My political philosophy is the same as my philosophy about any other subject. The Bible is the guide to what is right. The Bible says that governing authorities are “agents of God’s wrath” (Romans 13:1-5) sent by God to punish people for evil, “not bear[ing] the sword in vain”. This is the primary (if not the only) legitimate function of government. God is sovereign above all and governments should not assume power that is not given to them by God. Any commandment from God in the Bible should be assumed to be universal unless otherwise stated. God’s directives concerning the punishment of criminals are not exceptions. Psalm 2 talks about how God will pour out his wrath on nations whose rulers want to “cast off the fetters and chains” of God’s laws. Throughout the Bible, minimum requirements of fairness and justice are given by God for the nations to follow, such as the punishment of all murderers, thieves, and the sexually immoral. In addition, there is much wisdom and advice given for rulers in the Bible. These principles do not include exacting justice on foreign nations (unless they violate the attacking nation’s sovereignty). They do not include punishing people for things in their thoughts and hearts (such as hate) because only God is qualified to judge these things. I am not trying to create a theocracy in which people are coerced into joining a particular religion, but only to uphold principles of justice and fairness that come from God and oppose any system that advertises sin, teaches people how to sin, gives people incentives to sin, or hinders Christians from obeying God’s word (particularly in regard to evangelism).
Man-made systems of justice are always flawed because of selfishness. If godly principles are abandoned, the default is “economic benefit”. That is to say, anything is acceptable as long as it benefits the nation as a whole economically. This is based ultimately on selfishness, so any such economic gain is only temporary.
The Bible says that we should obey the laws of the land that we live in, and it condemns lawlessness. The Constitution is the highest law in our land and must be obeyed above all other laws (I am talking about what the Constitution really says, not opinions of courts.) No President, congressman, or judge is above the law. Our elected officials must be held accountable for their actions. Our rights and freedoms are granted to us by God, not government.
Overview of Specific Issues
No one can receive true freedom or true rights by taking them away from someone else. When people start demanding rights that are not given by God, such as abortion rights, it ruins things for everyone. Women who have abortions and doctors who perform them and those who wish to secure the possibility of doing so in the future are in the bondage of sin, until they repent. Unless they repent, they have no freedoms or rights because they are rejecting the freedoms and rights given by God.
God will not tolerate this rebellion against him any more than he would tolerate people sacrificing infants to idols. God did not tell the kings of Israel and Judah to tolerate the murder of babies. He commanded them to tear down those idols. He never said, “Murdering babies is wrong, but there should be no laws against it”.
As long as this goes on, the United States will move closer and closer to a Nazi style government. 45 million babies have been brutally butchered in this country. Compare that to the number of Jews who were killed in Nazi Germany. Jesus prophesied that the hearts of most would grow cold because of lawlessness. This is it. If any form of child abuse should be illegal, abortion should be. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.
How can you expect anyone to take any of our laws seriously if they are so unjust and inconsistently enforced? It seems like every time someone breaks the law, we have to beg the courts to enforce it. I believe in rule by law, not rule by men. Murder is against the law and it should be enforced in every case. The “legalization” of abortion weakens all of our other laws. If a law is not being consistently enforced, then the greater the penalty for breaking that law, the greater the injustice. (Think about this for illegal aliens also.)
Legalizing homosexual marriage is tantamount to subsidizing sodomy and lesbian sex. The government should not encourage people to commit sin. The definition of marriage is also beginning to lose its meaning in this country.
Why should we even think of going to war to with a country like Iraq that is not much worse than we are? Why would we expect God to be on our side?
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can take away property from anyone as long as they can justify it economically. This is the new definition of “public use”. Governments are already using this power to take homes and even churches to sell to businesses because they are more economically profitable. The same Supreme Court Justices who allowed this are also the very same ones in favor of preventing the States from punishing the murderers of the unborn. Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal are beginning to lose their meaning in this country.
Taxation should be mainly for purposes of funding law enforcement. Any other taxation which forces taxpayers to fund programs that they don’t want or don’t use is a form of theft.
It is interesting that the Beast will require that his mark be placed in the same places (on the hand or forehead) that God commanded his commandments to be placed. (Read this article and Revelation 13). He will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25) as opposed to Christ whose laws are unchangeable because God does not change. (Matthew 5:17-19, Malachi 3:7, James 1:17) The Beast will come on a platform of peace, safety, and economic prosperity. Then he will take away the property rights (the ability to buy or sell) and eventually even the right to life of anyone who refuses to take his mark. How much closer do we have to get to this before liberal Christians change their minds and start opposing this lawlessness? When real Christians stand up and oppose the Beast and the taking of his mark, will the liberals still be accusing them of “mixing religion and politics”? Make a good choice and commit every part of your life to Jesus Christ, uncompromisingly condemning sin whenever and wherever it’s found. Obey God and leave all the consequences to him.
God will not tolerate this rebellion against him any more than he would tolerate people sacrificing infants to idols. God did not tell the kings of Israel and Judah to tolerate the murder of babies. He commanded them to tear down those idols. He never said, “Murdering babies is wrong, but there should be no laws against it”.
As long as this goes on, the United States will move closer and closer to a Nazi style government. 45 million babies have been brutally butchered in this country. Compare that to the number of Jews who were killed in Nazi Germany. Jesus prophesied that the hearts of most would grow cold because of lawlessness. This is it. If any form of child abuse should be illegal, abortion should be. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.
How can you expect anyone to take any of our laws seriously if they are so unjust and inconsistently enforced? It seems like every time someone breaks the law, we have to beg the courts to enforce it. I believe in rule by law, not rule by men. Murder is against the law and it should be enforced in every case. The “legalization” of abortion weakens all of our other laws. If a law is not being consistently enforced, then the greater the penalty for breaking that law, the greater the injustice. (Think about this for illegal aliens also.)
Legalizing homosexual marriage is tantamount to subsidizing sodomy and lesbian sex. The government should not encourage people to commit sin. The definition of marriage is also beginning to lose its meaning in this country.
Why should we even think of going to war to with a country like Iraq that is not much worse than we are? Why would we expect God to be on our side?
In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can take away property from anyone as long as they can justify it economically. This is the new definition of “public use”. Governments are already using this power to take homes and even churches to sell to businesses because they are more economically profitable. The same Supreme Court Justices who allowed this are also the very same ones in favor of preventing the States from punishing the murderers of the unborn. Thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal are beginning to lose their meaning in this country.
Taxation should be mainly for purposes of funding law enforcement. Any other taxation which forces taxpayers to fund programs that they don’t want or don’t use is a form of theft.
It is interesting that the Beast will require that his mark be placed in the same places (on the hand or forehead) that God commanded his commandments to be placed. (Read this article and Revelation 13). He will “think to change times and laws” (Daniel 7:25) as opposed to Christ whose laws are unchangeable because God does not change. (Matthew 5:17-19, Malachi 3:7, James 1:17) The Beast will come on a platform of peace, safety, and economic prosperity. Then he will take away the property rights (the ability to buy or sell) and eventually even the right to life of anyone who refuses to take his mark. How much closer do we have to get to this before liberal Christians change their minds and start opposing this lawlessness? When real Christians stand up and oppose the Beast and the taking of his mark, will the liberals still be accusing them of “mixing religion and politics”? Make a good choice and commit every part of your life to Jesus Christ, uncompromisingly condemning sin whenever and wherever it’s found. Obey God and leave all the consequences to him.
Libertarianism vs Theonomism
There are two schools of thought which have influenced my political views and I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether one is the correct view or if some middle ground position is best.
It is obvious that not all forms of evil are to be judged by civil authorities. They are not in the proper position to judge merely sinful attitudes (the heart, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 25:2-3). (This is why I am against hate crimes legislation.) In the end God will punish all sins (Psalm 5:6, Proverbs 17:15, 18:5, 24:12, Ecclesiastes 12:14), but common sense says that government cannot punish someone every time they get “angry without cause” (Matthew 5:21-26).
When Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14 speak of governing authorities as being “agents of God’s wrath” who are “ordained of God” to “punish evildoers”, it is in our interest as Christian statesmen to study the Scriptures revealing which forms of evil the governing authorities are charged with the authority to judge.
The Libertarian View
The libertarian philosophy is that government should simply protect our rights and not interfere with anything “between consenting adults”. Under this philosophy, the government should enforce the terms of any contract between two parties as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of a third party. The rights we have are the right to life (to be protected against physical violence) and the right to property. Therefore, the only acts of evil which the civil authorities are charged with judging are acts of violence and theft (which would include violations of the terms of a contract between agreeing parties).
The biblical basis for such a philosophy is that the Old Testament laws have passed away (e.g. Colossians 2:14) and all authority now comes from Christ (Matthew 28:18). The conclusion drawn in this school of thought is that civil government does not have the authority to regulate other things since the New Testament does not specifically give it this authority.
The problem with strict libertarianism (from a biblical point of view) is that you can’t point to a place in Scripture where is specifically says that all but the authority to punish violence and theft has passed away. There could be other things like prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography that should be prosecuted. The Christian libertarian does not advocate doing these things, but says government should not get involved. There is no regard (with respect to government) for the principle that one should go to extreme lengths to keep oneself from temptations (especially sexual, read Matthew 5:27-30). This is a view that is embraced by both Christians and secularists as well because it doesn’t advocate prohibition of various forms of immorality, but at the same time it advocates the protections and freedoms that most everyone agrees is necessary.
The Theonomist View
When many people say that they believe that the laws of our land should be based on the Law of Moses, they aren’t really thinking through what they are saying. But a theonomist really does believe it (or at least they try harder). According to the theonomistic view, the laws of the Old Testament can be classified as ceremonial, moral, and civil. The ceremonial laws have passed away, and the moral laws do not necessarily concern government, but civil laws should be enforced by government today the same way they were under the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:18). Unlike the libertarian view, theonomism advocates stoning people to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Leviticus 20:27), and other sins which are “between consenting adults”.
The problem with strict theonomism is that even theonomists make exceptions to the rule. The Law says that death is a punishment even for doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) which even includes picking up sticks (Numbers 15:32). Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was abolished in the New Testament (Colossians 2:16, which would seem to contract their interpretation of Matthew 5:18), there are other things they take out that are not explicitly rescinded in the NT such as the commandment to marry the widow of one’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
Conclusion
So which, if either of these views is correct? As Christian statesmen, we need to develop a coherent apologetic so that we can uphold biblical principles of righteousness and justice as God would have us do, but in a way that no one can accuse us of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we want to obey. This apologetic does not have to answer every question that one might pose. We need to start with an open-minded humbleness that allows us to be guided by God through both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. We need to not allow one principle to guide all of our thinking if this principle isn’t contained in Scripture.
Both Christian libertarianism and theonomism assume that all of our laws should come from the Bible. The Bible does say that God establishes the rulers of the nations (Romans 13:1) and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this authority always comes through the Bible—and it certainly doesn’t mean that all civil authorities always make the decisions that God would have them make. I have come to the conclusion that there is no exact blueprint for government contained in the Scriptures, but that God rules, at least to some extent, through authorities extra-biblically. The author of Proverbs 21:1 said that God directs the rulers of the nations at a time when most rulers had never heard of the Bible.
I believe that our Constitution was given to us by God (even though I don’t agree with everything in it—we have corrupted it with the 16th and 17th amendments, for example), but yet the Bible says nothing about most of what is contained in either the Articles of Confederation or the misnamed Bill of Rights. For example, there is no place in the Bible where it says that nations should have a President, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, but yet I am strongly inclined believe that God had a hand in establishing these institutions for our benefit.
To illustrate this point further, I have used Matthew 28:18 to say that there shouldn’t be laws restricting the so-called “payday lenders”. Even though I think I would still vote no on Ohio issue 5, I realize now that this Scripture does not really prohibit such a law. I now think those who commented on my post gave more relevant points than the actual content of that article. Maybe God really did allow us to have this law (it did pass) so that poor people would be protected from unscrupulous lenders who would take advantage of them.
We need to be humble, know that we don’t always have all the answers, realize that God is wiser than we are, and that, while the Bible contains instructions that guide us in our choices concerning legislation, it doesn’t always tell us why God does the things that He does in realm of politics. Some laws will certainly have some good effects and some bad effects. We should thank God for the good effects.
It is obvious that not all forms of evil are to be judged by civil authorities. They are not in the proper position to judge merely sinful attitudes (the heart, 1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 25:2-3). (This is why I am against hate crimes legislation.) In the end God will punish all sins (Psalm 5:6, Proverbs 17:15, 18:5, 24:12, Ecclesiastes 12:14), but common sense says that government cannot punish someone every time they get “angry without cause” (Matthew 5:21-26).
When Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:14 speak of governing authorities as being “agents of God’s wrath” who are “ordained of God” to “punish evildoers”, it is in our interest as Christian statesmen to study the Scriptures revealing which forms of evil the governing authorities are charged with the authority to judge.
The Libertarian View
The libertarian philosophy is that government should simply protect our rights and not interfere with anything “between consenting adults”. Under this philosophy, the government should enforce the terms of any contract between two parties as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of a third party. The rights we have are the right to life (to be protected against physical violence) and the right to property. Therefore, the only acts of evil which the civil authorities are charged with judging are acts of violence and theft (which would include violations of the terms of a contract between agreeing parties).
The biblical basis for such a philosophy is that the Old Testament laws have passed away (e.g. Colossians 2:14) and all authority now comes from Christ (Matthew 28:18). The conclusion drawn in this school of thought is that civil government does not have the authority to regulate other things since the New Testament does not specifically give it this authority.
The problem with strict libertarianism (from a biblical point of view) is that you can’t point to a place in Scripture where is specifically says that all but the authority to punish violence and theft has passed away. There could be other things like prostitution, illicit drugs, and pornography that should be prosecuted. The Christian libertarian does not advocate doing these things, but says government should not get involved. There is no regard (with respect to government) for the principle that one should go to extreme lengths to keep oneself from temptations (especially sexual, read Matthew 5:27-30). This is a view that is embraced by both Christians and secularists as well because it doesn’t advocate prohibition of various forms of immorality, but at the same time it advocates the protections and freedoms that most everyone agrees is necessary.
The Theonomist View
When many people say that they believe that the laws of our land should be based on the Law of Moses, they aren’t really thinking through what they are saying. But a theonomist really does believe it (or at least they try harder). According to the theonomistic view, the laws of the Old Testament can be classified as ceremonial, moral, and civil. The ceremonial laws have passed away, and the moral laws do not necessarily concern government, but civil laws should be enforced by government today the same way they were under the Old Covenant (see Matthew 5:18). Unlike the libertarian view, theonomism advocates stoning people to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), witchcraft (Leviticus 20:27), and other sins which are “between consenting adults”.
The problem with strict theonomism is that even theonomists make exceptions to the rule. The Law says that death is a punishment even for doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) which even includes picking up sticks (Numbers 15:32). Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this was abolished in the New Testament (Colossians 2:16, which would seem to contract their interpretation of Matthew 5:18), there are other things they take out that are not explicitly rescinded in the NT such as the commandment to marry the widow of one’s brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
Conclusion
So which, if either of these views is correct? As Christian statesmen, we need to develop a coherent apologetic so that we can uphold biblical principles of righteousness and justice as God would have us do, but in a way that no one can accuse us of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible we want to obey. This apologetic does not have to answer every question that one might pose. We need to start with an open-minded humbleness that allows us to be guided by God through both the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. We need to not allow one principle to guide all of our thinking if this principle isn’t contained in Scripture.
Both Christian libertarianism and theonomism assume that all of our laws should come from the Bible. The Bible does say that God establishes the rulers of the nations (Romans 13:1) and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), but it doesn’t necessarily mean that this authority always comes through the Bible—and it certainly doesn’t mean that all civil authorities always make the decisions that God would have them make. I have come to the conclusion that there is no exact blueprint for government contained in the Scriptures, but that God rules, at least to some extent, through authorities extra-biblically. The author of Proverbs 21:1 said that God directs the rulers of the nations at a time when most rulers had never heard of the Bible.
I believe that our Constitution was given to us by God (even though I don’t agree with everything in it—we have corrupted it with the 16th and 17th amendments, for example), but yet the Bible says nothing about most of what is contained in either the Articles of Confederation or the misnamed Bill of Rights. For example, there is no place in the Bible where it says that nations should have a President, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, but yet I am strongly inclined believe that God had a hand in establishing these institutions for our benefit.
To illustrate this point further, I have used Matthew 28:18 to say that there shouldn’t be laws restricting the so-called “payday lenders”. Even though I think I would still vote no on Ohio issue 5, I realize now that this Scripture does not really prohibit such a law. I now think those who commented on my post gave more relevant points than the actual content of that article. Maybe God really did allow us to have this law (it did pass) so that poor people would be protected from unscrupulous lenders who would take advantage of them.
We need to be humble, know that we don’t always have all the answers, realize that God is wiser than we are, and that, while the Bible contains instructions that guide us in our choices concerning legislation, it doesn’t always tell us why God does the things that He does in realm of politics. Some laws will certainly have some good effects and some bad effects. We should thank God for the good effects.
For Clarification
When I speak of homosexuals, I mean those who commit or intend to commit homosexual acts. I am not advocating laws that discriminate against people because of how they were born, but I advocate that when these acts are committed it should be at the risk of the homosexual; taxpayers should not have pay for the consequences of this sin. It is not unreasonable for homosexual acts to be criminalized.
Some parts of this blog may sound contradictory, but it is not really. I may say that I am against some law in one instance, and in another, I may say that it should be enforced. What I mean to say is that I am in favor of repealing a particular law, but as long as that law is on the books it should be enforced consistently. I am against judicial activism even when judges are ignoring a law that I am against. A law should be ignored (but should not be stricken from the books by judges) when it is being used in a way that contradicts higher laws (the Bible being the highest law, then the Constitution).
Some parts of this blog may sound contradictory, but it is not really. I may say that I am against some law in one instance, and in another, I may say that it should be enforced. What I mean to say is that I am in favor of repealing a particular law, but as long as that law is on the books it should be enforced consistently. I am against judicial activism even when judges are ignoring a law that I am against. A law should be ignored (but should not be stricken from the books by judges) when it is being used in a way that contradicts higher laws (the Bible being the highest law, then the Constitution).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Matt
- I am born again Christian with a strong interest in politics, doctrine, science, and how these relate to one another.