As the audience and readership for this site expands, it is becoming increasingly important that I make it plain exactly what I hold to be true in regards to theology and polity. As the Facebook page fills with content, as the Twitter feeds become more active, and as more and more Christians and atheists alike find our site, now more than ever we ought to define and demonstrate the views of a “Reformed Libertarian.” Perhaps people get the gist. Reformed has something to do with Calvinism and to be a libertarian means, well, that we must support Ron Paul for President.
But of course, in this description we leave out the underlying theory. The question is, why be Libertarian at all? For what reason do we make efforts to cover Austrian economics and soteriology? The difficult part of this is that half the readers have no idea what Austria has to do with economy and the other half is googling the word “soteriology.” What this means is that because of our wide range of topics, people who love libertarianism and economics come across this site in the same numbers as those who don’t care about libertarianism, but love theology.
My goal then is not to simply write on both “Church” issues and “Political” issues. If that were the case, I’d focus politics and economics on my blogs here, here, and here and I would focus my Christianity and theology over here. No, I have something more in mind by building a site that brings them together. Even a great site like www.libertarianchristians.com (yes, that is an endorsement [even though they don’t assume Calvinism, as I do]) only looks at libertarian and political issues through a Christian lens. Rather, I seek to build a libertarian philosophy based on my underlying worldview: Calvinistic Christianity.
Indeed, it is the theory itself toward which I hope to expand and to build. It is my deeply held conviction and passion that my Christian basis pours forth into an expression of libertarian polity. It is worth re-emphasizing: my libertarianism does not stand on its own, it stands on my faith, my worldview. It is therefore quite clear that my task is not simply to provide the theory of connectivity between Christianity and libertarianism but also to define what is meant by my Calvinism; that is to ask, what does it mean to be “Reformed?” Answering this will prove to be incredibly foundational to the theory. And following a discussion of the foundation and the central theory, it will become plain what is truly meant by my saying I am a libertarian. For quite many, who have concluded in recent years that they will no longer accept the insanity of the GOP and the Democrats, have taken to the title libertarian. But this wide variety of intellectual diversity will not suffice. No, we must define our terms!
Due to the fact that this piece regards the theory which establishes the libertarianism I suspect it will include far more theology than politics.
For clarity’s sake, an important hope that I have is that no one would assume that by libertarianism, I am by no means advocating either theological libertarianism (the belief that God does not sovereignly foresee human actions) or philosophical libertarianism (the belief that man’s will is completely unrestrained by external or internal factors). Political libertarianism is a philosophy pertaining to polity, to government, to civil law.
Of course, I am not the only one who lays claim to the words “libertarian” and Calvinism and is not afraid to use them in the same sentence. For example, it was the founder of the Christian Reconstructionist movement who claimed that “in reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.” And yet, it must be made plain that we do not adhere to the Reconstructionist advocacy of Old Testament Law as the foundation of civil authority.
Words are powerful. Without a definition attached to them, they can taint or destroy all that they come into contact with. Therefore, the definition is of the same importance as the word itself. The difficulty for me then, is to convince the reader that I am truly Reformed. Why? Because I hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Yes, like Charles Spurgeon, I am a Reformed Baptist. Immediately many of my readers who hold to the Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg Confession have become annoyed. The problem is this: there are many within the Presbyterian tradition that does not consider the Reformed Baptist “Reformed” at all. They would of course agree with the Reformed Baptist in many areas of the faith, but they might opine that to label us as “Reformed” is to make this word too broad. I, naturally, would disagree. But one must understand what is meant by “Reformed” when I say “Reformed Libertarian.”
The issue for me is that “Christian Libertarian” is too broad. For don’t the Mormons call themselves Christians? I affirm the label “Christian” by all means! But what is actually meant by “Christian?” There are a hundred explanations and I desire to choose one. Perhaps “Protestant” would narrow the field considerably. It is with great vigor that I hold to the “five solas” of the Protestant Reformation:
-Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
-Sola Gratia (Grace alone)
-Sola Fide (Faith alone)
-Solus Christus (Christ alone)
-Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be Glory)
Truly then I am a happy Protestant, aware in every way of the heresies and blasphemies of the Roman Church. And then what? Are my soteriological beliefs important? Does man aid in the salvation of his soul by allowing the Holy Spirit to work? I cannot affirm this at all. Rather, it is solely the regenerating work of the third person of the trinity alone who prepares my mind for the knowledge of the Gospel. I am passive, not active. And it is in this way that I must be a monergist, not a synergist. By what standard did the Holy Spirit choose me to be saved? Truly, it was nothing within my own flesh, for I am a rotten man. It had nothing to do with me, and everything to do with God the Father who unconditionally chose me in Christ before the foundations of the world. And not only was this choice made before I entered this world, but it was also verified by the active obedience of Christ, even to death on the cross, who died not only for my sins but for the sins of the other elect around the world. Such a wondrous doctrine has been outlined by the following:
-Total Depravity (Man is completely sinful, unable to accept the Truth of God)
-Unconditional Election (God has chosen the individual for salvation)
-Limited (Particular) Atonement (Christ purchased the salvation of those chosen)
-Irresistible Grace (Man cannot say “no” to the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work)
-Perseverance of the Saints (the elect) (God will see his elect through unto glorification)
Hence, while Protestantism adequately narrows the doctrinal convictions which I hold, I, also adhering to “TULIP,” needed another label by which to demonstrate my understanding of salvation and of the sovereign character of God. It was simply natural that I chose the word which exemplifies that. The concern for the Presbyterians and those others who are Reformed, yet not at all “Baptistic,” is that, in disagreeing with them on very specific characteristics of the Covenant(s), and therefore the baptism of infants, I have given up the “Reformed” perspective. Whether or not “Reformed” can then be properly assumed by someone of my doctrinal distinctives is the main qualm between the so-called “Reformed Baptists” and the Presbyterians (or Dutch Reformed, etc) regarding labels.
My goal is not to spark such a debate. But I am happy with the term Reformed. When it comes to the Westminster Confession, the standard by which many in the Reformed camp determine whether a Christian is truly Reformed, I am in agreement with most of it. It is true that the Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar, and, to be frank, there are even some things about the former that I prefer over the latter. For example, the Baptist confession completely eliminates Chapter Three, Paragraph Seven of the Westminster, which reads:
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
Not only do I affirm this doctrine, but it is also to my disappointment, and to the disappointment of many other Reformed Baptists, that it was left out of the London Confession. Thankfully, we do not operate on “Confessions Alone,” and we can find support for this doctrine in the Holy Scripture. If “Reformed” refers to a specific confession, which I think is unfair considering that the Synod of Dordt, which codified Calvinism as a response to the five points of the Remonstrants (Arminians), took place several decades previous to the gathering at Westminster, then certainly we are not “Reformed.” But if by “Reformed” we mean that we take the side of the Synod over and against the Arminians and in defense of the Calvinist soteriology, I think there is no better label by which to refer to our system.
The Baptist understanding of the covenants is foundational to our understanding of the theory of (civil) government and its role, if there is any, in society. Whereas non-Baptistic Reformed theologians mostly hold Covenant Theology (CT), we hold to a variant of New Covenant Theology (NCT). These will be distinguished further below. To conclude the political libertarianism that we do, rests on our understanding of the covenants. That is to say, the full vision of the Reformed Libertarian depends on principles that are rejected by both an Orthodox understanding (Presbyterians) of Covenant Theology and the (relatively) contemporary views of Dispensationalism. Now of course, one can certainly be a libertarian per se without assuming the Reformed Baptistic rendition of New Covenant Theology. In fact, there are many who hold to Presbyterianism and there are others who hold to Dispensationalism, who would also vocalize their adherence to, say, Rothbardian libertarianism. But those who hold to either CT or Dispensationalism will not catch the entirety of the Reformed Libertarian theory as it is currently developed.
Why is there importance in understanding the covenants in order to determine our political theory? To answer that, we must first back up. In looking to determine the role of civil government, we must make mention of several principles. These are, and must be, Biblical principles. It is not my aim to make this a treatise, and so, we will be brief. The question that sits under everything we think concerns how we know. In the realm of knowledge, where do we even start? We answer this by going to the philosophical contributions of Gordon H. Clark and his system of “Scripturalism.”
In Clark’s Scripturalism, laid out by John W. Robbins, we find the following:
-Epistemology: Propositional Revelation
-Soteriology: Faith Alone
-Metaphysics: Theism
-Ethics: Divine Law
-Politics: Constitutional Republic
We hold to four of those five and our disagreement is with “politics,” in which we, as will be shown, would prefer “libertarianism.” It is not necessary to be a Clarkian in order to be a Reformed Libertarian, but it was indeed worth mentioning the fact that, in establishing my own worldview, I prefer the philosophy of Gordon Clark over Cornelius Van Til. It is possible to be a Van Tillian and agree with the Reformed Libertarian point of view because, like Clark, Van Til also was a presuppositionalist who held that the Scriptures must be assumed as the first principle.
If it is true that our epistemology (the theory of knowledge) is that all knowledge begins with Scripture, and as the Westminster Confession reads, “[t]he whole counsel of God… is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then it follows that our starting place in determining the role and activities, if any, of the civil government must flow from the words of the Scripture, not from the mind of man. It is becoming quite clear that the nature of our libertarianism is starting to find distinction from the holistic theory of the Natural Law theorists like Murray Rothbard and also the Consequentialists like Ludwig von Mises. Therefore, to be a Reformed Libertarian means that one must presuppose at the forefront that “The Bible Alone is the Word of God.” The principle of Sola Scriptura is the sine qua non of the Reformed Libertarian, without which there is no reason to believe anything at all.
Therefore, if any Christian critic mention the view that “Reformed Libertarianism” is a contradiction in terms because libertarianism as a political theory is humanistic, be it known that we too reject the foundations of libertarianism that find their source in the humanism of recent centuries. How then, if we reject the foundation on which the great majority of libertarians sit, can we possibly say that we are libertarians at all? Simply answered, because libertarianism as a political theory is focused on the conclusion, not the foundation. David Friedman is a libertarian because he believes that government has a negative effect on society and the prosperity of the greatest number of people. Murray Rothbard is a libertarian because he believes that justice is found in forbidding any person, group, or State from interfering with the life or property of the individual. In other words, Friedman relies on utilitarian argument and Rothbard relies on the so-called natural law. And yet they both hold that the individual’s liberty is of prime importance when considering the presence of the State, therefore they are both libertarian. In the same way, by assuming that God, rather than Rothbard’s Natural Law, demands that no person “steal,” or “murder,” and by holding that the individual in the abstract is more important that the undefinable “collective,” we too want to stake a claim on the term “libertarian.”
To summarize the above paragraph:
-Friedman is a Consequentialist Libertarian
-Rothbard is a Natural Law Libertarian
-And we are Reformed Libertarians
Leaving aside the Consequentialist argument for the remainder of this essay, we find that there are many ways in which our libertarianism is of similar flavor to the heroic Murray Rothbard. In fact, aside from the gap between our foundation (ours Scripture, his the Thomist [although Rothbard was agnostic] and empiricist natural law), we discover that we are remarkably close on a majority of issues! It is for this reason that on this site (reformedlibertarian.com), we cite him quite often. See here for more on our view of Murray Rothbard.
At this point, it is clear what we mean by “Reformed” (Five Solas and TULIP) and it is becoming more apparent that by “libertarian” we mean: no person can initiate coercion against another individual or his property. But how is the latter view justified and how does civil government fit into this? Given that we are Scripturalists, we must look to the Bible as the source of our claim that an individual or group should not murder or steal from another individual or group. It is surely there. All my readers have no doubt read the Ten Commandments. The precept “Thou shalt not steal” presupposes private property and the precept “Thou shalt not murder” presupposes the right to life. It is not difficult in the least to see that the Hebrew nation was a wonderful model of a Constitutional Republic, especially compared to the barbarous nations which existed during the same time. In fact, we agree wholeheartedly with the Psalmist in the 19th chapter when he declares that the Law of God is perfect!
But this presents a problem. If we say “thou shalt not steal,” we must also say “thou shalt not commit adultery.” And if we, for example, hold that the role of government is to enforce the entire Ten Commandments we are not libertarians in the Rothbardian sense, but rather, we are Christian Reconstructionists. In fact, this is where the Reconstructionists hammer their point home: “why do you only seek to hand over some of the law to the civil government? Who are you to ‘pick and choose?’” If it is true that the Ten Commandments are the basis for law in society, then by what authority are we to order the government to respond to theft issues and not issues of “honoring thy Father and Mother” or even homosexuality? Is the latter not a grievously sinful activity? Truly to attempt such a position is to play games with Scripture, a big problem to be sure.
It appears then, at this point, that we must therefore be Rushdoonyites, Reconstructionists! But we do not hold that the moral and judicial Old Covenant laws in their entirety be enforced by government today. Clearly we are not Reconstructionists. So what is the solution?
The solution lies, as alluded to above, in our understanding of the way God deals with his people throughout history: Covenants. By explaining where we stand on the Covenant, as opposed to the Reconstructionists, we will have a better understanding of what it means to be a Reformed Libertarian.
We agree with D.A. Carson who notes in his commentary on Matthew that Christ “presents himself as the eschatological goal of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance.” We also affirm with Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum in their recent book Kingdom Through Covenant (KTC) that “the new covenant supercede[s] the previous covenants… [b]y fulfilling them, i.e., by bringing to pass what those previous covenants revealed, anticipated, and even predicted through various patterns, types, and instruction.” (Emphasis in original –CJE)
We will quote KTC at length here:
“…our Lord is presented as the new covenant head, who in his person and work is greater than than Adam by undoing what Adam did and thus winning for us the new creation; as the true seed and offspring of Abraham, who brings blessings to the nations by his cross work [sic]; as the true Israel, fulfilling all that she failed to be; and as David’s greater son, who rules the nations and the entire creation as King of kings and Lord of lords.”
“…we, as new covenant believers, must view and apply the previous biblical covenants to ourselves in light of Christ, to whom each of the previous covenants pointed and who fulfills every aspect of them completely.”
Whereas most CT advocates say that the law is divided into moral, civil, and ceremonial law and therefore only the first type applies today, the Reconstructionists also wish to apply the second as well. As a proponent of NCT, I hold that the law as a whole was fulfilled completely and therefore we are not under any type of OT law. Rather, it was all intended to point to Christ who sums it all up in Himself. Moral Law: We obey the ethical commands of God today because we are to be more like Christ, not because it is necessary to be a member of the covenant community as CT teaches. Civil Law: We look to Christ as our King and “Governor” who reigns over His kingdom and enforcing the law spiritually, as opposed to the State of Israel which previously enforced the law physically. Ceremonial Law: We look to Christ who has once and for all members of the Covenant (all believers/the elect) sacrificed Himself for our purity and atonement.
In the New Covenant, God has written his “law upon our hearts” and it is no longer the State of Israel which convicts us but rather, as Romans 2:15 notes, it is our conscience (or the Holy Spirit) which bears witness, our “thoughts accuse or even excuse” us. When it comes to issues of the law then, the New Covenant is such that we deal directly with God in our ethical and unethical activities. The Ten Commandments applied today then, are dealt with by God and the Holy Spirit. Christ is our ethical standard and the consequences for being disobedient to that ethical standard was paid for on the cross by Jesus. When we sin, we have an advocate who pleads to God on our behalf (1 John 2).
Since therefore we hold that Christ is our ethical standard (we are to be Holy like Him) and he actively fulfilled the “moral law” of the OT, we can from this understand and apply the propositional commands of ethics. But we do not look to the law first, we look first to Christ. It from here, we begin to understand the role of a civil government and a civil law today. A civil law only makes sense within its kingdom and since Christ, who is the fulfillment of the old covenant, is the King of the Kingdom of Heaven, we certainly cannot hold that the Mosaic Law should be applied today. The Mosaic law pointed to Christ! Its purpose has been fulfilled. It is therefore inappropriate to declare that an earthly kingdom ought to apply to itself what was intended to be applied to Christ. This is the heart of our argument. Of course, for Reconstructionists who hold to Dominion Theology and the Kingdom of God here on earth, how could they not hold that the Mosaic Law should be applied today? This differentiation of the nature of the covenant is truly the source of the difference between the Reconstructionist and the Reformed Libertarian.
However, the question still remains: what law should be applied by earthly governments today? We answer this by noting that the ethical stipulations, the commandments that God has given, are applicable to every individual worldwide, regardless of class, nationality, gender. All are on equal footing before the commands of God. Nobody gets special privilege. No one is allowed to sin. No one is allowed to steal, neither the citizen nor a group of people calling themselves the State. No one is allowed to take from one group and give to another. No one may murder another person. Neither the citizen in violent rage nor the State in immoral wars. Indeed God’s objective ethics apply to every group. It is not right for the poor man to commit adulterous actions, and neither is it appropriate for the politician. No human being is justified in committing homosexual actions or getting drunk. For these are the stipulations of God. As the judge, he will appropriate his wrath to all. To those under Adam, wrath still awaits them. For those under the head of Christ, wrath was applied to Christ on the cross.
All unethical activity will be judged by God. Is there any unethical action that should be given consequence here and now? Certainly. But it is should now be evident that the law in civil society should not applied today on the simple basis that the action is “unethical,” that is, it breaks the commands of God. Taking hold of the Biblical assumption that every individual has a Divinely imputed right to his life, person, and property, it follows that no other person can justly breach this right. Whereas we hold that ethics are dealt with by God, when a person breaches the individual rights of man to his life, person or property, it is ipso facto that coercive aggression has taken place and it is here that the civil crime is committed. That is to say, an ethical crime is only a civil crime if it initiates coercion or aggression against another. We hold that civil law today must be applied on the basis of coercion. If one curses God, God will surely punish that man. But if man steals the bread of another, the victim may use coercion, or hire another to use coercion on the victim’s behalf, to get that bread back. This “hired other” has throughout history been the role filled by the civil magistrate: the authority in society which is allowed to use just coercion. The thief must be charged for a crime. Therefore, the law in society is that which concerns the initiated coercion of one man against another. By coercive aggression, we also mean breaches in contract and fraud (a separate post could perhaps make this more clear).
If ever there was a role of government it is precisely that: to punish the one who breaches the rights of another man.
If an unethical action is committed which does not require coercion to bring about justice, is there a consequence? We have already mentioned that God deals with the sins of a man individually, when they concern no other person. But what about, for example, adultery? What if a man cheats on his wife with a prostitute? There was here no coercion and therefore no coercion can be used to bring about justice on the evil man. It is true that God will deal with the individual for his sins, but it is also true that God has given the church tools to deal with these situations through various means of church discipline but not coercion. The church should deal with this man and support the wife. But it is outside the role of the Church to coerce against this man. In this way, there is a separation between (the role of) “Church and State.” So therefore, because it is the nature of a government to coerce, so it is that a crime of coercion is civilly illegal. To summarize, we might put forth the following suggestion:
-Morality: concerning God and the individual’s heart and dealt with by God the Spirit (the standard here is God’s holiness)
-Ethics: concerning God, the individual’s coercive and noncoercive actions and dealt with by God and the Church non-coercively (the Standard here is the commands of God)
-(Civil) Law or crime: concerning God, the individual’s coercive actions, and the coerced victim. Dealt with by God and (those acting in the role of) government.
It is now clear what is meant by “Reformed Libertarianism.” The principles naturally flow into a more complete application which can be expressed in central banking, wars, health care, taxation, etc. As one can see, our applied libertarianism is greatly consistent with the theory of Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Tom Woods, and Lew Rockwell. But we rest on solid ground, rather than the sinking sand of human authority. Briefly, let us look at a couple more things.
Rothbardian Libertarianism
Rothbard held to natural law. His natural law told him that man owns himself and that he may not breach the life or property of another individual. He was an private property anarchist (anarcho-capitalism). Based on his natural law, it was not possible for the State as an institution to exist. Yes, law, but not the state is allowed. Many people think that anarchy means without law. But it does not. Anarchy means without a ruler. This is vital. To see what we think about anarchy, click here.
We agree with Rothbard that law exists, and also that the State breaches our principles of justice. Our principles rest on a different foundation than Rothbard’s. But the logic from the point of the principle of individual rights is the same. Therefore, we agree that the role of punishment against crime can be adequately be undertaken by an organization, called government (or whatever), that relies on service fees like any other business. That is to say, we do not believe that the State as a taxing or private institution must exist in order for a just society to thrive. In fact, we believe that the presence of the State could never produce a just society because A) it’s nature is unjust and B) sin prevents perfection here on earth.
Rothbard, as a libertarian anarchist, therefore believed that society includes law, but not the State. Law enforcement requires coercion, but such a coercion can be undertaken by a free market agency or by the just reaction of the victim or someone by his appointment. Here is a crucial Rothbard quote:
For it should never be forgotten that a libertarian society does not mean the total absence of coercion but only the absence of coercion against noncriminals. Those who invade the rights of others by violence deserve their proper check and punishment by the force of law.
Rothbard’s problem though is that he couldn’t justify the secondary coercion which was intended to punish the criminal. Why is coercion just when applied to the criminal? He can’t justify that. But the Christian can. Where does the punisher gain this authority? As Gordon Clark points out in his essay on The Philosophy of Politics, this responsive coercion is authorized by God, because he is the source of rights and the source of justice. For Rothbard, the individual’s rights were inalienable, that is, they could not be separated justly. Rothbard could not show by natural law that “punishment” for a crime gave authorization for a individual or government to breach those inalienable rights. For the Christian, rights are alienable by God, who is the source of those rights, or by justice, by which we mean by definition that the individual’s activities have warranted a separation. But justice stems from God the final judge, without whom it cannot be rationally defended. Therefore, we say with Paul in Romans 13 (our take is here) that the governing authority (the coercive body, whether free market, monarchical, or democratic) gains their authority by God. But regardless of the system of government (anarchical or otherwise), the only just action it can engage in are those regarding a breach in the life, person, or property of an individual. (Meaning that 99.9% of the US Federal Government’s activities are beyond its authority and even the .1% where it is justified should more pragmatically be handled at the local level).
So, should there be a role in society that punishes criminal activity? We and Rothbard say yes. Is there a Biblical mandate that a single institution create a monopoly on this role? No. If so, the Christian would not doubt have to support a one-world government. Therefore, we agree that the presence of the State is not important, only the enforcement of the just law is important. We should aim for a free market in government services!
(Regarding the presence of the State today: we relish in the fact that we find vindication in the Calvinist doctrine which teaches that there are two wills in God: preceptive and decretive. To apply these quickly, God’s precept is that man not commit theft, and his decree is that States exist. This is in the same sense as when we say that God says that man is not to murder, and yet he has decreed the actions of Hitler and the death of Christ. See our take on Romans 13 for more.)
Natural Law
Can we discover principles of liberty in “Natural Law?” We answer in the negative. We applaud natural law’s point that it is not legislation which defines law, but rather, law exists previous to people and independent to legislatures. However, we deny that, as a theory, the natural lawyers are able to establish what is necessary to maintain a free society. Aside from the fact that these “natural rights and laws” are not, contrary to the claims of the Lockeans, very “self-evident” (if they were, perhaps there would be far more advocates for the theory), it is also not logically sound. For even if the philosopher could show by nature that every person has an ownership claim to his property, could he really show that it is wrong for another to interfere with the man and his property? To use David Hume, can an ought be derived from an is? Surely not! We need revelation, not empiricism, to establish the principles of justice and law.
Reconstruction
This post as a whole calls for a follow up to deal with Reconstructionism more fully. It is clear where we are in disagreement. However, perhaps I exaggerate, but not by much, when I say that there is hardly a Christian view of polity that has been more misunderstood and falsely accused than Reconstructionism. They do well in defending themselves, and although I think they are wrong on some key issues of principle, I cannot but help be influenced and inspired by their work. Of recent note is Joel McDurmon, author of Restoring America: One County at a Time.
Many Christians say they are totalitarian. This is absurd. Whoever claims they are totalitarian must also believe that Israel the State was a totalitarian government. But if you believe that Israel was totalitarian, than you must ask why Samuel warned against Israel voting to submit to an earthly king. Totalitarianism means that the leader sits above the law. But the Reconstructionists believe that all men, even the leaders, must submit to the law as codified in the Mosaic Covenant.
Are they libertarians? No, especially not by our definition and understanding. Do they believe that it is their system which, compared to all other systems provides the most amount of liberty? Yes they do. For they believe one can only find true freedom in obeying God. Which, naturally, I agree with. Our only difference is what constitutes obeying God.
Are RJ Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North, tyrannical monsters? No. If any Christian believes this, he misunderstands the essence of Christian Reconstruction. I seek not to defend a view which I don’t hold, and don’t believe is right. But I do want every critic to be honest and charitable, learning from others for what they have to offer. In many ways, the Christian Reconstructionists are more “libertarian” (that is, more liberty-minded) than the most Christian leaders today. Whereas most on the Christian right are pro war, pro drug war, pro Federal Reserve, pro speech laws, pro gun registration, pro federally initiated taxation, pro federal standardized education, etc (I could go on and on), the Christian Reconstructionists dismiss all these things even at the State and local level. So to call them big-government is one of the most distorted statements possible. They are more “limited government” than most Christians. If the non-libertarian heard their views not pertaining to the mosaic law, they would probably put them under the category: anti-government extremists. Which of course is also absurd. But I digress.
Not liking the implications of a doctrine such as Reconstruction is no reason to falsely accuse it. I read American Vision everyday. I am a member of Gary North’s site. No, I don’t adhere to all that they teach, but I probably don’t believe everything you do either.
I considering them friends. I hope they would do the same to me. They like Ron Paul (I had someone tell me that Rick Santorum best exemplifies the Christian Reconstructionist position –if I told this to the folks at American Vision or Chalcedon, they wouldn’t be able to answer that accusation… they’d be too out of breath from laughing so hard) and even Murray Rothbard for strategic and coalition-building purposes. I therefore hope they could see me in the same sense.
Eschatology
Contrary to Reconstructionism and its post millennial adherence, we do not rely on a specific outlook of eschatology. Although I would certainly say that the so-called “inaugurated eschatology” finds great comfort here. I am an amillennialist who sees the Kingdom of God as a heavenly kingdom and emphasize the “already not yet” aspect of the Kingdom.
Economics
The study of economics is separate from libertarianism as a political theory. Libertarianism is prescription, it tells what should be. Economics is a descriptive science, it tells how man acts naturally. We adhere to the rationalist economic method of the Austrian School (Ludwig von Mises, etc)
Conclusion
Well, how’s that for an overview? Perhaps there are now more questions than answers. I have no doubt that I did not answer everything, and not all holes were plugged. There will be questions and comments I am sure. I look forward to doing a followup and perhaps some updates as well. Do all our contributors agree with the above? I would doubt it. Some might. But it is not necessary. This is the vision of the site but there is far more that unites all of us than distinguishes us. What do I think of the Presbyterians who are not Reconstructionists and neither a full Rothbardian-esque libertarian? I love them! Again, I am more unity minded than divided. Example: RC Sproul Jr. That guy is pretty libertarian! Go follow him on Twitter. And follow me too. I’m done typing now.
Any correspondence can be done in the comment section, but for conversation, I would ask that you email me: cjay@reformedlibertarian.com. I will more likely see it that way. I’m also, as always, looking for more writers.
