Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

This debate seems to have popped up around me lately. In my last blog post, I made the point that although I am Christian (Reformed and Complementarian) and a Libertarian, if someone wants to have an abortion, that is their right. I don’t condone the action and don’t ask me to participate, but I won’t stop them.

Dr. Albert Mohler would have difficulty with that position. For those not in the know, Dr. Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology. In his recent podcast, The Briefing, Dr. Mohler makes the following relevant observations regarding the death of David Kock.

“The important thing to recognize here is that the traditional conservative movement in the United States has consisted of three parts for the last several decades. That would include big business and corporate interests and then the libertarian movement and then Christian conservatives. Those three have been necessary components of that larger conservative movement, although the worldview of those three components is not exactly the same.”

“In the news story on David Koch's death in the Wall Street Journal, the reporters write, "Although he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Koch used his fortune to support conservative causes such as lower taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations." It also notes, "He was the Libertarian Party's 1980 vice-presidential candidate." Again, the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Movement. And here's where we need to recognize something very, very important. David Koch was often identified as a conservative. But the Wall Street Journal says even as he was a conservative on fiscal matters, he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage."

"This is where the Christian worldview reminds us that when you are looking at the dignity of human life and the structures of human life given to us in creation that allow for human happiness and human flourishing, then you're not a conservative if you argue for or allow for the revolution and rejection of both human dignity when it comes to the life of the unborn and the dignity and sanctity of marriage. My final observation based upon a biblical worldview is this. If you do not recognize the full measure of human dignity and if you do not recognize the sanctity of marriage as given to us by the Creator, then there will be virtually nothing left to conserve, and that includes free enterprise.” (Emphasis added).

(For the entire podcast or a transcript of the relevant portion, I will provide this link:

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19  

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19, part IV.

The purpose of my blogs is to express my views and not as a forum for debate, but a reader also questioned my position as it relates to Matthew 18. (Which I will ask the reader to review on his own- it is simply too long to reprint for my purposes here).

I have long realized that there may be some confusion or perceived inconsistency between my beliefs. It was always my intention to address the intersection of my faith and my politics. Now is as good a time as any.

I cannot compare my bona fides to those of Dr. Mohler. His opinions are his and they are well-reasoned. I concede that Dr. Mohler is correct that Libertarianism may not align with traditional Christianity. I can, however, raise what I feel to be a cogent and persuasive argument for my position. Libertarianism and traditional, conservative Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

I begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith of which I am familiar as a former Presbyterian (and perhaps soon to be Reformed Baptist). I recognize that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not as persuasive as the Bible, but since it is based upon Reformed biblical precepts, I believe that it provides a sound introduction to my reasoning.

Chapter V, Paragraph 1 provides that “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” (footnotes omitted although I encourage you to check the footnotes for the Biblical texts that support this and the following citations).

I am completely unable to do anything without the prior action of God. This does not relieve me of free-will, nor does this relieve me of my responsibility to spread the Gospel. Furthermore, Chapter III provides that “some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.” Now, if you are not a believer in the Reformed concept of pre-destination, stop reading now and we will just continue to disagree. (I will not debate Reformed theology when many theologians more capable than I can make the position more clearly than I).

If you are a Reformed-kind of person, you can see where I am going. I cannot control what another person is going to do. I can only spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I maintain my principles and share them, but I cannot force them on you. Only God can convict the heart of mankind. I am not responsible for your sin unless I propogate that sin. If you are ordained to accept God’s Word, it is solely through the actions of God.

Assuming that the reader is inclined to accept, if not fully agree, with my position, the reader may raise another question: Why wouldn’t I support laws that would further the Kingdom?

As I see it, there is one very dangerous consequence to this action. You cannot legislate God. It would change the government of these United States into a Theocracy. For those of you who believe this is a good idea, you must have forgotten about the Old Testament. David and Solomon, both held up as the best of the Kings fell short of a Godly ideal. It didn’t work out so great then… why would today be any better? Short answer- it would not. Man is totally incapable of following God’s Word and we would very quickly fall into the risk of false idols and teachings.

Thus, I believe that Libertarianism is the best and most consistent response for me. Christians continue to spread the Good News. God works in the hearts of all. I cannot control, but I can use my God-given talents to persuade. You are free to take the actions that you feel led to take- less government involvement in the day-to-day life of everyone. And in the meantime, I look forward to the perfect Rule of God in Heaven.

The Christian Attorney and Free Speech

The Christ-professing attorney may soon become extinct.  Once again, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is recommending a change to the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Yes, attorneys have Rules of Professional Conduct.

The proposed amendment "is intended to make it professional misconduct for a lawyer, in the practice of law, to intentionally manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination."  This proposal was made by the Disciplinary Board in the belief that, "it is in the best interests of the profession and the public to amend its rules to formally disapprove the conduct of any lawyer" who engages in such conduct.  In a curious turn, the Board continues that this "does not limit the ability of the lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16." 

Now, I must admit- I'm a libertarian kind-of guy (person?). I want to be free to live my life, and I want you to be free to live yours. I am pro-life, but if you are not- that is your right. I disagree, but I won't stop you. All I ask is that you don't ask me to participate.

I am, what I am now informed, is a cis-gendered male. Fine. I prefer "male." I don't really care how you identify. You may torture the language in your choice of pronoun and I will do my best to accommodate you. 

I am also a God-inspired-the-whole-Bible believing Christian who affirms that "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, paragraph 3).  I have QUILTBAG (I prefer this acronym over the LGBT...) friends and acquaintances. I love them as fellow humans, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. I also have cis-gendered friends, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. In these cases, I may not- in good faith- represent them.  My life is already one of sin- but I don't need to flaunt these before God.

The Disciplinary Board wants me to take my faith and sacrifice it on the altar of secularism. Or at least not profess my faith too loudly, lest it make someone feel harassed or discriminated against. This seems like letting the camel's nose under the tent. As an attorney, I know there is a difference between a rule and the interpretation of the rule. Once my ability to express myself as a Christian is restricted, it will soon be gone.

Thessalonica and Mechanicsburg

The church I have been attending (I'm not yet a member- something to be corrected) features expository preaching. We have been moving verse by verse through Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians.  Paul had established a church in Thessalonica and wrote this message somewhere in the AD 50's- one of his earlier epistles.  Apparently there was some confusion amongst the Believers that required the instruction of Paul, along with Silas and Timothy.

Paul encourages these new Christians to "Be at peace among yourselves," and to "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone."  (I Thes 5: 13 and 15; ESV).

Recently I had a discussion with a client regarding divorce. In Pennsylvania there are two types of divorce: fault and no-fault. A divorce based on fault achieves the same end as a no-fault divorce, but serves to enrich the attorneys. There are also two types of no-fault divorce: one where the parties co-operate and the other where the parties do not co-operate. Again, the end result is the same, but a non-co-operative divorce enriches the attorneys. I also posited another way- one that involved personal harm. It was meant- and received- as a joke.

Divorce is never pleasant. There is always some level of regret and some level of wrong-doing by both parties. And there is always the desire to repay "evil for evil."  Look around and you will see the attorneys that thrive on repaying "evil for evil." This is where less mature Christians or non-Believers will trot out the old "eye for an eye" excuse. But we must read the Scriptures in the manner and method they were written.

  

"But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

(Ex 21: 23-25; ESV)

What was the purpose of this law? To provide definitive retribution to eliminate evil and promote the holiness of God. Remember, these laws were given to Moses by God- they were not capricious. Furthermore, the goal was retribution- not revenge. Verse 26 shows that this law only applied to the free Israelite- if the wrong was perpetrated on a slave, the slave was to be set free.

As Christians and citizens of the US, we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law. Instead, we are called to follow the second half of verse 15, "always seek to do good to one another and everyone." God, help me to remember to practice law as in I Thessalonians and not as in Exodus.

The Moment of Truth

Among the books that I have recently read, of great interest to me is The Moment of Truth by Dr. Steven J. Lawson.  I had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Lawson preach- and I do mean pleasure.  He is the founder and president of OnePassion Ministries and the executive editor of Expositor magazine (remember them?) and host of the Institute for Expository Preaching.  With his bona fides established, I heartily recommend his writings, preaching and anything else to which he may lend his name.

The book itself is a collection of sermons, organized in three parts: The Reality of Truth, The Rejection of Truth, and The Reign of Truth.

Since you are reading this, you probably recognize The Reality of Truth.  But if I may digress, I was recently exposed to this graphic:

https://chrisharrison.net/projects/bibleviz/BibleVizArc7small.jpg" /

Taken from www.ChrisHarrison.net, "The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc - the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect."

Imagine the number of authors, the level of education, the length of time over which the Bible was written, and the inter-relatedness of the most intricate details.  While there are many fine apologists with great proofs for the existence of God- to me this is one of the most stunning proofs.  (And that includes my "Rice Krispies" theory).

But, returning to Dr. Lawson, the most interesting part to me was The Rejection of Truth.  Dr. Lawson thoroughly analyzes the movement from Science v. God to Anti-science v. God.  Secular society is no longer interested in facts.  Instead of truth, we hear phrases such as "social construct" and "your truth" which may be different from "my truth."  But where have we heard this before?  Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38).  Even in law school, I was told, "Truth is whatever you can convince a judge is truth."  But as Believers, we may deny certain aspects, but we know that Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6).  And therein lies the victory, The Reign of the Truth.

White Nationalists and Orthodox Jews

White Nationalists.  Neo-Nazis.  Alt-Right.  Their views are repugnant.  I hope all of you reading this post agree with me.  I don't want to hear the hate they spew.  And if they all just "disappeared," I'd be fine with that.

  

So if Facebook wants to take down their posts, fine.  Same with YouTube.  Same with Snapchat, Twitter or any other social media platform.  Deny their permits for marches and rallies.  After all, who needs them?  I'm sure 99% of humanity would agree.

Orthodox Jews.  Their New York communities are the epi-center of a severe measles epidemic.  We can discuss the value or dangers of vaccines, and most of us believe that vaccination is valuable.  So as long as their measles stay in their community, I'd be fine with that.

So if local officials want to fine them for spreading the disease amongst the general populace- why should we complain?

Therein lays the problem.  It is easy to demonize groups with which we disagree.  Racism is an easy one because their opinions are reprehensible.  Orthodox Jews are easy because they are a minority of a minority.  If a few people are deprived of their Right to Express their views, as long as the majority approves, well, democracy is served.

Except democracy is not served.

When Americans start turning on other Americans, we need to worry.  These are easy examples because the supression of their views is popular.  That is not to say that we must agree with their views.  But to silence or force majority opinions on others is not the way.  For the racist, the marketplace of ideas will win.  For the Orthodox Jew or others opposed to vaccines- that is the right to the self-determination.  When we start shutting down opposition, we must begin to worry that our "opposition" may be next.  When they came for the Jews....

Context is Everything

I recently listened to a sermon where the pastor cited a verse from a Christian inspirational calendar.  "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."  A beautiful sentiment- especially for those prosperity preachers.  But there is a problem- that phrase comes from Satan in his temptation of Jesus.  (Matthew 4:9).  You see, if you don't know the context, then you may misunderstand the true meaning. 

    

The importance of context has really been driven home to me over the past few weeks.  You see, I have become a bit of a Reformation Geek.  And one of the tenets that has been driven into me is "God alone is Lord of the conscience."  You find it in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX (or XXII depending), paragraph 2 and you find it in The Baptist Confession of 1689, Chapter 21, paragraph 2.  Again, this sounds great- God is the Lord of my conscience- and I can do whatever I feel God is leading me to do.  

But then we come to context. In this case, that phrase is only part of the first sentence.  "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to His Word, or not contained in it."  (Baptist Confession.  The Westminster Confession substitutes, "or beside it in matters of faith or worship" for the underlined clause).  In other words, we must pray to God for guidance and rely on our conscience only where the teachings and rulings of humankind are contrary to the Word of God or in some way are not clear.

   

Now, this means that you have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God- and I'll get into that in a subsequent post.

Law and Luddites

An email I received recently made reference to a decision handed down by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  I don't normally read these decisions; they have no application to my practice.  But somehow this one struck a chord.     

It seems that a town court justice resigned while under formal charges for failing to fulfill various judicial, administrative and financial responsibilities.  This is a reported case, and for those of you who really care, you can look up the details.  I will leave the judge unnamed because there is no need to embarrass him anymore than he has already been embarrassed.   

The Commission cites three charges, but lists four.  Of interest to me are the failure of the judge to monitor his official court email account or respond to emails received by that account for more than three years, AND failing for at least one year to activate or utilize a computer and software provided to him by the Office of Court Administration for the purpose of facilitating the issues raised in the first two counts.     

The judge at issue was admitted to the bar in 1977 and took office in 1990.  In all honesty, he probably did not have a background with computers and their use.  His unfamiliarity with computers in conjunction with his age made their use intimidating.  Besides, the old way probably worked well for him.     

Times have changed.  My cellphone has more memory and computing power than my first three computers- COMBINED.  It is now incumbent upon all of us to "keep up with the times."  I'm sure that I've caused some consternation because I like to mail letters to counsel and the court rather than email or e-file.  I keep copies of my document saved on my computer and on a separate hard drive.  But I also print out a copy- just in case.  I also have my own anxiety issues over correspondence, no matter how it is transmitted.  Which makes me sympathetic to this judge.  But it doesn't change the underlying fact that I must keep up with the times and do a better job- lest I end up before disciplinary poo-bahs in PA.