the Bible to their thought process,” Land contended The government not only has a right, he said, but is called upon by God to regulate societal morality.
“Slavery was outlawed by the government. Is that not a moral issue? There are laws against rape, murder, theft … all of these are moral issues that the government has and must regulate.”
The evangelical leader argues that libertarians compartmentalize their faith when their Christian faith must be first and foremost in every aspect of their life – even in politics and government.
Many Christian libertarians, for instance, argue that sin that is “victimless” – such as drug use – should not be made illegal because users knowingly chose to use the substance on their own accord, and by exercising their free will poorly, they will also have to suffer the consequences.
Conservative Christians, however, do not see any sin as “victimless” and argue that Christianity by its very nature affirms the idea of corporate solidarity. Therefore, every action, or lack of, has a ripple effect on society, which impacts the lives of others.
According to the Christian Right, libertarians put too much emphasis on individual liberties and not enough on the consequences those liberties could have on society.
THE BIBLICAL CASE FOR CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIANISM
Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told The Christian Post that he disputes the idea that there is no such thing as Christian libertarianism.
“The greatest commandment is to love God and the next greatest is to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Nothing in Scripture suggests that we have to have a political institution to make that happen. There is no inconsistency with a political libertarian philosophy and the Christian religion,” Bandow argued.
While he agrees that religious thought should not be and cannot be banned from the public square as everyone has a set of moral values and these values inevitably shape our society, he also believes that mixing the two institutions of church and state is dangerous. In one way or another, according to Bandow, Christian conservatives and Christian liberals have mixed the two institutions and as a result both have been corrupted.
Christian libertarians argue that their stance emphasizes free will, which is an important aspect of the Bible, in all areas of political policy – even in those that they may personally and morally disagree with.
Theodore Beale, columnist at World Net Daily and reportedly a Southern Baptist, argues in favor of libertarian thought and its consistency with Christianity:
“Libertarianism is not inherently godless. In fact, it is the only political philosophy that is truly in accordance with Christianity,” argued Beale. “The Christian religion posits an all-powerful God who nevertheless permits humanity to turn its back on Him. This shows an extreme respect for free will and for the very sort of individual choice that is banned by Democrats and Republicans alike as they attempt to enforce their will upon the people through the power of government.”
Many Christian libertarians go on to dispute the argument that the federal ban on murder and theft has anything to do with morality. Christian libertarian scholars often state that while murder and theft are indeed issues of morality, they are also issues of individual liberties which is the real reason why the government has the right to ban them. On the flip side, adultery and drinking can be considered issues of morality within the Christian Church, but because they do not infringe upon the individual liberties of others, they cannot practically be banned. After all, many Christian libertarians argue, the government went down that road with prohibition and that law turned out to be the ultimate failure.
So while some extreme aspects of libertarianism might argue for a more anarchist society, Christian libertarians generally recognize the need for limits.
“The basic principle of libertarianism is not anarchic. There are real limits,” said Beale. “My free will ends where yours begins. Neither the community nor I have any claim whatsoever on your property or your life. And a libertarian legal system would be structured around that principle.”
My only point is that due to the wonderfully elastic and nuanced procedure we call “interpretation,” the Bible seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
So when you look at Romans 13 and Obama, what do you think?
Pope John Paul II in a wide ranging Centesimus Magnus 1991
...By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need...
Are there really that many Christian Libertarians? Most Libertarians I know are agnostics or atheists.
Whoever wrote this piece must have been a progressive /leftist Christian. the piece sounded squishy ok until they gave the Biblical justification for Christian libertarianism
speaking of Love.But ignoring the manifold passages of Scripture that speak of “marriage” in terms solely of the union of one man and one woman _as did Moses in Genesis 1: and 2: ; In the fullness of time Jesus ,that Rabbi from Nazareth,
cites Moses ,at the beginning in speaking o f”marriage” and “divorce” , and the Apostle Paul likewise cites the Genesis
model in his to the Church at Corinth. (1 Corinthians 6: ) and again in his letter to the Church at Ephasis ,Ephesians 5: -None of them can be understood to defend same sex marriage. That “marriage was originally a States Rights issue —and that every State originally penalized sodomy and
followed the Biblical penalty for such .And as every State seems to have in their establishment seems to have adopted the Biblical model of Matrimony being defined as the union of a man and a woman. And as the series of legal decisions 1878-1890 that seem to have led the Mormon Church to revelation they claimed from God /via their Prophets to reconsider the Church position concerning Marriage thus allowing Utah enter the union of States as equal. I am sorry but this article seems so full of holes that the boat wont float.The passage quoted as Bible justification for the
position supposed the term was NOT understood as it is too often abused today (Love being confused-sometimes deliberately with lust/ or convenience/ or political- social power and acceptance) I cannot claim to Love one in
danger of being consumed in the fire Unless I do whatever necessary to pull them out of harms way.Hating the very garment defiled by sin.
Study the political Sermon of 1776 by Samuel West “On the Right to Rebel” (the Patriots Handbook ,George Grant Editor,Cumberland House publishers 1996 ppb.pp119-152.To see
Romans 13: put in proper perspective - in my view) To answer your question was O put in the WhiteHouse by God.I submit if he was it was done in judgement for a nation that has chosen for its leaders men were not just nor would rule in fear of God as Noah Webster suggested in his history of the United States -and compatible with comments made during the ratification of our Constitution that Nations cannot be judged in the next world so must be this. By inevitable chain of cause and effect Providence punishes national sins by national calamaties.” And the 0 certainly seems a national calamaty.
I need to add —in rereading the piece I see it only Mr.B. I disagree with in his Biblical justification. But Dr.Land I believe makes the stronger case.
God sometimes puts evil rulers in power to punish a sinful country. Here is an example from scripture:
Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Because you have not heard My words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ says the Lord, ‘and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual desolations. Jeremiah 25
Nebuchadnezzar was evil and yet was called God's servant, because God chose him to carry out his judgment. An excellent book on this subject is SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY, by Watchman Nee.
bttt
To me, this sounds much like what a friend noted some years ago. Many people who self-identify as “anarchists” are inclined to hyphenate “what kind” of anarchist they claim to be, often in very oxymoronic ways.
For example: “socialist-anarchist”, “communist-anarchist”, “capitalist-anarchist”, “libertarian-anarchist”, “democratic-anarchist”, etc. And yes, “Christian-anarchist” as well.
The term anarchist itself is from the time of the English Civil War, and was meant as a term of derision by the Royalists against their Roundhead opponents. It really got legs in the revolutions of 1848, no longer a term of derision, but as a generalized anti-government meaning.
However, Christianity has similar hyphenation corruptions, one of which, I suppose, could be called “Christian-libertarianism”. But that is very divorced from Christianity at its roots.
Early Christianity had in its early centuries only two forms: hierarchical and gnostic. Any accurate modern hyphenation has to take these two forms into account. Either they are directed from the Christian hierarchy, or they are individual interpretations to only apply to those who choose to follow them.
Such behavior should perhaps be shunned, participants ostracized from polite society and spoken against openly and vigorously, both in the public and in private spheres.
Just an opinion
Oldplayer
Key qualifiers that Paul, via the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, included in the text.
Rom 13:3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
One could argue from verse 3 above, that rulers who do not punish only those who do wrong, are not to be considered established by God. The implication of the entire treatise is that of a ruler who is aligned with the "right" that God has revealed in the scriptures.
This disqualifies the liberals from being considered rulers.
All this talk about Constantine ignores history because the Roman state returned to persecuting orthodox Christians.
The Council of Nicaea was rejected by Constantine’s heirs who adhered to the Arian heresy.
The honor of who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire fell upon Theodosius the Great in the 380 A.D.
The Constantine myth is simplistic because Christianity became the states religion of the Armenian kingdom, which fell outside of the boundaries of the Roman Empire in 301 A.D.
Not to mention Ethiopia’s accession of Christianity in the mid-4th century.
Constantine is just a good boogey man for Evangelicals to latch onto as part of anti-Catholic mythology.
Not looking to argue, but with your post are you trying to say that Obama and Sunstein are “libertarians”? It’s the only reason I can fathom for your post making sense on this thread.
Be aware - as you probably already know - liberal/progressives LOVE to adopt terms and change their meaning over time (look at the “current/modern” definition of socialism and communism being taught in the universities at this time - it’s NOT the same as we were taught). There is absolutely NO WAY that Obama and Sunstein are in favor of anything close to the true definition of libertarianism as a political or personal philosophy.
That's the point.
I guess I failed to 'splain it -- or the Obama and Sunstein approach is so foreign that it is unbelievable. But it is not.
Sunstein, et al. "intellectuals" are behavioral economists. They are bringing to government what Madison Avenue -- enhanced by science -- does to get you to buy and believe anything. (I do not literally mean you personally.)
As I stated I recall the days when those very conditions existed simply by chance -- to wit, the implementation of TV over radio (we got our first TV in 1949) and the existence of the "Fairness Doctrine."
Americans by the tens of millions got hooked on the fascination of TV and came to depend upon it more than anything else for news. The three networks controlled -- as I noted above there are many on the left who pine for those days because they abhor divisiveness -- that is to say, they want total control and no opposition. Sunstein, et al. do call that libertarianism whether anyone likes it or not.
You probably did not see it in my reply above but it is true: Sunstein in the past has publicly named Free Republic as a danger to democracy. (Yes his definition of democracy is not what we accept but he calls it democracy anyway not caring one whit what the "masses" think.)
bttt
Strange God didn't give them a heads-up as to what they should do if they had a "wrong" ruler.You'd think He'd have thought of that. Made it clear, you know? Or maybe there's a quote in there about the proper way to rebel...? Is there?
ping
Matt 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
John 2:15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.