Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.
The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?
Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!
As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.
However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.
Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.
This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.
Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:
We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.
Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.
It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.
This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:
…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).
The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:
Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).
Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).
A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:
Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).
A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.
We understand the Libertarian position — politics and the Bible don’t mix.
And now you’re using Christian principles applied to government. Hmmm….
Again, using the Biblical principles for government — it’s ok to use Biblical morality in this situation?
But moral imperatives *are* removed if you’re wearing a suit (instead of a military uniform) as a senator or President so you can legalize drugs and prostitution? We’ll need a list of which government positions have to follow the Bible, and which don’t, as we’re confused (since you’ve stated God is silent about political philosophy, the list must come from outside the Bible, specifically from man not God).
So… how/who gets to decide *what* applies and to *whom*? You’ve stated *some* unchangeable Biblical principles apply to *some* people (foreign policy, military), but other Biblical principles *don’t* apply to *others* (senators legalizing drugs/prostitution). Is God’s law absolute or not? Does it apply to government or not? Or do you want to pick and choose what applies to whom and when?
Since you’ve said the Bible is silent on politics, exactly how do you determine what Biblical principles apply to government, and what don’t? It’s interesting you’ve chosen to apply Biblical morality when it agrees with Libertarian philosophy, and ignore it when it doesn’t (either Libertarian philosophy is wrong, or the Bible is).
You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible *completely* separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got *big* problems trying to Biblically justify *some* government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.
Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it?
That is not exactly true. Libertarians have all manner of views on the bible - some think it is a book of fairy tales - some think it is the model for the perfect “libertarian” government. My view is that the bible does not say very much about political philosophy - that is - it is much less concerned with governments and secular authority, and much more concerned with the hearts and minds of individuals.
On the contrary. I am suggesting that those who rob, kill and destroy repent - whether they are government officials, soldiers, vigilantes or bank robbers. The *government* is not a person - it cannot repent, be converted or accept Christ.
The biblical principle I cite in James is that wars aren’t political nor do they have anything to do with governments - but men who give into their lusts and use secular means to achieve biblical ends. Specifically, men who would sacrifice biblical principles for “friendship with the world.” It has nothing to do with government.
A senator or president need not approve everything he legalizes. Just because I am not holding guns up to the heads of homosexuals, or throwing stones (literally) at adulterers does not mean I approve of their behaviour. I can denounce their behaviour, share the gospel with them and explain to them their sin and completely fulfil the moral imperatives of the bible. I see nothing biblical about calling the police to throw these people in jail. I would be glad to change my position in light of evidence - but I see no biblical mandate for such actions.
Biblical principles apply to everyone (whether they know it or not). All individuals will be judged by that standard. The bible is clear that adultery, murder, lying, prostitution, drug-use, etc.. are sins. These things are the measuring rod for all people and all are found unable to meet perfection. It is tough to prove biblically that Christians must support physically stopping people (whether with police or as vigilantes) from doing these things. However, it is definitely biblical for Christians to warn these people about their choices. In fact, it is sinful for us not to warn them:
God says to “warn the wicked.” We are not to be snipers on the watchtower, looking to aggress against people who sin - but “watchers” who “warn” and “speak.” A senator is not responsible for allowing men to chose sin (as though he has authority over them anyway!) - he is responsible for not warning them. This is the major distinction between Dems and Christian libertarians - Democrats revel in their sin and proclaim it to be just fine. But Christian libertarians (if they are worth anything) reject both aggressive action against the sinner and also the sin.
Secular laws are not warnings - they are punishments, policing and aggressive action against others. Supporting these actions can, in many cases (even against sinners) actually be outside biblical mandates. If we say we agree with the ten commandments, but break them to “enforce morality” we are committing the error in James 1:20 - whether we are government officials/agents or not. A soldier carrying out an order to kill civilians, is a murderer - regardless if he was “just following orders.” A policeman who shoots a man in a drug raid is also a sinner - even if the man was sinning.
We can not use unbiblical actions to carry out moral imperatives without undermining said imperatives. Government officials and agents are not exempt from any biblical requirements.
The question is simple, is government secular or guided by Biblical principles? You’ve got a contradiction when you use the Bible to promote *some* government actions (or actions by people *in* government if you want to be picky), but ignore the Bible when it contradicts Libertarian philosophy.
You’ve used the Bible to support some things (foreign policy), while ignoring what the Bible says on others (drugs/prostitution). That’s inconsistent.
You’ve got to reconcile how you justify using Biblical principles to use for *some* issues (foreign policy/military), and not for others (drugs/prostitution — you’ve quite quite a whopping contradiction and inconsistency. If you don’t have an answer, fine. Jew gave an answer for himself a while back — we’re just wondering if you hold the same view or not.
If you’re stating Christians aren’t removed from moral imperatives when they put on the uniform, you haven’t explained why other Biblical moral imperatives against drugs and prostitution *are* removed for senators, and how you choose what applies and what doesn’t.
Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it? Yes or no?
CC,
You are merely repeating your argument. I have posted a more than satisfactory explanation. I ask that you take the time to consider what I said above. There is really nothing more to respond to until you at least consider my argument.
Again, I encourage you to reread my statement. I made sure to use very specific, clear phrasing and terms to make my point. You should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals. You may consider that “picky” but it is fundamental to my point - and to what I think is a misunderstanding on your part.
In my opinion, this is the crux of the hang-up:
Please explain to me what biblical imperatives I am suggesting be removed? The clear biblical mandate that secular governments outlaw drugs, prostitution and other sins? You seem very confident that the bible proclaims that not only are these moral imperatives (which we agree they are) but that these are also tied to secular legal actions, such as a person believing that people have a right to chose sin is actually a sin itself, condonment/toleration of the sin or at least unbiblical. I see absolutely no evidence of this, in fact I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, much of which I have cited in my original argument and response.
CC,
I wanted to answer this question in a separate comment merely for the record, because I think the other issue is way more important and should be addressed at a higher priority. However, I don’t want to ignore this point you want answered, which is important:
This is a false choice. Government can be all manner of things in all manner of ways. To paraphrase/plagiarize myself from a previous conversion: the purpose of government is whatever purpose a society determines based on what values and ideals they hold paramount. A Muslim government may legislate from the Koran. A secular society may legislate based on greco-roman, or humanistic values. Muslim countries actually use their laws to convert, for example. A communist society, might ban conversion to a faith. Government is merely a mechanism for societies to affirm, legislate or codify their values, whatever they may be. The authority of government is infinitely broad, from anarchism to authoritarianism; as are the morals, from Christianity to humanism; or in forms: family/individual government to collective government.
If I were dictator of the world, government would follow biblical principles - without question. But the bible says almost nothing about how to run governments - so those “biblical principles” would basically be applied in private society. Biblical principles are given to the church, the family, the individual, fathers, mothers, and other authorities, but almost none to “government” (as it’s own entity) as we are discussing it.
What the bible does do, is make it very clear that government is practically irrelevant to our purpose and our morals. It may line up in such and such place and time, it may not. If it doesn’t, then we do not obey governments - if it does, than our message and purpose doesn’t change. Even if we are entitled to certain privileges (I use this word deliberately) in a democratic form, it is not our job to use those privileges (even for “Godly” ends) if they compromise higher biblical morals in the process (theft, murder, lying, etc…).
That is my answer, I realize it doesn’t fit into option a) or b), but it answers your question.
No, we’re repeating the *question*, and waiting for an answer. It’s your article (and argument), and our question about a contradiction in that argument and how you reconcile it.
That still won’t solve your contradiction, but we’ll re-phrase the question:
You’ve got a contradiction when you use the Bible to promote *some* actions by individuals (foreign policy/military,etc), but ignore the Bible when it contradicts Libertarian philosophy. So which moral imperatives in the Bible should an individual follow, and which not?
Prostitution, drugs, and all those Libertarian ideals conflicting with the Bible.
If you use the Biblical morality to justify your foreign policy and actions by military individuals, why do you ignore other Biblical morality when it suits you?
Interesting- “You should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals”
It’s the actions by individuals, not the government. We haven’t said anything about a biblical mandate for government, and *you’ve* stated it’s about individuals. So why inject this argument? It’s irrelevant.
We have no idea what the other issue is (all other discussion is a sidebar to this question) — perhaps that’s the failure to communicate — this is the question we’ve been asking all along:
Government (and the individuals thereof) either follow Biblical morality or they don’t. You’ve got a contradiction using the Bible to justify some actions, while ignoring others. How do you solve that?
That’s good enough, and *very* close to what Jew has said.
But then why the “Is libertarian foreign policy biblical?” You applied Biblical morality to government (and created the contradiction) via your foreign policy discussion, and now say it’s all private. If everything is private, the entire discussion is moot (and we’re done discussing it) — what we said WAAAAY back in our very first post:
“You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible *completely* separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got *big* problems trying to Biblically justify *some* government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.”
You don’t solve the contradiction (although it appears you *do* agree with Jew’s position, which is why the entire article is strange). Fair enough, nothing left to discuss, and we’ll stop asking and move on.
But FYI - here’s the relevant discussion from the past regarding Jew (”Why I am a Christian Libertarian”) and the question of reconciling contradicting ideas of government following some of God’s law, and not others — it’s quite similar, though not exact. We were just wondering if you hold the same position as Jew (in bold below). That’s it. One simple question.
I fail to see the contradiction. I am not suggesting that individuals follow some imperitives and not others. I am suggesting that the biblical imperitives themselves preclude certain government actions such as murder, adultery, outlawing sin, etc.. Clearly that means I think Christians should run their government by biblical principles, and I would too. It’s not unChristian to support a non-Christian government, unless that government is advocating sin.
This is not correct. Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil. Believing that peopel should not be locked up for lying doesn’t mean one supports lying.
I can see where you are coming from here, but I think it is based on a misreading (or a miscommunication on my part). My original point is that a libertarian foreign policy is biblically permissible/compatible - not identical to any biblical teaching. But libertarian foreign policy could be pursued without violating biblical commands (which apply to all men). Wherever a contradiction exists in any non-biblical philosophy, the bible must always win out. But there are plenty of places where the bible and extra biblical philosophy (e.g. political philosophy, can mutually exist).
I would argue the exact opposite of Jew, actually. And this is why my question to you is so important. I would argue that Christians must set up everything they do by biblical principles and morality, including government. However, libertarianism (not all of it by any stretch, but some of it) is easily permissible within biblical mandates.
Those mandates, I would argue, include being a watchman. It is our job to warn all men of the consequences of sins such as prostitution and drug use. However, I think the bible is clear that we are not to manufacture consequences for these crimes that violate other moral imperatives in the process.
You seem to have no separation between biblical mandates which call prostitution sin and going a step further and saying that these same mandates also require outlawing sin in government (Christian or not).
So I ask again (and I answered your question, will you answer mine?), which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?
CC, I want to approach this from a different angle.
What scripture, do you suppose, tells us that secular governments are to enforce God’s laws in the way you prescribe? Most of what we have in the Old Testament record is a Theocratic Monarchy - a form of government that God Himself was reluctant about instituting, since it was of necessity diluted by human sinfulness. That’s hardly a perfect model for today’s secular governments. Although I understand where you’re coming from, having been there myself, I think you are way off base. When I held beliefs such as yours, I found that I felt obligated to defend my position as if it were actually biblical - only to find out later that it was not so much a Christian idea.
We do, however, have this scripture which we should address found in Romans 13:
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
First of all, we should realize the historical context. Which government would Paul have had in mind? Rome, of course. So although this earthly authority was to be recognized as a “minister of God” to punish evil people, we cannot assume that they are enforcers of moral law in the same way King David was, for instance. Could God sovereignly use this government to punish someone who broke God’s law? Sure, but they would be unaware of it. This government would have had no biblical basis whatsoever; the leaders of it were godless men who didn’t even know the one they should ultimately answer to.
Their only legitimate God-ordained function was to serve God’s purposes in punishing those he condemned. They themselves, not unlike governments today, would have been responsible for all kinds of wickedness. Therefore, they would not have been in a moral position to judge who is immoral by picking and choosing which sins (from a God-perspective) to punish. It is only God, the righteous judge, from whom all power and authority originates who is perfect and is justified in punishing immoral behaviour on all levels. Secular governments can only govern within the consensus of right and wrong as determined by their respective societies, and in my opinion, should only govern with the welfare of its citizens in mind; they should not presume a false moral high ground.
We can’t answer in Lincoln-esqe brevity, so it will take some time as it’s Monday and the work week begins. Chris, your question is the same as Colin’s, and we’ll answer both at the same time in due course.
Likely what we’ll do (if it turns out to be lengthly) is submit it as an email to Colin, and he can post it or throw it in the bit-bucket as he sees fit. The only thing we ask is publish it as-is, or not (no editing) — which is likely Colin’s policy anyway.
That sounds awesome CC! I would absolutely love to publish one of your pieces!
Is it just me, or does CC’s constant use of the first person plural creep you all out? CC, I don’t recall you using this before, so what changed? Are multiple people posting under that nickname?
I agree with Darius.
(I just think that needs to be stated for the record)
Sorry Darius. It’s just variety I guess. I I I I I becomes soooo redundant — and it avoids a shift to make the capital. Believe it or not that makes a difference in how my hands feel (waaaay too much typing over the decades has taken its toll, at one point I thought of trying voice-enabling software, but abandoned the idea). It’s also one reason why I try and be *quite* brief most of the time, and if it’s a longer post, take several days to do it.
All the CC posts are mine, unless someone forged it.
To use the words of the LGM (Little Green Men from Buzz Lightyear) — “We are one”.
Ok, I thought maybe it was a subtle ad populum argument style.
“Is it just me, or does CC’s constant use of the first person plural creep you all out?”
“I agree with Darius.
(I just think that needs to be stated for the record)”
I don’t know what you guys are talking about. I think its kinda cool. But thanks for ruining it for me, because I was totally going to rip it off. If I do it now it will be way too obvious, and I will be ashamed.
We will not be amused.
Jew thinks CC’s use of the plural doesn’t go far enough.