Al Mohler doesn't think so: http://wretchednetwork.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/al-mohler-should-christians-become-libertarians-episode-1345/ But is he right? What do the scriptures say?
I listened to his comments earlier today. I should preface by saying that though I do not know a lot about Al Mohler, from what I do know I respect his theology. As a Baptist myself who holds to "Calvinist" beliefs, I know Arminian theology is common in baptist churches, and southern baptist churches in particular. I respect Mohler for standing firm for sovereign grace in a denomination that often doesn't. Nonetheless, I believe he is a better theologian than a political theorist for a number of reasons that I feel he makes very clear in the short clip linked above.
First of all, Mohler implies that libertarians do not preach the gospel. I do not understand this accusation at all. "libertarianism" is not a gospel issue, nor is "conservatism", "liberalism", "neoconservatism" or any other political philosophy. That is not to say that politics are unimportant or that a Christian can hold to any political view he likes and still be consistent with scripture. But, it isn't a gospel issue. I happen to believe modern "conservatism" is wrong, and in some cases (neoconservatism especially) it is downright evil. I certainly believe any type of political philosophy that upholds the State as a positive force in society is at least in some sense evil. I certainly believe that any type of political philosophy that desires to manipulate the State into controlling other people is evil, and a violation of a number of scriptures. It is nonetheless not a gospel issue. That someone holds to an immoral view of the State's role in society does not per say affect how they preach the gospel. At some point it could become a moral issue to a level that is worth separating over (similarly to if someone said homosexuality was OK even after being shown the Bible verses that clearly stay otherwise.) But it still isn't a gospel issue.
That said, I think I see why Mohler is confused on this point. He seems to think that Ayn Randian Objectivism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism. I have seen several libertarians refer to Randian objectivism as a cult, and while I am not super-knowledgeable about it, my understanding is that one must completely agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy to be considered an Objectivist, which would include a fierce anti-theism. If this is what "libertarianism" is than I would agree with Mohler not only that a Christian should not accept it, but that he cannot accept it. Certainly "anti-theist Christian" would be an oxymoron if there ever was one. But, I don't think that definition really follows, and I think many atheists who claim to be libertarians would reject such a definition, let alone accept it.
Furthermore, Mohler claims that all laws are an enforcement of morality, and then argues that libertarians are not truly opposed to legislation of morality. Mohler is correct. Certainly all libertarians, even those of the anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist tradition who want to completely privatize all governing functions, wish to enforce some morality. "Thou shall not steal" is a moral claim. I think libertarians who claim to oppose enforcing morality really just haven't thought it through that much rather than seriously positing this position as a reasonable alternative to the status quo. I doubt anyone who said this would really say murder and theft should be legal. What they really mean is that exclusively religious or exclusively Christian morality should be enforced. I'm sure Mohler would say this is a weak argument, and I agree with him. Morality requires a foundation, and for the Christian that is the Bible. We cannot separate our political philosophy from the Bible. But, even still, we must distinguish between crimes and vices. To not make such a divide would be absurd. Everyone in this debate believes murder should be illegal, and I doubt anyone in this debate wants to make eating too much cake or telling a white lie illegal. This is true even though all Christians would agree that both of these actions are sinful.
The libertarian proposes that the distinction should be based on whether the act in question is "aggressive" or not. Al Mohler hints at this when he posits our position as being "So long as it doesn't harm anybody." But I feel that Mohler's wording (even though this wording is used by some libertarians) is weak. There are all types of actions that are "harmful" that most people would agree shouldn't be illegal. When I visited my grandmother as a child, she would sometimes smoke while I was in the room. One could argue that this action "harmed" me. But few would say it should be illegal, and rightly not. Similarly, I could arguably "harm" a businessowner if I build a business across the street from his dealing in the same type of work. But, again, few would suggest that this action should be illegal. Similarly, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, recreational drug use, and other similar actions can cause "harm". I would agree with Mohler on this point, for a number of reasons that I'm not going to analyze in this post. Even so, these actions are not aggressive any more than my grandmother's smoking or planting a business right across the street from another one. obviously, some of these actions clearly violate scripture while others do not. But, I see no mandate scripturally that every single immoral actions should be regulated by government of any form. By contrast, I do see evidence that the corpus of immoral, harmful actions that should be banned by law are aggressive ones in scriptures like Romans 12:18, which command us to live at peace with all men as much as possible, Matthew 5:9 which tells us to live at peace with all men, Proverbs 3:30 which tells us to not strive with our neighbors if they don't harm us, Luke 6:31 that teaches us to treat others the way we want to be treated, and Deuteronomy 17:14-20, which imposes all of these moral mandates on the State (since they are supposed to follow the Law of God just as we are.)
By contrast, I see nothing in the New Testament that proposes we should try to reform the culture and "Christianize" it. I certainly see no mandate to initiate force against our neighbors in order to impose such a culture.
Some may protest that the Old Testament does indeed have laws that violate the non-aggression principle, such as the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, etc. But, it seems clear to me that these laws are intended specifically for Israel, which was the Old Testament equivalent of the Church. The New Testament equivalent, in my mind, would be that those who engage in these sins should be kicked out of the church if they do not repent.
So, should Christians be libertarians? I don't know, define the term. Al Mohler seems to conflate it with the Libertarian Party and Randian Objectivism. I don't see a good reason why Christians should join the libertarian party and they certainly shouldn't be Objectivists. Furthermore "libertarian" is not a Biblical term, so I would not suggest that Christians should necessarily claim to be one.
Should Christians oppose all forms of statism, including most if not all forms of conservatism? Absolutely. In addition to the above verses which I use to build my case, you also have 1 Samuel 8, which completely condemns the statist model of government, and Deuteronomy 17:14-20 which condemns any violation of God's law by government, which would certainly include taxation (theft) aggressive warfare (murder) and imprisonment of drug users and other non-aggressive "criminals" (kidnapping.) And if this is what it means to be "libertarian" than certainly every Christian should be one.
PS: I just wanted to briefly comment on Mohler's mentioning of abortion and traffic laws. Many libertarians (including myself, defining "libertarian" as "anti-statism" as it is defined in the paragraph above) consider abortion an aggressive act and thus one that should in fact be illegal. As for traffic laws, the libertarian position on traffic laws is that roads should be handled by free enterprise and not that traffic regulations should not exist. And while I would not disagree with Mohler's assertion that a road with absolutely no traffic regulations would be quite chaotic, I'm not sure how Mohler derives this to be a moral issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment