A Very Brief Comparison of Libertarian and Theonomist Utopias

This is not in the least bit exhaustive. I merely wish make a key point in comparison and contrast between the ideal world from a Libertarian standpoint and an ideal world from a Theonomist standpoint.

Brief Definitions:

Theonomy

Theonomy is far to deep a subject to treat adequately here. There are many brands. For our purposes, I will boil this down to any political theory which seeks to legislate Christian morality. There are Theonomists who wish to impose the Law of Moses word for word. There are others who see the Law of Moses as outmoded and have a “New Testament” moral code, but still seek to legislate that moral code. I think my analysis below covers both. Most of the Theonomists I know may not label themselves Theonomists, but do fall into that second group. Rather, I would say that, with very very few exceptions, almost every Christian I know falls into that second group of Theonomists.

Libertarians

I have covered Libertarianism rather thoroughly in my previous post. There can be many reasons to hold the principals of Libertarianism. In this article, I’m specifically referring to Christian Libertarians, which is a term that perhaps requires definition on its own. A Christian Libertarian is one who holds Libertarianism because he believes that it is the political philosophy that most adequately fits with Biblical principles. The full defense of my belief in such assertion is still in the works. But to sum up as briefly as possible, it boils down to the concept of God ownership. God alone has a greater ownership claim on my life, liberty, and property than I do. I can rebelliously reject his ownership claim and keep it for myself, but that is between him and me. Regardless of whether I submit to his ownership, no other person has an ownership claim on my life, liberty, or property. Similarly, I have no ownership claim on another’s life, liberty, or property. My neighbor is free to choose for himself whether he will submit to God’s ownership. Since I am to love my neighbor as myself, and I would prefer that my neighbor allow me to make my own choice as to whether to follow the Lord (not that he wouldn’t be free to try to persuade me, but that he cannot force me to choose one way or another), I leave him free to make that choice as well.

Most Christians think that a Libertarian society would be a morally reprobate world. I hope to show below how it would actually be better than a Theonomist world.

Continue reading A Very Brief Comparison of Libertarian and Theonomist Utopias

Advertisements

The Libertarian Argument

In this video, the narrator discusses what he calls the “Libertarian Argument” and why he finds it “particularly unconvincing as an argument.”

The Libertarian Argument

This is what he defines as the “Libertarian Argument”:

“The government has no right to tell people what they can or can’t do in the privacy of their own homes, places of business or public spaces.”

Those of you who have interacted with Libertarianism on some level, I want you to tell me: is this the “Libertarian Argument”? No. It is not. Sadly, I fear that most of you, even those of you who consider yourselves to be Libertarians, might have answered “Yes.” I think this is a critical problem, and one I’m hoping to correct.

Continue reading The Libertarian Argument

Matthew 7:1-6

Matthew 7:1-6 says

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”

This portion of scripture is very often referred to. Usually it is cited by unbelievers or those who wish to rationalize their behavior as a way of saying leave me alone. Christians are likely to rebut that they are misusing this passage. It says that we’ll be judged with the same standard we judge others, so the call here is to judge by God’s standard rather than our own made up standard, since that’s the standard we want to be judged by, right?

While it’s true that we ought to seek God’s standard of holiness for our lives, we also ought to remember that we don’t really want to be judged by how well we adhere to it. None of us could survive such a judgment. Rather, we plead Christ’s obedience on our behalf as the basis for being judged righteous.

But even more to the point here is that such analysis does not fit with what comes after. Notice there are three proverbial sayings here, which I believe to all be related to this subject of our judgment in some way. I’ve boiled the three down to what I believe to be the lesson of each, and I believe it is the last, not the first, that should command our attention.

Continue reading Matthew 7:1-6

Gay is Not the New Black – Are We Completely Missing the Point?

This article is a bullet point rebuttal of this one: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/19/gay-is-not-the-new-black/. You’ll need to be familiar with it as I’m just going to refer to portions of it by headings and referring to his arguments. I’m not going to reproduce any of it here for the sake of time.

General Objection

On the whole, we’re confusing the issue here. The issue is not primarily about defining a new minority group who should now get special treatment. Neither is the issue about the moral right or wrongness of homosexuality or calling homosexuality marriage. The issue is over whether everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right (civilly) to do as he pleases, so long as he does not harm his neighbor through aggression. Does the government have the right to restrict private behavior that does not harm other people? Libertarians say no.

Perhaps we’re looking at this the wrong way. It’s not so much that gay marriage is a good thing that the goverment should promote. It’s not that gays are people who should now get special sanction or treatment. I hope that I would never have suggested that. Rather, it is that the government, by being the authority that sanctions marriage, is usurping the God given role of the church. Anything we can do to remove the government’s grip on marriage and return it to the domain of the church would honor God. What homosexuals do and what they call it, is irrelevant to what the church defines as marriage, and so long as this generation is crooked and perverse, it matters not what government calls marriage. It does nothing to distort the reality and the standard. Those should be held up by the church.

So in terms of allowing freedom of religion – the right to choose whether to obey God.
And in terms of allowing freedom of choice – the right to do as you please so long as you are not harming another.
Then I support loosening, if not completely removing, the government’s grip on marriage.
Allowing marriage licenses for homosexuals to marry same sex partners is a loosening of the government’s grip, and is akin to Moses issuing certificates of divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts.
I don’t promote this so we can re-define marriage. I don’t promote this so we can sanction sin.
I promote this so the church can return as the authority for such definition and such censure of wrong.

The government should only be concerned with providing justice to victims of crimes and making sure that our freedoms remain intact.

And while homosexuality IS a choice unlike the race into which you were born, being a sinner is not. We are all born as sinners, and without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, we are indeed lost. Expecting dead men to behave like live men simply because the government tells them to is foolish. The church should hold out to the gospel and those who believe will fall under his authority and receive his grace to renounce their sin.

The government redefining marriage will cheapen it. That much is certain. But like when the Federal Reserve prints fiat money, all it will cheapen is the meaning of the government issued marriage certificate. It can’t touch the standard of true marriage that the church and Christian couples can hold forth!

Specific Rebuttal Points

Continue reading Gay is Not the New Black – Are We Completely Missing the Point?

The Moral Police State

I somewhat addressed this objection in my previous post, but I had a further thought on this. The objection in question is “Without the Law of God, we have no guide or basis for what the government would outlaw.”

I sincerely disagree. It forgets the purpose of criminal justice. The supporters of Theonomy would charge that the purpose of criminal law is to uphold a standard of right and wrong for the sake of that standard. This is wrong. The purpose of criminal law is to provide justice for those who have been victimized.

How do we know if we should outlaw X if we don’t have the Law of God to tell us so? Simple. Is there a victim? If there’s a victim, then there is someone who needs the government to carry out justice for them.

Continue reading The Moral Police State

On Whether Homosexual Parents are Harmful to their Children

Disclaimer

You’re not going to like what I have to say. Please read with an open mind and a grain of salt. I do not mean to offend anyone with this or to cause division or controversy. I simply want to speak the truth. If you have questions or concerns, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you.

Introduction

The assertion is often made by defenders of the traditional family to the effect of “studies have shown that kids who are raised by homosexual parents are at a disadvantage when compared to kids raised by their mother and father.” They use this as an argument against gay marriage and gay adoption in a sort of “for the children” argument.

I always cringe when I hear this because it is a deplorable appeal to authority and an attempt to simply manufacture credibility. So I wanted to find out whether these claims actually had any basis in reality. It aggravates me to see the world successfully asserting that Conservatives on the right ignore facts and live in this made up fantasy world. It aggravates me so much because I find it to be true! I think Christians should have the highest regard for truth at all costs, if for no other reason than because we have supreme confidence in God’s Word. Or do we!?

When did we stop embracing the truth and start fearing it? Where is our faith in God that we are so afraid that some truth of science might contradict what he says? Our view of God and his Word is far too low!

So when it comes to these studies, I’m left with the following questions: What studies? When were they done? What was their methodology? What was their sampling method? Their sample size? Their margin of error? We need more information if we’re going to determine whether there is any worth in what has been said.

Continue reading On Whether Homosexual Parents are Harmful to their Children