Christian Libertarianism
Perhaps one of the least talked about movements gaining serious ground in the United States is the rise of Christian Libertarianism. I myself have been a Christian since 2000. I did not grow up in the church and didn't start attending until I was in seventh grade. A few years later when I was 16 I attended a retreat where the salvation through Jesus Christ was revealed to me. My more Libertarian-leaning political views starting showing up around 2011. Prior to that, I was decidedly Republican. My political roots are sewn in an adolescence listening to Rush Limbaugh and supporting the likes of Senator Rick Santorum and President George W. Bush at all costs. While I still enjoy Limbaugh, my unwavering defense of Santorum and Bush have waned. During that time I experienced just a tad of exposure to the likes of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams as well. In more recent years I have consumed John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, among others.
Up until around 2010 (you'll see my story and the story of many Christians coincides with the Tea Party movement) most of us Republicans were generally happy with government. We had an open Christian in the White House for eight years, and while it was proceeded by eight years of Bill Clinton, his administration ended in scandal due to serious moral failure. We were on our self-righteous high horses, so to speak. In addition, Clinton's time in office, thanks in large part to Republican majorities in the Senate and the House for six of his eight years, resulted in things like DOMA, Welfare Reform, and what appeared to be economic growth. And of course, we had the White House for the 12 years prior to that. Republicans had a lot of power, so those of us on the Religious Right wielded it to our benefit; to make God's law public policy. Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Ronald Reagan, Bush, Santorum: those were our guys.
Things quickly deteriorated for those of us in the Religious Right when in 2008 we not only lost the White House, but lost it to Senator Barack Obama. Most of us knew we didn't really have a chance at keeping the White House. The country had grown tired of war, there was economic downturn that caused President Bush to meddle with the free market, and it was never really an option to win the next presidential election. The fact that we pulled the "next-in-line" crap and nominated Senator John McCain didn't help. Many of us still fighting for the Religious Right placed our support behind Governor Mike Huckabee, who put up a brilliant underdog campaign. Meanwhile, the assumed front runner for the Democrats was Senator Hillary Clinton. For much of the 1990s and into the 2000s, she was the butt of jokes from us on the Right. She was as liberal as you could get. Or so we thought.
Democrats reached far left and nominated Senator Obama instead. He was very ill-experienced, but had youth, oratory skills, and populist rhetoric on his side. He took down Clinton and make quick work of McCain. Not only that, we lost eight seats in the Senate (from which we still haven't recovered) and 21 seats in House (expanding their House lead by 42 seats, up to a 79 total seat lead). This of course led to more bailouts, Obamacare, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Mush like the Bush years this was an expansion of government power. Except this time, we did not like what those expanded powers were doing: government tax dollars bailing out private business, socialized medicine, and extreme left activist judges.
Those of us on the Religious Right began questioning the role of government. We long believed we were a Christian nation, despite C.S. Lewis' dire warning of using the word "Christian" as an adjective. Were we now turning a back on the very foundation of the United States? Yes, but not how we originally thought.
Yes, this country was settled, tamed, and founded by a collection of Christians and deists, but we were never a theocracy, thank God (pun intended). While I maintain the Left entirely gets the idea of religious freedom in the First Amendment wrong, we have gotten it wrong as well. Yes, it is to keep government out of our religion, but it is to keep religion out of government as well. This idea does not mean it needs to be taken to the extreme where kids can't read their Bibles in public school or that local town officials can't say a prayer before a meeting. That's taking it to an extreme it was never meant to go.
However, we cannot allow religion to run government, for what would happen if Christianity were to no longer be the dominant culture? That is exactly what we have found out in the past few years.
Yes, perhaps the plurality, and maybe even the majority, of our citizens check the box marked Christian when filling out a census, but that does not make the teachings of Christianity the plurality or majority of the electorate. I would very easily argue that many checking that box represent a more pluralistic view of religion. Maybe Christian (specifically Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) in name, but not a "crazy religious nut" that actually believes in the inerrant nature of the Bible. Since the dawn of our country, we have had one of the three following as president: Someone who respected the Constitution and did not make massive, notable expansions of government power, a Christian, or someone who paid serious lip-service to Christians. It's possible to have blended those ideas together in some way, but generally speaking all presidents until 2009 fell into at least one of those three categories (I know, I know, the strong Libertarian sentiment is that many of the early presidents infringed on the idea of limited government, but none did so to the extent we have seen taking place since the early 1900s).
Now immediately there will be some objections to saying that President Obama is not a Christian and has not payed proper lip service to Christians. That objection is overruled by common sense.
While ultimately I have no true view of any one's heart other than mine, I think it's safe to say that President Obama is very likely not a Christian. And I have no objections to his presidency based on that fact. However, read his memoir, Dreams of My Father, as I have, and you will see someone with a very religious humanistic/smorgasbord view of faith. I have never been one to call President Obama a Muslim. Rather, I think he has walked through the buffet line of spirituality and selected things that have caught his attention.
It's also hard to say that someone who argued for abortion so his children would not "be punished with a baby" from their mistake and has derided cultural conservatives for clinging to their "guns and religion" as someone has paid any sort of lip service to Christianity.
So for what I would argue for the first time, in 2009 we had a president who was not Christian, had little respect for the faith beyond very basic kind words, and had no belief in limited government. This was a very dangerous mixture for those of us on the Religious Right. In fact, our political worldview was being eradicated.
Beginning that year, but truly taking form in 2010 a counter-revolution took place: The Tea Party. It started small, but brush fires of the mind, as Samuel Adams put it, were set ablaze. Government was supposed to be limited. It was a thought Libertarians and other academics had been arguing about for some time. But those of us who had our worldview in power did not have time for that. Yes, it was to be limited in some sense, but as long as government power expanded to help the Judeo-Christian point of view, it was fine. But now faced with complete ambivalence toward all we held dear, what could we do?
This set the groundwork for Christian Libertarianism. My path to the Liberty movement is very similar as many other Christians. After the Bush years I woke up to what it was like to have the government not only reject what you believe but actively doing something about that rejection. We had been on the other side of that the past few years as the "moral majority." Now, clearly no longer the majority, we realized the importance of limited government.
God gave us free will. He has His angels to obey His every word no matter what. He created us with the choice to obey Him. Why then should we force others to obey Him? Sacrificial love is giving up what we want out of love for another, not making others give up what they want to love what we love.
Nowhere is this more present today than in the topic of same sex marriage. To save space, I'll spare the argument as to why homosexuality is a sin; it is, and I can outline that argument another time. For awhile we were never concerned with the idea because it seemed unfathomable that it would ever be allowed; at least nowhere between New York and California. Obviously that is no longer the case. With an administration against our Biblical worldview and us no longer being the "moral majority," we are left with little to no public policy defense of marriage. Yes, we still believe it is bad for culture. Yes, we still believe it's un-Biblical. But those arguments no longer matter to society.
So what do we do? We realize that if centuries ago this country was settled by people who just wanted to be allowed to worship God as they see fit, or own their own property, or just be left alone by the government, and that we need to accept and support a Libertarian view of government. We cannot, nor should we, force people to live according to our Christian faith. God does not force us to do so, so what right do we have to force it on others? It should be a matter of us living our life as we should, testifying to others about the cross, and allow God to do the rest.
Unfortunately, government is swinging quickly and ferociously from one side to the other. Not only are marriage laws falling one after the other, individual liberty is as well. That's what we need to fight for. A business owner should not be forced by the government to supply his goods to an event he disagrees with as a conscientious objector. The defeat of Arizona SB 1062 was the greatest blow to religious freedom in the United States I have seen in my lifetime.
We need to take a "we were wrong, but let's both get it right" stance. It's wrong for a government to deny legal benefits of two individuals based on their sex (though a separate post could be written about how any government involvement at all is not necessary). But it's wrong to force someone to go against their religious faith and contribute to an event they personally object to.
I started this post with an intention of introducing the idea of Christian Libertarianism. There are many, many others with far better understanding of theology than me, and many, many others with far better understanding of libertarianism than me. I've studied scripture and read plenty of commentaries, but I cannot define things like exegesis or special revelation off the top of my head. While I highly recommend reading the likes of Locke and Basiat, I have yet to dive into Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, or Lysander Spooner. My point is that this is just an introduction to an idea that we Christians need to realize: We cannot mandate others abide by the teachings of the Bible.
What me must do, however, is this: Stand firm in our convictions, raise our children in God's word, preach the gospel to those unsaved, fight for the right to practice and express our beliefs, and let God do the rest.
Up until around 2010 (you'll see my story and the story of many Christians coincides with the Tea Party movement) most of us Republicans were generally happy with government. We had an open Christian in the White House for eight years, and while it was proceeded by eight years of Bill Clinton, his administration ended in scandal due to serious moral failure. We were on our self-righteous high horses, so to speak. In addition, Clinton's time in office, thanks in large part to Republican majorities in the Senate and the House for six of his eight years, resulted in things like DOMA, Welfare Reform, and what appeared to be economic growth. And of course, we had the White House for the 12 years prior to that. Republicans had a lot of power, so those of us on the Religious Right wielded it to our benefit; to make God's law public policy. Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, Ronald Reagan, Bush, Santorum: those were our guys.
Things quickly deteriorated for those of us in the Religious Right when in 2008 we not only lost the White House, but lost it to Senator Barack Obama. Most of us knew we didn't really have a chance at keeping the White House. The country had grown tired of war, there was economic downturn that caused President Bush to meddle with the free market, and it was never really an option to win the next presidential election. The fact that we pulled the "next-in-line" crap and nominated Senator John McCain didn't help. Many of us still fighting for the Religious Right placed our support behind Governor Mike Huckabee, who put up a brilliant underdog campaign. Meanwhile, the assumed front runner for the Democrats was Senator Hillary Clinton. For much of the 1990s and into the 2000s, she was the butt of jokes from us on the Right. She was as liberal as you could get. Or so we thought.
Democrats reached far left and nominated Senator Obama instead. He was very ill-experienced, but had youth, oratory skills, and populist rhetoric on his side. He took down Clinton and make quick work of McCain. Not only that, we lost eight seats in the Senate (from which we still haven't recovered) and 21 seats in House (expanding their House lead by 42 seats, up to a 79 total seat lead). This of course led to more bailouts, Obamacare, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Mush like the Bush years this was an expansion of government power. Except this time, we did not like what those expanded powers were doing: government tax dollars bailing out private business, socialized medicine, and extreme left activist judges.
Those of us on the Religious Right began questioning the role of government. We long believed we were a Christian nation, despite C.S. Lewis' dire warning of using the word "Christian" as an adjective. Were we now turning a back on the very foundation of the United States? Yes, but not how we originally thought.
Yes, this country was settled, tamed, and founded by a collection of Christians and deists, but we were never a theocracy, thank God (pun intended). While I maintain the Left entirely gets the idea of religious freedom in the First Amendment wrong, we have gotten it wrong as well. Yes, it is to keep government out of our religion, but it is to keep religion out of government as well. This idea does not mean it needs to be taken to the extreme where kids can't read their Bibles in public school or that local town officials can't say a prayer before a meeting. That's taking it to an extreme it was never meant to go.
However, we cannot allow religion to run government, for what would happen if Christianity were to no longer be the dominant culture? That is exactly what we have found out in the past few years.
Yes, perhaps the plurality, and maybe even the majority, of our citizens check the box marked Christian when filling out a census, but that does not make the teachings of Christianity the plurality or majority of the electorate. I would very easily argue that many checking that box represent a more pluralistic view of religion. Maybe Christian (specifically Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) in name, but not a "crazy religious nut" that actually believes in the inerrant nature of the Bible. Since the dawn of our country, we have had one of the three following as president: Someone who respected the Constitution and did not make massive, notable expansions of government power, a Christian, or someone who paid serious lip-service to Christians. It's possible to have blended those ideas together in some way, but generally speaking all presidents until 2009 fell into at least one of those three categories (I know, I know, the strong Libertarian sentiment is that many of the early presidents infringed on the idea of limited government, but none did so to the extent we have seen taking place since the early 1900s).
Now immediately there will be some objections to saying that President Obama is not a Christian and has not payed proper lip service to Christians. That objection is overruled by common sense.
While ultimately I have no true view of any one's heart other than mine, I think it's safe to say that President Obama is very likely not a Christian. And I have no objections to his presidency based on that fact. However, read his memoir, Dreams of My Father, as I have, and you will see someone with a very religious humanistic/smorgasbord view of faith. I have never been one to call President Obama a Muslim. Rather, I think he has walked through the buffet line of spirituality and selected things that have caught his attention.
It's also hard to say that someone who argued for abortion so his children would not "be punished with a baby" from their mistake and has derided cultural conservatives for clinging to their "guns and religion" as someone has paid any sort of lip service to Christianity.
So for what I would argue for the first time, in 2009 we had a president who was not Christian, had little respect for the faith beyond very basic kind words, and had no belief in limited government. This was a very dangerous mixture for those of us on the Religious Right. In fact, our political worldview was being eradicated.
Beginning that year, but truly taking form in 2010 a counter-revolution took place: The Tea Party. It started small, but brush fires of the mind, as Samuel Adams put it, were set ablaze. Government was supposed to be limited. It was a thought Libertarians and other academics had been arguing about for some time. But those of us who had our worldview in power did not have time for that. Yes, it was to be limited in some sense, but as long as government power expanded to help the Judeo-Christian point of view, it was fine. But now faced with complete ambivalence toward all we held dear, what could we do?
This set the groundwork for Christian Libertarianism. My path to the Liberty movement is very similar as many other Christians. After the Bush years I woke up to what it was like to have the government not only reject what you believe but actively doing something about that rejection. We had been on the other side of that the past few years as the "moral majority." Now, clearly no longer the majority, we realized the importance of limited government.
God gave us free will. He has His angels to obey His every word no matter what. He created us with the choice to obey Him. Why then should we force others to obey Him? Sacrificial love is giving up what we want out of love for another, not making others give up what they want to love what we love.
Nowhere is this more present today than in the topic of same sex marriage. To save space, I'll spare the argument as to why homosexuality is a sin; it is, and I can outline that argument another time. For awhile we were never concerned with the idea because it seemed unfathomable that it would ever be allowed; at least nowhere between New York and California. Obviously that is no longer the case. With an administration against our Biblical worldview and us no longer being the "moral majority," we are left with little to no public policy defense of marriage. Yes, we still believe it is bad for culture. Yes, we still believe it's un-Biblical. But those arguments no longer matter to society.
So what do we do? We realize that if centuries ago this country was settled by people who just wanted to be allowed to worship God as they see fit, or own their own property, or just be left alone by the government, and that we need to accept and support a Libertarian view of government. We cannot, nor should we, force people to live according to our Christian faith. God does not force us to do so, so what right do we have to force it on others? It should be a matter of us living our life as we should, testifying to others about the cross, and allow God to do the rest.
Unfortunately, government is swinging quickly and ferociously from one side to the other. Not only are marriage laws falling one after the other, individual liberty is as well. That's what we need to fight for. A business owner should not be forced by the government to supply his goods to an event he disagrees with as a conscientious objector. The defeat of Arizona SB 1062 was the greatest blow to religious freedom in the United States I have seen in my lifetime.
We need to take a "we were wrong, but let's both get it right" stance. It's wrong for a government to deny legal benefits of two individuals based on their sex (though a separate post could be written about how any government involvement at all is not necessary). But it's wrong to force someone to go against their religious faith and contribute to an event they personally object to.
I started this post with an intention of introducing the idea of Christian Libertarianism. There are many, many others with far better understanding of theology than me, and many, many others with far better understanding of libertarianism than me. I've studied scripture and read plenty of commentaries, but I cannot define things like exegesis or special revelation off the top of my head. While I highly recommend reading the likes of Locke and Basiat, I have yet to dive into Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, or Lysander Spooner. My point is that this is just an introduction to an idea that we Christians need to realize: We cannot mandate others abide by the teachings of the Bible.
What me must do, however, is this: Stand firm in our convictions, raise our children in God's word, preach the gospel to those unsaved, fight for the right to practice and express our beliefs, and let God do the rest.
Comments
Post a Comment