Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Monday, October 31, 2022
Saturday, October 29, 2022
Friday, October 28, 2022
Thursday, October 27, 2022
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
Tuesday, October 25, 2022
Saturday, October 22, 2022
Friday, October 21, 2022
Thursday, October 20, 2022
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Monday, October 17, 2022
Liberty Under God IS ANOTHER NAME FOR Christian Anarcho-Capitalism
Today, a majority of people younger than I am believe that "socialism" is better than "capitalism." I can only shake my head. The last century proved in graphic, bloody detail that "capitalism" (freedom) leads to prosperity, while "socialism" leads to bitter poverty, concentration camps, and mass death.
On my Capitalism page, I quote my favorite economists, who define "capitalism" as
The social system based on
the rejection of the initiation of force or violence against others.
This is also known as the Free Market system. The opposite of "free" is "regulated," "controlled," "dictated," or "managed" by the government.
Most people think of a "capitalist" as someone who uses the violence and the coercive power of the State to crush his competitors and exploit the poor. Such a person is not a "capitalist," according to every defender of "capitalism" who is willing to identify himself as being "pro-capitalist" or pro-"Free Market." (Most Wall Street types are not willing to identify themselves in this way. They are not true "capitalists.") "Capitalism" is the opposite of "socialism" or "fascism" or any other big-government system.
All government programs are socialist programs.
All government programs deny that capitalism is true.
All government programs claim that the service they provide could not be provided by ordinary people setting up businesses, competing against each other to get consumers to buy the services that consumers allegedly desire.
Economic Theory and the history of capitalism demonstrate that government programs never work as well as the Free Market. We should abolish all -- yes, all -- government programs and allow the Free Market to provide the products and services that consumers want. Elimination of all socialist programs and complete reliance on people acting freely is 100% laissez-faire capitalism, and is called "anarcho-capitalism."
America became the most admired nation on earth because it stood for the proposition that capitalism (liberty) succeeds and socialism (government force and threats of violence) fails.
- Capitalists reject the idea that we need government to deliver Christmas cards.
- Capitalists reject the idea that we need government to run schools.
- Even the Republican Party's National Platform has called for the abolition of
- the Departments of Commerce,
- Housing and Urban Development,
- Education, and
- Energy
- There is nothing that human beings need to do that peaceful people in a Free Market cannot accomplish better than socialist/fascist/corporatist/crony-capitalist government programs
A truly consistent "capitalist" is an anarcho-capitalist. The anarcho-capitalist believes in
• the complete absence of socialism,
• the complete absence of government regulation or control
• the complete absence of the initiation of force.
| This is the issue: Is there any human activity that is more efficiently carried out under threats of violence and force than under liberty? |
- Is it the case that human beings cannot be trusted to produce milk and bread for the children unless they are threatened with prison terms by "the government?"
- Is it really true that Americans cannot manufacture and distribute computers, clothing, housing, groceries, without "the government?"
If you answer no -- for example,
"No, businessmen are greedy and immoral and would only manufacture shoes of low quality and sell them at rip-off prices, unless bureaucrats were regulating them,"
and you added,
"And consumers are stupid, and would always buy low quality at a high price and wouldn't care for their family unless federal bureaucrats were making sure families paid attention to the most important things."
-- then you have a religious faith in the State and its regulators, and believe that when greedy businessmen and stupid consumers are elected to government positions by their greedy and stupid peers, these newly-elected greedy and stupid human beings suddenly lose their greed and stupidity and become altruistic and intelligent overseers of others. "Statism" is a religious belief in the depravity of human beings and faith in the sanctified State.
Throughout this website we have discussed over 200 areas of human endeavor where it is often alleged that Americans could not succeed without government regulation. But all you have to do is look at the things you have and enjoy, compare your life with that of most people living in socialist countries, and ask, "If the federal government were to be abolished, would entrepreneurs and business owners make sure that I had access to the best quality at the lowest price?"
- From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - -- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address
History tells us that where there is "Liberty Under God," you and I will work hard, with creativity and integrity, to provide goods and services which benefit the lives of others. We will find ways to produce better goods than our competitor and will bend over backwards to do so at a lower cost. In our efforts to get consumers to buy what we create, we will improve the lives of our customers, because we know that where there is liberty, our customers have the freedom to shop elsewhere, and other Americans have the freedom to start a business which will sell what consumers demand.
History proves that capitalism works and socialism fails. The great economists have explained why:
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Yale Univ. Press, 1949, 885pp. + index
- George Reisman, Capitalism, Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books, 1998, 998pp. + index
- Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, NY: Basic Books, 1980, 383pp. + index
Mises in particular, and his Nobel Prize-winning student, F. A. Hayek, conclusively proved that without the freely-fluctuating price mechanism of the free market, socialist planners can never allocate resources in the most efficient manner. Mises’ work has never been refuted:
Capitalism accepts as a matter of unchanging economic law the fundamental inefficiency of centralized government planning over free market decision-making. The reader can turn to this bibliography for a nearly complete defense of the concept.
Tragically, most Americans do not really understand how capitalism works. This makes them easy prey for socialist demagogues.
There are usually a few objections:
These three objections allegedly prove that capitalism cannot always work. Every economy needs some socialism, we are told. People who say they oppose socialism and communism cannot explain how capitalism would provide roads, courts, and national defense. Their support of capitalism in other areas begins to waver.
Suppose we lived under a completely socialist government. All of our shoes are made by the government and distributed to the people by the government "Ministry of Shoes." Suppose some radical libertarian proposed turning over the business of making shoes to a competitive, profit-based system. We might hear something like this:
- How could you? You are opposed to the public—and to poor people—wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be constructive! It's easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government; but tell us
- • who would supply shoes?
- • Which people?
- • How many shoe stores would be available in each city and town?
- • How would the shoe firms be capitalized?
- • How many brands would there be?
- • What material would they use? What material lasts?
- • What would be the pricing arrangements for shoes?
- • Wouldn't regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that the product is sound?
- • And who would supply the poor with shoes? Suppose a poor person didn't have the money to buy a pair?
Most Americans -- even those who claim to support capitalism, could not answer these questions. Anarcho-capitalist economist Murray Rothbard answers these questions:
- These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be (and are) with regard to the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other government operation. The point is that
- the advocate of a free market in anything cannot provide a "constructive" blueprint of such a market in advance.
- The essence and the glory of the free market is that individual firms and businesses, competing on the market, provide an ever-changing orchestration of efficient and progressive goods and services: continually improving products and markets, advancing technology, cutting costs, and meeting changing consumer demands as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. The libertarian economist can try to offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity. No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know—by economic theory and by historical insight—that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.
- "How will the poor pay for defense, fire protection, postal service, etc.," can basically be answered by the counter-question: how do the poor pay for anything they now obtain on the market? The difference is that we know that the free private market will supply these goods and services
- • far more cheaply,
- • in greater abundance,
- • and of far higher quality
- than monopoly government does today. Everyone in society would benefit, and especially the poor. And we also know that the mammoth tax burden to finance these and other activities would be lifted from the shoulders of everyone in society, including the poor.
The "orchestration" of which Rothbard speaks has also been called "the Invisible Hand." Liberty Under God organizes society better than atheistic socialism. Or even "Christian" socialism.
Liberty Under God IS THE CORRECT CHOICE BETWEEN Theonomy vs. Autonomy (Kevin Craig)
choose Theonomy
reject Autonomy
"There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy."
Cornelius Van Til
The issue . . . is between theonomy (God's Law) and autonomy (self law). Modern autonomous man is aided and abetted in his apostasy from God by the antinomianism of the church, which, by denying God's law, has, in theology, politics, education, industry, and all things else, surrendered the field to the law of the fallen and godless self, to autonomy.
R.J. Rushdoony
"'. . . that He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.'
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of God from Jerusalem."
Micah 4:2
AUTONOMOUS MAN
In the Garden of Eden, man was given a choice: Theonomy or Autonomy.
God offered Theonomy: obey God's Commandments and live forever in paradise with God.
Satan offered Autonomy: "ye shall be as gods, determining right and wrong for yourselves." (Genesis 3:5)
Those who love life choose to serve God and His Law. They submit to His government and receive His blessings.
Those who hate God and His Law choose Autonomy -- self-government -- even if it means death. Here is how Milton painted the desire of Autonomous Man:
Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
John Milton, Paradise Lost, I, l 262
Autonomous Man is "pro-choice,"
and chooses hell and death:
anything to be rid of God.
All they that hate Me love death
Proverbs 8:36
The Ten Commandments prohibit:
1. Idolatry
2. False Religion
3. Swearing a false oath
4. Refusal to work
5. Disrespecting parents and other authorities
6. Murder
7. Cheating on your Wife
8. Theft
9. Slander
10. Covetousness
For more than 300 years -- roughly 1600-1900 -- "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" -- that is, the Bible -- permeated America's schools and American culture. These laws are the foundation of civilization.
Americans respected the Ten Commandments. Legislators legislated in terms of the Ten Commandments. Courts judged cases and enforced the Ten Commandments. American Law was based on the Bible.
The earliest statute books even had Bible references in the margin to prove that the laws were faithfully based on the Bible.
Sometimes theologians and legal scholars misread the Bible. Capital punishment is an example of this.
Industry, commerce, social harmony, charity, and education are impossible without Theonomy. More than a billion people on earth live in poverty and ignorance because their culture is rooted in magic and envy rather than true religion. By creating a Christian Theocracy, America's Founding Fathers laid the foundation for ordered liberty, economic prosperity, and peaceful, dependable social relations.
This is the meaning of "Theonomy."
THEONOMIC MAN
"Theonomy" comes from two Greek words,
theos, meaning "God" and
nomos, meaning "law."
The "Theonomy" (= "God's Law") school of ethics has raised the important question of how we determine God's will for our lives, and God's Prescription for our sick society. This school of thought is best represented by the Chalcedon foundation (R.J. Rushdoony, President) and similar research groups.
Back in the first part of the 20th century, fundamentalists did not talk much about capital punishment or any other political issue, because they would have to refer to the Old Testament, and they all claimed to be "New Testament Christians." As a result of the influence of "Theonomy," the Old Testament is now quoted by fundamentalists with much less embarrassment.
Two weeks after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, Newsweek magazine identified Chalcedon as the "think tank" for the Moral Majority and other components of the "Religious Right" (Newsweek, Feb. 2, 1981.) These "Theonomists" were responsible for the Creationist movement, the Christian School movement, and the growing involvement of Conservative Christians in politics.[1] Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other Conservative Christians who became increasingly vocal concerning the vital public issues of the day were influenced largely by the "Theonomists" or the "Christian Reconstruction" movement, as it is also known.
While most evangelical Christians assume that a given Old Testament law is no longer obligatory unless it is specifically repeated in the New Testament, the "Theonomists" have shown that this does an injustice to the unchangeable character of God and His Word. In such books as Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg L. Bahnsen and Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony, it has been conclusively demonstrated that we must assume that unless the Old Testament law in question has been specifically qualified by the New Testament, it remains in force. Bahnsen speaks of "the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail." Jesus did not come to abrogate the Old Testament; He came to purify it and put its intentions into force (Matthew 5, esp. vv. 17-20) by empowering His People to obediently fulfill its promises. The difference between the New Covenant and the Old Covenant is not the Standard of Righteousness, but the Spiritual ability we have to obey it (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:27; Jeremiah 31: 31-34 + Hebrews 8:8-13; Romans 8:3-5 + Ephesians 4:13).
It is obvious that some things have changed. There are no more temple sacrifices, no more Levitical priesthood (and there never will be again), and the New Testament explains why (e.g., the book of Hebrews). In some cases we don't even need the New Covenant to tell us that some Old Testament laws are no longer letter-applicable: the Old Testament itself told us about the dramatic change of priesthood that was to occur with the coming of the Messiah; many laws would someday obligate no more. As Bahnsen puts it,
The Levitical priesthood, representing the Mosaic system of ceremonial redemption, could not bring perfection and so was intended to be superseded (Heb. 7:11f.,28) . . . . The former commandment with reference to ceremonial matters was set aside . . . in order that God's people might have a better hope, for the ceremony was imperfect and kept men at a distance from God (Heb. 7:18f.). [S]uch a change in stipulation is also a confirmation of the Older Testamental law as implied in Psalm 110:1,4. (Theonomy, pp. 208-209).
Of course, in a sense, all of the Old Testament Laws are still binding upon us. For example, we are still responsible to bring before God the blood of a sacrificial lamb. But we also know that that Lamb is Christ (John 1:29). It makes sense, then, to expect, for example, that most of the Old Testament laws concerning the shedding of blood find their satisfaction in Christ.
Here is a succinct definition of Theonomy, our operating presupposition:
"God's will for our lives is found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, with the Old Testament Law and Prophets carrying in our day the full authority of God's written Word unless specifically qualified in the New Testament."
The Real Issue: No Neutrality
It should be pointed out that the distinctive contribution of the Christian Reconstructionists is not their view of the State and the laws it should enforce. The Reconstructionist view of the State is in fact very traditional and conservative. Some liberals feign outrage at the Reconstructionists' suggestion that sodomy and adultery be punished by the State, but in the last 1,000 years, it is the idea that these crimes should not be punished which is new.
What is really unique about the Reconstructionists is their rejection of the "pietistic" distinction between "sacred" things and "secular" things. Every area of our lives must be brought under the principles of the Word of God, according to the "Theonomists." They are surely correct (Matthew 6:24; 12:30; I Kings 18:21; Joshua 24:15,19).
Thus Reconstructionists have rightly pointed out that the Bible is indeed a textbook of science, a textbook of politics, economics, education, the vocations, indeed, of every area of life. There is no issue, action, or thought which is not governed by the Word of God.
The idea that some subjects can be governed by the autonomous word of man, unchecked by the Word of God, derives from the "neo-Platonism" of Greek and Roman traditions, which held that the material world was inferior to the non-material ("spiritual") realm. The Bible teaches that every area of life is to be governed by Biblical principles.
This affects even our definition of Salvation itself. Modern evangelists often lead us to think that "salvation" is something that applies only to individuals, and then only to their soul, and then only in the after-life (although we might cultivate "warm-fuzzies" in this life ["down in your heart"]). This is not the Biblical Gospel; it is Western, neo-platonic individualism. It is a gospel corrupted by the "Me-First" generation.
The Biblical Gospel is God-centered, not Me-centered; it concerns His Creation, His People, and considers them as a body. The Biblical Gospel is the "good news" that all nations on earth would be obedient to God's Law, that justice would flow like a river, and the whole world would experience His blessings in every area of life (begin in Galatians 3:8 to trace the Biblical Gospel). Biblical Salvation turns back the Curse; it mends the torn fabric of life. The Biblical word for Salvation can thus be translated "health," "victory," "prosperity," "wholeness," and "peace." It is very clearly concerned with this life on this earth. [2]
An example of the scholarship and application of the Bible which has been accomplished by the Reconstructionists (and the work has only begun) may be seen by looking at the Table of Contents of the massive and seminal work by R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law. Under the pattern of the Decalogue, Rushdoony surveys all the case laws, prophetic utterances, and the commands of the Lord and His Apostles. Decades of study are evident in hundreds of footnotes to "secular" sources, to which Biblical Law is applied in detail (over 3000 Biblical citations). It can be seen that no area of life is not addressed by God's Law. Most evangelicals would never think to apply the Bible's authoritative and concrete direction to such problems as these:
III. The Third Commandment
2. Swearing and Revolution
3. The Oath and Society
5. The Oath and Authority
IV. The Fourth Commandment
3. The Sabbath and Work
5. The Sabbath and Law
Appendix: The Economics of Sabbath keeping -- by Gary North
V. The Fifth Commandment
1. The Authority of the Family
3. The Economics of the Family
4. Education and the Family
5. The Family and Delinquency
VI. The Sixth Commandment
2. The Death Penalty
5. Hybridization and Law
6. Abortion
8. Restitution or Restoration
9. Military Laws and Production
10. Taxation
13. Quarantine Laws
14. Dietary Rules
20. Social Inheritance: Landmarks
VII. The Seventh Commandment
1. Marriage
5. Family Law
6. Marriage and Monogamy
7. Incest
9. Sex and Crime
11. Adultery
12. Divorce
14. Homosexuality
17. The Transvestite
18. Bestiality
VIII. The Eighth Commandment
1. Dominion
2. Theft
3. Restitution and Forgiveness
4. Liability of the Bystander
5. Money and Measure
6. Usury
9. Landmarks and Land
10. The Virgin Birth and Property
11. Fraud
12. Eminent Domain
13. Labor Laws
15. Prison
18. The Rights of Strangers, Widows, and Orphans
IX. The Ninth Commandment
5. Corroboration
6. Perjury
8. False Witness
11. Slander Within Marriage
13. Slander as Theft
16. Judges
17. The Responsibility of Judges and Rulers
18. The Court
19. The Procedure of the Court
20. The Judgment of the Court
X. The Tenth Commandment
1. Covetousness
3. Special Privilege
5. The System
XV. Notes on Law in Western Society
It is obvious that The Institutes of Biblical Law is no gushy, "pious" devotional reader. It is a pathbreaking, foundational Reconstruction of Law, Politics, Jurisprudence, and Social Morality. Every Christian Lawyer should read the book from cover to cover (849 pages). Every political scientist should do the same. It is not the last word, but it is the first word in centuries attempting to rigorously apply Biblical laws to the problems of contemporary society from a Bible-believing perspective. Not the details of his application, but the inescapable conclusion that the Bible provides all the Law we need to apply to the facts of our lives -- this is the importance of Rushdoony's Institutes and of the "Theonomic" movement in general.
Rushdoony and the Reconstructionists have completely challenged the prevailing "piety" of the Protestant and Evangelical churches. Destroying the "clergy-laity gap," and confronting ecclesiocrats with the real world, Rushdoony shows how every believer-priest must apply the Word of God to every area of his life. Since its publication (1973) the Reconstructionists have continued to apply God's Word to contemporary problems in new areas and in new ways.
We may disagree with his applications and interpretations, but we must begin where Rushdoony begins: with the recognition that the Lord claims sovereignty over all the earth, and has given us His Law in written form in the Bible. Every Christian, in whatever capacity he exercises his gifts, must bring every thought captive to the lordship of Christ. Lawyers are not excepted. Nor are judges, politicians, educators, scientists, and all others involved in "secular" matters. The Bible is not an out-dated document for the "religious," for "church-workers," and for the "ordained clergy" and other ecclesiastics. God's Law governs all men.
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you,
that I have set before you
life and death
blessing and cursing
T H E R E F O R E C H O O S E L I F E
that both you and your children may live;
that you may love the LORD your God,
that you may obey His voice,
and that you may cling to Him,
for He is your life and the length of your days.
Deuteronomy 30:19
LAW: AN INESCAPABLE CONCEPT
Law is an inescapable concept. Every individual has his or her own ideas of right and wrong conduct. When individuals associate they form a shared standard of social morality. Their group will reward (bless) conduct which conforms to that standard or penalize (curse) conduct which is contrary to the morality of the group. This is "law." Some people say "you can't legislate morality." All law is legislated morality. The lawmaker says "Thou shalt not steal" because stealing is deemed to be immoral, or contrary to the accepted morality.
THEOCRACY: AN INESCAPABLE CONCEPT
The ultimate source of morality in a society is the "god" of that society. Social morality -- law -- is the externalization of a society's religion. The source of a society's morality is the authority by which all rival moralities are evaluated and judged. This standard is the "god" of that society.
Any religion which claims not to have a god is denying the existence of a personal god, and affirming an impersonal god. Any society which in its legal system denies or refuses to affirm the existence of any god is merely denying the existence of a transcendant personal god and covering up the existence of an immanent personal god, which is usually the State.
"The rule of god" is called "theocracy." Theocracy is an inescapable concept.
The question is not, "Should we live in a theocracy?" but rather, "Which theocracy will we live under?"
Micah prophesies the world-wide flourishing of Christian culture; a Christocracy based on the Torah, the direction-giving Law of the Bible. Obedience to the Law and the Prophets would return us to the Garden, with every worker sitting safely under his vine and fig tree (Micah 4:1-7).
This prospect is unacceptable to the Amerikan Theocracy of the 21st century, whose god is Man as "truly" incarnated in military-industrial planners, financiers, scientists, and other academically-credentialed elites. These would-be gods (and the masses who empower them) prefer a pyramid-style welfare-warfare State in which they bureaucratically predestine the lives of human cannon-fodder for their own profit. Personalism is replaced with mindless obedience to bureaucratic regulations rewarded by "personal peace and affluence."
SECULAR HUMANIST THEOCRACY
The Modern World is a world of law, lawyers, and legal systems; our lives are governed by myriad laws and we are kept in line by an army of lawyers, bureaucrats, and SWAT Teams. Love, forgiveness, service, and personal responsibility are Christian concepts, hence foreign to the Modern Humanist Theocracy. As the Secular State grows larger, literacy, safety, respect for others, discipline, competence, and love become scarce.
BIBLICAL THEOCRACY
Biblical Law is a Blueprint for the Reconstruction of a Personalist Christian Culture. God's Law is a comprehensive rival law-system which the Prophets declare will replace all human Empires. God's Law is the total antithesis of man-centered legality. God's Law and His Prophets present a concept of social order quite opposite that of the Amerikan Humanist Theocracy.
GOD'S LAW vs. MAN'S LAW
Totalitarianism and "anarchy" are both an assault on the Kingdom and Reign of God. Biblical Law is a blueprint for peace; the triumph of secular, man-centered law has resulted in the bloodiest century in human history.
The essence of God's Law is not a cold impersonal list of "Thou shalt not"'s, and certainly not the typological priestly ritual of the shedding of blood following a violation. The "weightier matters" of the Law are justice, mercy, and faith. That mercy and faith are two-thirds of the Law's weightier matters should not surprise us. Biblical Law was authored by the Spirit and the Fruit of obedience is the "Fruit of the Spirit": love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; all of which are commanded by the Law of God.
God's Law ("Theo-nomy") is neither "primitive" nor inadequate for our "complex" civilization. Every area of life is effectively addressed by the Comprehensive Law-Word of God.
When faithfully taught and obeyed, observance of the Law of God mends the torn fabric of life. Bringing our lives under the total jurisdiction of Christ is the key to social renewal, not reforming the lives of others through the impersonal violence of statist bureaucratic regulation.
A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment
I consider myself to be a "Theonomist." See here.
Some would say I'm not a "real" Theonomist because I defend "anarcho-capitalism," and Theonomy requires the existence of the institution we call "the State." I disagree.
I used to be a strong defender of capital punishment. No longer. Here's why.
Argument in a NutshellAs a Theonomist, I was familiar with the division of Old Testament laws into three categories: "Moral," "Judicial," and "Ceremonial." In the "Moral" category are laws like "Thou shalt not kill." In the "Judicial" category (the lines are fuzzy and can be disputed by many theologians) might be laws like
In the "Ceremonial" category are laws requiring the shedding of blood to make atonement. I now believe that "capital punishment" is a "ceremonial" law. "Capital punishment" is really a liturgical shedding of blood to make atonement. (Actually, I reject the "threefold division of the law." Here's why there is no such thing as "judicial law" in the Old Testament.) Homicide with Nobody to ExecuteLet's begin with Deuteronomy 21:1-9. This is a case where someone has obviously been murdered (as opposed to a "natural" death), but there is no suspect to arrest, charge, try, and convict. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 required the tribal elders to shed the blood of a heifer in order to atone for the shedding of innocent blood, following the directions of the priests:
In The Annulment of the Dietary Laws, I.C.E. Position Paper No. 2, November 1984, Gary North writes: The Cleansing of the Land
Nobody advocates the literal application of Deuteronomy 21 after the Cross. Christian theologians for 2000 years have rightly concluded that in our day only the blood of Christ can provide such atonement in cases of an unsolved homicide. Yet they persist in requiring the shedding of the criminal's blood when the homicide is "solved." The Origin of "Capital Punishment"Defenders of Capital Punishment usually begin with Noah. The verses are fairly well-known:
Noah was not "the State." Noah was the family priest. When Noah got off the ark,
These offerings propitiated the wrath of God. Nobody believes that the commands to offer burnt offerings (which God evidently gave to Noah or to Noah's forefathers, though that act of lawgiving is not recorded for us in the Bible) are obligatory in our day, after the work of Christ on the Cross. But theologians still believe that the shedding of blood commanded in the next chapter (ch. 9) are still obligatory. (On Noah and the origin of "the State," see John Frame's Theology of the State:
Frame sees "capital punishment" as belonging to the "judicial" category rather than the "ceremonial" category. My point here is simply to expand on the claim that no "civil magistrate" is required to obey the commands in Genesis 9.) The Purpose of "Capital Punishment"The primary purpose of the ritual shedding of the blood of those who shed innocent blood is not said by the Bible to be "sending a message" to criminals. Undeniably, killing animals and shedding their blood can cause fear:
But the Bible says the primary purpose of the ritual shedding of blood is to cleanse the land (Heb.: make atonement) of the pollution caused by the shedding of innocent blood.
Smaller sins could be atoned for through the temple sacrifices: lambs, turtledoves, etc., but some crimes were so serious that atonement could not be made in any other way than by the shedding of the blood of the criminal himself:
All the "pragmatic" arguments in defense of maintaining the temple sacrifices -- how it "sends a message" and reduces crime by showing that society takes sin seriously -- are outweighed by the fact that such rituals, if performed today, would show that society does not take the work of Christ on the Cross seriously. The Bible does not say to "execute" people by lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, or any other bloodless method man may devise to kill another human being. What the Bible very specifically required under the Old Covenant was the shedding of the murderer's blood, to make atonement. Shedding blood in cases of murder (Genesis 9, Numbers 35) or unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21) or other "capital" crimes (Leviticus 20), after Christ shed His blood, violates the book of Hebrews, and shows that society does not take the blood of Christ seriously. That's my Theonomic argument against "Capital Punishment." |
Since Christ's death and resurrection, the whole earth has been permanently cleansed of the death-curse it labored under as a result of Adam's fall. That release was established definitively at Calvary, and is being progressively revealed over time. The whole creation looks forward to the final release at the end of time (Further ConfirmationThat "capital punishment" is actually part of the "ceremonial law" is suggested by the role played by the Levitical priests, even in areas that many would consider "judicial" or "civil":
|
Psychoanalyzing MyselfI don't think there's some deeper reason why I came to reject capital punishment, e.g., that I'm "soft" on crime or don't care about sin or justice. It could be argued that I needed to find a way around Biblical verses that seemed to require capital punishment because those verses were inconsistent with my movement away from "the State" and toward "anarcho-capitalism." This is not the case, because I see no Biblical reason why capital punishment could not be administered by "patriarchs" (heads of households) in a stateless society ("Patriarchy"). See here. Psychoanalyzing Everyone ElseSuppose we lived in a society where Old Testament temple sacrifices are still carried out. Lots of animals constantly having their blood shed to make atonement and propitiate the wrath of God. Suppose I called for the termination of all these animal sacrifices based on the book of Hebrews. Suppose there was great public outcry against my proposal:
I appreciate these concerns. I'm all about "sending messages." I want to eradicate crime. I don't propose eliminating capital punishment in a way that "sends a message" that crime is OK. In my vision, capital punishment will only be eliminated by a society that has a fervent dedication to God's Standard of justice and to abolishing all crime. Objection: "So what do we do with murderers?"Let's start with logic. That question -- and it's a worthy question -- is logically distinct from the argument I've raised above. It's a completely separate question. Some members of our hypothetical ritual sacrificing society above, upon hearing of a proposal to eliminate animal sacrifices to atone for theft, might ask, "Well, what are you going to do with thieves if you don't sacrifice any animals? Just let thieves run rampant?" My argument here is that shedding blood to atone for theft or murder denies the efficacy of Christ's blood. We shouldn't do it any more. In the case of thieves, even the Old Testament required restitution from thieves (even though it also required ceremonial acts for atonement). Even if we don't know what to do with murderers, we should still stop the ritual/ceremonial shedding of blood. The resultant demand to "Do something about murderers" will result in a quest for creative solutions. As long as we think we're OK just shedding their blood, there will be no demand for better alternatives, and they will not be proposed, debated, and implemented. I have started a conversation on the question "What do we do with murderers" here. How to "Send a Message""But if we abolish 'capital punishment,' won't that send a message to criminals that our society does not value life?" It might seem a trite response to this criticism to say that killing cannot send the message that killing is wrong. Intentionally killing a murderer by executing him may not be the most effective way to send the message that life -- including that of the murderer -- has value. So let's look at the idea of society "sending a message." Since I was born, a group of people calling themselves "the government of the United States" has not only failed to send a good message to criminals about murder, it has been sending the wrong message in a most powerful way. It has created a "culture of death" through war and legalized abortion. And it creates a culture of death by banning God from the "Public Square." “All those who hate Me love death.” (Proverbs 8:36) During the 20th century, "private sector" homicides accounted for approximately 8.5 million murders worldwide. During that same century, "the State" -- which boasts of its purpose as protecting life against murderers and invaders -- murdered approximately 250-500 million people. Whichever estimate you accept, half the total represents governments murdering "their own" people to advance socialist programs at home, and half are the murder of people of other nations in war. "Over 60 million people were killed" in World War II alone. And whichever estimate you accept, "the State" is at least 25 times more deadly than the "criminals" from which it purports to protect us. Clearly, "governments" send the message that life is not as important as maintaining power. More than 10,000 people were intentionally killed by criminals last year in America. But during the 20th century, governments intentionally killed more than 10,000 people every day, each and every single day of the year, over the course of 100 years. Abolishing the State could not possibly increase the number of murders that occur each year. If nobody believed in "government," millions of people would not put on a uniform and kill millions of people. It is belief in the moral legitimacy of "the State" that causes ordinary people like you to wear a uniform and follow orders to kill people you don't even know, and have never done anything to harm you or even threaten you. Private sector crime knows nothing of this "government uniform" phenomenon. There is no reason to believe that people would start doing this if we abolished capital punishment and "the State." Eliminating "capital punishment" is part of my agenda to eliminate entirely the institution we call "the State." Conflicting Messages God says "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, etc.). This is why all governments -- eventually -- ban the Bible. The United States bans the Bible from its "public" schools because the Bible ultimately undercuts the authority of the government. (Not that many in government are "epistemologically self-conscious" about this; the actions of most people are not well thought out.) The government of the United States, through its Supreme Court, has said that a public school teacher cannot get in front of the students and, acting in her official capacity as a government-hired teacher, say these words, as if these words were actually, learnably true: "God says you should not kill other people." Or even more incorrect politically: "The Bible says you should not kill other people." Implicit in these simple statements is the claim that God exists, and that students have a moral obligation to listen to what God says, and obey Him. This is why the Supreme Court prohibited public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Even a privately paid-for copy of the Ten Commandments with this disclaimer cannot hang in a public school classroom:
The Court explained,
It should be noted that an "appropriate study" of "comparative religion" etc., means examining ancient religions as irrelevant artifacts, and critiquing them from the perspective of the modern religion of Secular Humanism. The Court says you can tear down Christianity from a secularist perspective in a public school classroom, but you cannot endorse or promote it. Notice also the distinction between "private devotion" and public ("state") objectives. The message being sent here is that you can be apply the commandments of Christ to your "private" life and still be a good citizen. But you may not apply the teachings of Christ to government or the "public sector." If you refrain from murder as a matter of "private devotion," that's fine, but if your Christianity forbids you in your capacity as a citizen of the State from voting for a mass murderer like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or from wearing a uniform and killing enemies of the State, then your Christianity has exceeded its proper bounds. Most church-going Christians agree with this thinking. Christianity is for your private life, but not your life as a citizen, and not your government.
To quote a Supreme Court Justice in another case, Christianity and the institution of systematic killing ("the State") are "on a collision course." The more people who follow Christianity, the fewer people can be recruited for imperialist murders. We need to send a message that killing is wrong. Not just the thousands that "criminals" kill, but the millions, and tens of millions, and hundreds of millions of people that "governments" kill. But our argument against capital punishment on this webpage is not about "sending a message." It is about accurately interpreting the message that God has already sent. |
Sunday, October 16, 2022
God Predestines ALL Things, every bit of it!
It is easy in a world that is continously darker to get despair or even scared for your life. This should not be the case as no matter what happens God predestines all things. He even predestined Evil for use of His Own purposes. He has setup pur rulers for His own reasons and brings them down.
In His Providence all things come to us from diseases to health, to the time of our very death. There us not a maverick quark or atom or molecule. All of it comes from God's Eternal and immutable decree. We need to learn to relax and rest in God and that He has a reason for all things no matter out of control live might seem.
left-libertarianism and the theonomic/Christian worldview
Theonomic Left-Libertarianism
On the left libertarian side is an essay by Gary Chartier advocating "left libertarianism." Each one is followed by comments comparing "left libertarianism" with a Theonomic "Vine & Fig Tree" worldview.
The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism
from the "Bleeding Heart Libertarians" Blog Vine & Fig Tree home page.
By Gary Chartier On November 5, 2012 · 105 Comments · In Left-libertarianism, Libertarianism, Social Justice, Symposium on Left-Libertarianism | Gary Chartier holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge and a JD from UCLA. His books have been published by the Univeristy of Cambridge Press and his byline has appeared nearly forty times in journals including the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Legal Theory, and Law and Philosophy. | Gary Chartier in Wikipedia
Comments by Kevin Craig
[Editors Note: This essay is part of BHL's Symposium on Left-Libertarianism. Click on the link to see the other essays.] The main purpose of this webpage is to introduce "left-libertarianism" to conservative Christians, especially "Christian Reconstructionists." Conservatives bewail "big government," but are blind to many of its manifestations. Leftists see these manifestations better than conservatives, but don't realize they are manifestations of "big government." Leftists too often clamor for government solutions to problems which were caused by government, and which would be exacerbated by more government. Conservatives need to see these problems as problems and propose Biblical solutions.
Left-libertarianism in the relevant sense is a position that is simultaneously leftist and libertarian. It features leftist commitments to:
I have always considered myself a "right-winger." I have always considered "leftists" to be "un-American."
Ecclesiastes 10:2
A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, But a fool’s heart at his left.
Matthew 25:33
And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
Gary Chartier's book Markets Not Capitalism was helpful to me in realizing that the Biblical ideal is to veer neither to the left nor the right.
engaging in class analysis and class struggle;
opposing corporate privilege;
undermining structural poverty
embracing shared responsibility for challenging economic vulnerability;
affirming wealth redistribution;
supporting grass-roots empowerment;
humanizing worklife;
protecting civil liberties;
opposing the drug war;
supporting the rights of sex workers;
challenging police violence;
promoting environmental well-being and animal welfare;
fostering children’s liberation;
rejecting racism, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, and national chauvinism; and
resisting war, imperialism and colonialism.
Simultaneously, it features libertarian commitments to:
We'll examine each of these in more detail below.
affirming robust protections for just possessory claims;
embracing freed markets and a social ideal of peaceful, voluntary cooperation; and
crafting a thoroughly anti-statist politics.
A Leftist Position
Both/And | Neither/Nor
A leftist position is marked, I suggest, by concern with subordination, exclusion, deprivation, and war. Left-libertarians whole-heartedly embrace these leftist concerns. But left-libertarians may differ from other leftists insofar as they: The linked article defines each of these terms:
subordination
exclusion
deprivation
war
Subordination
The Fifth Commandment ("Honour thy father and thy mother") defends "subordination." The Son subordinated Himself to the Father. The Church subordinates herself to Christ. We are to be subject to Caesar and slavemasters. More.
"Left-libertarianism" is at war with "hierarchy," as will be seen below, but the family is inherently hierarchical.
And yet there is a strong incentive in the Bible to eliminate slavery and the State. Dominion is a goal to be preferred to lifelong subordination.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Exclusion
Excommunication is an important Biblical concept. Separation is a related concept.
Leviticus 20:24
But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.
Matthew 25:32
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Separation is to be based on moral and ethical considerations, not race or wealth.
And yet a major theme of the Bible is the eventual inclusion of the unclean Gentiles into the Household of Faith. [many verses follow to prove this | or see this | skip down to "deprivation"]
Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Genesis 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Deuteronomy 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.
Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psalm 22:27-31 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. 28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations. 29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul. 30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. ...
Psalm 46:4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.
Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Psalm 65:2 O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
Psalm 65:5 By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:
Psalm 66:4 All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah.
Psalm 68:31-32 Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. 32 Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; O sing praises unto the Lord; Selah:
Psalm 72 Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son. 2 He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment. 3 The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. 4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. ...
Psalm 86:9 All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.
Psalm 102:15 So the heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.
Psalm 102:18-22 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD. 19 For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth; 20 To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death; 21 To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; ...
Psalm 145:10-11 All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee. 11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
Isaiah 2:2-5 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.
Also Isaiah 9:1-7; 11:1-10; 18:7; 24:16; 35; 40:4-11; 42:1-12; 45:6,8,22-24; 49:1,5-6,18-23; 54:1-3; 55:5; 56:3,6-8; 60:1,3-5,8-14; 65:1; 66:7-23; Jeremiah 3:17; 4:2; 16:19-21; Ezekiel 47:3-5; Daniel 2:35,44-45; 7:13-14; Hosea 2:23; Joel 2:28-32; Amos 9:11-12; Micah 4:3-4; Haggai 2:7; Zechariah 2:10-11; 6:15; 8; 9:1,9-17; 14:8-21; Malachi 1:11; Matthew 3:9; 8:11; 12:17-21; 19:30; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:29-30; 21:24; John 10:16; Acts 9:15.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 11:1-18 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, 3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. 4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, ...
Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Acts 13:46-48 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. 48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
Acts 15:7-9 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Acts 15:12-31 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, ...
Acts 18:4-6 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. 5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ. 6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
Acts 26:16-18 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
Romans 1:5-7 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 9:22-30 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. ...
Romans 10:19-20 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
Also Romans 11:11-13,17-21; 15:9-12; Galatians 1:15-16; 2:2; 3:14; Ephesians 3:1-8; Colossians 3:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:11; Revelation 11:15; 15:4.
Also Genesis 49:10; Deuteronomy 32:21; Psalm 2:8; 22:27-31; 46:4,10; 65:2; 66:4; 68:31-32; 69:35-36; 72; 85:10-12; 86:9; 87:4; 89:1-37; 96; 102:13-16,18-22; 110; 113:3; 118:24; 126:5-6; 132:15-17; 138:4-5; 145:10-11; Isaiah 2:2-5; 4:2-3,5-6; 9:1-7; 11:1-10; 18:7; 19:24-25; 23:17-18; 24:16; 25:6-8; 29:18-24; 30:20; 32; 33:5,13-24; 35; 40:4-11; 41:17-20; 42:1-12; 44:3-5; 45:6,8,14,23-24; 46:12-13; 49:6-12,18-23; 51:3-16; 52; 53:10-12; 54; 55; 56:3-8; 59:19-21; 60; 61; 62; 65; 66:7-23; Jeremiah 3:17; 4:2; 16:19-21; 31:7-9,34; 33:22; Ezekiel 17:22-24; 34:23-31; 47:1-12; Daniel 2:35,44-45; 7:13-14,18,22,27; 12; Joel 2:26-32; 3:18; Amos 9:11-12; Micah 4:1-7; 5:2-15; Habakkuk 2:14; Zephaniah 2:11; 3:9-20; Haggai 2:7-9; Zechariah 2:10-11; 6:15; 8:20-23; 9:1,9-17; 14:8-21; Malachi 1:11; Matthew 8:11; 11:5,11; 13:16-17,31-33; 16:18; Mark 4:26-32; Luke 7:22; John 8:35; 10:16; Acts 2:16-21; Romans 1:5-7; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:10; Hebrews 12:23-24,27-28; Revelation 5:10,13-14; 11:15; 12:10; 15:4; 20:4-6; 21:9-27; 22:1-5.
Deprivation
God deprived Job of his wealth for a time. God promises that the lazy will experience deprivation. If a man refuses to work, he should be deprived even of food (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Nevertheless, poverty is not normative, and charity toward the deprived is. See Ronald Sider's book "Cry Justice."
On balance, right-wingers have neglected much in the Bible, and can learn much from "bleeding heart" leftists to see overlooked problems, but not solutions.
War
The left claims to be against war, but still supports Barack Obama.
The right is very wrongly supportive of the military state.
America is no longer a "City upon a Hill," as Jesus used that phrase. The United States is an imperialist war-monger state. Since I was born, tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians have been killed, crippled or made homeless by the U.S. military.
Christians Should Oppose War
Of course, in theory everyone says they oppose war. Except in practice. Except those who profit from making war. And those who profit from the military imposition of U.S. policy around the world, which keeps our gas prices lower than in Europe.
I take Micah's prophecy as a command: "swords into plowshares" is a present moral imperative. Jesuit scholar Richard T. McSorely was correct when he said, "It's a Sin to Build a Nuclear Weapon." It is only used to violate God's prohibition against vengeance. It is inconsistent with the principles of "just war." But nukes are only the tip of the iceberg. Nearly half of all "defense" spending in the world is by the U.S.
Some would say that my support of peace is "impractical" and "utopian" What is "practical" about the deaths of millions of people during my lifetime? What is "practical" about spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year and still being unable to stop the 9/11 Keystone Hijackers? Every single person who signed the Constitution would be shocked at our current level of defense spending, the militarization of airports -- overthrowing the Fourth Amendment in the name of "homeland security" -- and our "standing armies." The cost of two current wars is $10,000 for every man, woman, and small child in America. U.S. Defense policy has crowded out private giving for missionary efforts which could have Christianized Iraq. Our whole Defense Dept worldview violates the most fundamental ethical teachings of Christ.
The "War on Terror"
Christian conservatives also tend to support the "war on terror," which is really a Big Government Program to suppress Islam -- unless the "war on terror" has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic terrorists, but is solely about expanding U.S. corporate hegemony and propping up the Dollar as an international reserve currency. The size of our military and its anti-Christian character would have astounded America's Founders. Even if the architects of U.S. foreign policy are concerned about the spread of false religions, using government to aid in "The Great Commission" is unChristian. And destroying the true religion (as happened in Iraq) using the military is even worse. If the Biblical prophets spoke truth, we should expect God to do to us what we did to Iraq.
The Military is at war with the family (causing divorce and suicide)
and tears the fabric of life at home and abroad
675,000 veterans of these wars have been granted disability
More than 2 million American children have coped with a parent going to these wars
As many as one half million of those children may have become clinically depressed
The VA only began tracking war veteran suicides in 2008 even though rates now appear significantly higher than among comparable civilians
Unemployment rates have been two percentage points higher among war veterans than civilians
The military has increasingly off-loaded the burden of care for service members’ health onto their families, and mainly onto women
Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003
The Army’s use of the determination that a soldier has a “pre-existing condition” has saved it over $12.5 billion
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 75 percent more likely to die in car crashes than comparable civilians
The United States destroyed the largest Christian community in the Arab world, overthrew a government that permitted open, public evangelism by Christians, and replaced it with an Islamic theocracy under Shariah law, and left millions of dollars in military hardware for ISIS.
The military intentionally cultivates a callous disregard for the value of human life, in order to make "better soldiers."
The State is at war against Christian virtues.
Washington D.C. promotes and imposes abortion and homosexuality around the world.
The government is a model of violence as a solution to personal and social problems.
"Swords into Plowshares" | Peace | Peacemaker Coaching
affirm the independent value of robust protections for just possessory claims—as, among other things, an expression of and a means of implementing the leftist opposition to subordination and leftist support for widely shared prosperity, but also as constraints on the means used to pursue some leftist goals;
make different predictions about establishing a genuinely freed market (rejecting the view that such a market would be a corporate playground);
offer different explanations of the origins and persistence of objectionable social phenomena (so that, for instance, state-secured privileges for elites, rather than market dynamics, account for persistent poverty and workplace subordination); and
urge different remedies for these phenomena (characteristically, a combination of remedying state-perpetrated and state-tolerated injustice, and fostering voluntary, solidaristic action).
Left-libertarians share with other leftists the awareness that there are predictable winners and losers in society and that being sorted into the two camps isn’t primarily a matter of luck or skill. But left-libertarians emphasize that it’s not a consequence of market exchange, either: it’s a reflection of state-committed, state-threatened, and state-tolerated aggression. As long as there’s a state apparatus in place, the wealthy can capture it, using it to gain power and more wealth, while the politically powerful can use it to acquire wealth and more power. The ruling class—made up of wealthy people empowered by the state, together with high-level state functionaries—is defined by its relationship with the state, its essential enabler. Opposing this class thus means opposing the state.
Class War
The Bible says not to prefer the poor or the rich:
Leviticus 19:15
“You must not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.
The Bible also acknowledges class conflict:
Proverbs 22:7
The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is a slave to the lender.
Proverbs 22:16
Oppressing the poor to enrich oneself, and giving to the rich—both lead only to poverty.
The Christian historian Lord Acton rightly observed, "Power tends to corrupt." He meant state power. Compare what Lord Acton said with what Jesus said:
Jesus
Lord Acton
You know that those who are considered archists over the Gentiles
lord it over them,
and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Yet it shall not be so among you; Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
"Greatness" achieved through the State is not Biblically defensible.
But wealth apart from state plunder is not unBiblical:
Genesis 13:2
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold.
more verses | more analysis
Left-libertarians share with other leftists the recognition that big businesses enjoy substantial privileges that benefit them while harming the public. But they stress that the proper response to corporate privilege is to eliminate subsidies, bailouts, cartelizing regulations, and other state-driven features of the legal, political, and economic environments that prop up corporate power rather than retaining the privileges while increasing state regulatory involvement in the economy—which can be expected to create new opportunities for elite manipulation, leave corporate power intact, stifle upstart alternatives to corporate behemoths, and impoverish the public. The "right" tends to be "pro-business," but blindly ignores left criticism of the rise of big business, which is inseparable from the rise of Big Government. See Kevin Carson's historical revisionism in "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand." The evidence is breathtaking but ignored by the right. Carson chronicles massive violations of Biblical Law in support of "business." Massive -- society-wide -- affecting millions of people -- structurally embedded. No political candidate will even touch these violations of God's Law. Theonomists must not remain blind to these violations.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists both outrage at structural poverty and the recognition that the wealthy and well connected help to shape the rules of the economic and political game in ways that preserve their wealth and influence while making and keeping others poor. But left-libertarians emphasize that poverty isn’t created or perpetuated by the freed market, but rather by large-scale theft and by the privileges and constraints—from licensing requirements to intellectual property rules to land-use controls to building codes—that prevent people from using their skills and assets effectively or dramatically raise the cost of doing so. Eliminating structural poverty means eliminating state-secured privilege and reversing state-sanctioned theft. There are virtually no poor in America. It is largely mythical that the rich (globalist entrepreneurs) have "made" people poor. Robert Rubin (Clinton's Secretary of State) and Hank Paulson (Bush's Secretary of State) and Ben Bernanke (Bush-Obama) represent institutionalized theft on a massive scale, which of course hurts the poor. But it hurts the middle class as well. (Maybe more, since the middle class save more. Maybe.) The main cause of "poverty" in America is immoral habits on the part of the poor, and the perpetuating of these lifestyle choices by government subsidies (also called "welfare," which is in fact inimical to their true welfare). Another word for "structural poverty" might be "dependence" on government welfare (often for successive generations).
Left-libertarians share with other leftists both compassionate concern with economic vulnerability and the recognition that vulnerable people can’t be left to fend for themselves, that shared responsibility for meeting their needs is morally and practically essential. But they stress that mutual aid arrangements have dealt successfully with economic vulnerability. They also emphasize that such arrangements could be expected to be more successful absent taxation (people can and will spend their own money on poverty relief, but they’re likely to do so much more efficiently and intelligently than state officials deploying tax revenues), poverty-producing state regulations, and limitations on choice in areas like medical care.
Marvin Olasky has described "The Tragedy of American [left-wing] Compassion" and the superiority of conservative family- and church-centered solutions to poverty. Leftists seem to be more adept than conservatives at pointing to areas that need to be addressed, but with inadequate solutions.
Women, children, and mentally disabled people should not be expected to "fend for themselves."
Left-libertarians share with other leftists the conviction that the redistribution of wealth can be appropriate or even required. But they deny that redistribution may reasonably be undertaken to bring about a particular pattern of wealth distribution, that it may be effected through aggressive interference with people’s justly acquired possessions, or that it is properly the work of the state. Rather, they suggest, redistribution ought to be effected by the legal system (as it restores to people resources unjustly taken from them or their predecessors in interest, as it makes assets stolen by the state or acquired unjustly by its cronies available for homesteading, and as it denies validity to state-secured privileges that preserve the economic positions of the well-connected while keeping others poor), through solidaristic mutual aid, and through the tendency of a market liberated from privilege to “eat the rich.” There is an important distinction to be made between "redistribution" and "restitution." Conservatives should favor the latter, but not the former.
A truly Free Market does not favor "the 1%." A program of just social restitution would be very difficult to formulate, but it is not inappropriate to think about it, as Zacchaeus did.
Left-libertarians share with many other leftists—New Leftists and Greens, say—the conviction that decision-making should be decentralized, that people should be able to participate to the maximum feasible degree in shaping decisions that affect their lives. But they maintain that this means that, against a backdrop of secure pre-political rights, all association should be consensual. Top-down, forcible decision-making is likely to be marred by the fallibility of decision-makers and their tendency to pursue self-interested goals at the public’s expense. Small-scale political units are more humanizing than large-scale ones; but decentralization must finally be decentralization to the level of the particular person. Conservatives should have no objection to decentralization. Those who favor centralization have an interest in dividing leftists and conservatives so that any united movement toward decentralization is dampened.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists the realization that hierarchical workplaces are disempowering and stultifying, and that supporting workplace hierarchies is thus often morally objectionable. But they stress that hierarchical workplaces are more likely given state action. Hierarchies limit the ability of workers to use their knowledge and skills to respond flexibly and efficiently to production and distribution challenges and to meet customer needs. The inefficiencies of hierarchies would make them less common aspects of worklife, and increase the odds that people would be able to choose alternatives offering more freedom and dignity (self-employment or work in partnerships or cooperatives), in the absence of privileges that lowered the costs of maintaining hierarchies and raised the costs of opting out of them (as by making self-employment more costly, and so more risky). State action also redirects wealth to those interested in seeing that they and people like them rule the workplace; and the state’s union regulations limit the ways unions can challenge workplace hierarchies. Hierarchy may not be the issue. The issue may be laziness on the part of management and a failure to treat employees with a Biblical vision like Abraham treated his household employees: seeking to move them to maturity and creativity. There is much discussion about workplace environments that reward innovation, growth, and productivity rather than easy-to-manage bureaucratic conformity, and neither the left nor the right have a monopoly on these ideas. If a left-leaning business has good ideas, they should be emulated by conservatives.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a commitment to civil liberties. But they stress that the state is a predictable foe of these liberties and that the most effective way to safeguard them is to protect people’s control over their bodies and justly acquired possessions.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a conviction that the drug war is destructive, racist, and absurdly expensive. But they emphasize that the best protection against prohibitionist campaigns of all sorts is to respect people’s control over their bodies and justly acquired possessions, and that aggression-based limits on all disfavored but voluntary exchanges should be disallowed. The "War on Drugs" is blatantly unconstitutional, and the real solution to drug addiction is profoundly conservative and spiritual, not big-government. Start by abolishing Godless secular schooling, which would make any sane person reach out for a narcotic stupor.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a concern for the well-being of sex workers. But they note that state actors engage in violence against sex workers and that state policies, including criminalization and regulation, create or intensify the risks associated with sex work. Obviously, from a Christian perspective "sex work" should be eradicated (but not by threats of violence by government thugs). The left is wrong on family hierarchy and sex.
This is a pivotal issue.
The left is antinomian.
The right is pharisaical.
The left has sex outside of marriage.
The right gets married, divorced, and re-married.
The left champions the antinomian "underdog."
The right defends the privileged status quo of statism and militarism.
As Romans 2 would predict, both sides accurately identify the sins of the other side. We should learn from each side as it criticizes the other side, but the answer is neither on the left nor the right.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a passionate opposition to police violence and corruption. But they emphasize that this is not simply a reflection of poor oversight or the presence in police agencies of “a few bad apples” but instead a reflection of the structural positions of such agencies as guarantors of state power and of the lack of accountability created both by the existence of substantial de facto differences in standards for the use of force by police officers and others and by the monopolistic status of police agencies. Private security is preferable to socialist "security."
Left-libertarians share with other leftists persistent concerns with environmental quality and animal welfare. But they stress that environmental harms can be prevented and remedied without state involvement, as long as robust legal protections for bodies and justly acquired possessions are in place; that state action is not required to protect non-human animals from abuse; and that state actions and policies are often directly responsible for protecting polluters, promoting environmental harms, and injuring non-human animals. Human beings need a healthy environment. But environmentalism is paganism.
"Animal welfare" is Biblical; "animal rights" is not.
God has given human beings "rights," according to the Declaration of Independence. Animals do not have rights. Trees do not have rights. But the Creator Who gave human beings "rights" has the right to command human beings to care for animals (Proverbs 12:10) and trees (Deuteronomy 20:19). "Animal rights" should not serve as a pretext for expanding the power of the State and limiting the rights of human beings. ("Rights" is an inherently flawed concept.)
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a commitment to the well-being of children. But left-libertarians underscore the importance of respecting children’s rights to control their own bodies and possessions—rejecting both attempts to treat children as their parents’ property and paternalistic state action that interferes unreasonably with children’s freedom—and emphasize the degree to which the state is not the protector of children but is responsible in multiple ways for significant threats to their freedom and well-being, notably through compulsory schooling. We created a tape series (back in the days of cassettes) analyzing John Holt's book on "Children's Rights" from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective. "Children's Rights" sounds offensive initially, but there is much wisdom in it. Most conservative objection to "Children's Rights" is directed at the prospect of United Nations enforcement of such "rights." This is indeed very dangerous, but is not what Holt was talking about.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists the awareness that racism, sexism, heterosexism, nativism, and national chauvinism are morally repugnant. But they emphasize the crucial role of the state in creating, perpetuating, and capitalizing on these forms of unfairness while stressing that eliminating the props the state provides for prejudice-driven conduct can play a vital role in combating discrimination. Suspicious of the state and respectful of just possessory claims, they stress non-aggressive solidaristic action as the appropriate means of dealing with persistent discrimination. They promote marriage equality while seeking the departure of the state from the marriage business. And, while joining other leftists in opposing xenophobia, they stress that all borders should be razed to enable untrammeled migration. Racism, nativism and nationalism can all be idols.
Heterosexism or homophobia is a myth.
Xenophobia is clearly a Biblical concern.
"Solidaristic action" is action as a body, which is a way of describing the church, but is decentralized vis-a-vis the State.
Left-libertarians share with other leftists a passionate opposition to war and empire and a concern for the victims of both, including native peoples across the globe. But they emphasize the links between warfare, imperialism, and colonialism and the state’s continuing infringements on civil and economic liberties—not to mention ruling-class mischief. Interference with people’s peaceful conduct within the state’s borders is objectionable for many of the same reasons as war beyond the state’s borders. As a form of enslavement, conscription is unjust. The freedom to trade tends to reduce the probability of war. And warfare is a likely consequence of the operation of the state, which seeks predictably to expand its influence by force. Leftist opposition to war should be seen as entailing opposition to the state per se. War
Empire
Both valid concerns.
Colonialism by the State is wrong, but not by missionaries.
A Libertarian Position
A libertarian position is marked, I suggest, by support for equality of authority; for robust protections for just possessory claims; and for peaceful, voluntary cooperation, including cooperation in and through exchange. Left-libertarians share these commitments. But left-libertarians may differ from other libertarians insofar as they:
make different predictions about the likely effects of liberating people and eliminating the institutionalized aggression that prevents them from cooperating peacefully and voluntarily (stressing the contingency of hierarchical workplaces, for instance);
call attention to particular generally accepted consequences of building a free society (say, by emphasizing not only freedom but also solidarity, diversity, and poverty relief as among the outcomes of eliminating state-secured privilege);
tell different historical or social-scientific stories about the causes and dynamics of social phenomena (so that the extant distribution of wealth is seen as a product of state action rather than individual virtue); and
treat certain kinds of social phenomena (arbitrary discrimination, for instance) as morally objectionable and argue for non-aggressive but concerted responses to these phenomena.
Left-libertarians share with other libertarians a commitment to equality of authority—to the view that there is no natural right to rule and that non-consensual authority is presumptively illegitimate. This egalitarianism naturally issues in a commitment to anarchism, since state authority is non-consensual. But left-libertarians emphasize that the commitment to moral equality that underlies belief in equality of authority should entail the rejection of subordination and exclusion on the basis of nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation, workplace status, or other irrelevant characteristics. While left-libertarians agree with other libertarians that people’s decisions to avoid associating with others because of such characteristics shouldn’t be interfered with aggressively, left-libertarians emphasize that such decisions can often still be subjected to moral critique and should be opposed using non-aggressive means.
Some of these characteristics are in fact "relevant," and a valid basis for "concerted response." There are things the Body of Christ should "oppose using non-aggressive means." The left ignores or champions these things, while the right accurately opposes them, but uses the violence of the State to do so.
Left-libertarians share with other libertarians a commitment to robust protections for just possessory claims to physical objects. But they reject “intellectual property” and emphasize that possessory protections shouldn’t cover objects acquired with the decisive aid of the state, or otherwise through the use of violence, or to those clearly abandoned. They make clear that there are just limits to the things people can do to protect their possessions (becoming a trespasser doesn’t automatically make one liable to violence). They note that whether claims to land should be held by individuals or groups can only be determined in light of the economics of particular situations and the ways particular claims are established. And they stress that, while just possessory claims should be respected, it’s quite possible to oppose aggressive interference with someone’s use of her possessions in a given way while challenging that use non-aggressively. Can you name anything "acquired with the decisive aid of the state?" How about a claim to future "Social Security" payments? The Entitlement Mentality is bankrupting America, both financially and morally.
Left-libertarians share with other libertarians a commitment to a model of social life rooted in peaceful, voluntary cooperation. But they differ with other libertarians in emphasizing that, while force may justly be used only in response to aggression, peaceful, voluntary cooperation is a moral ideal with implications that go beyond simple non-aggression. Left-libertarians urge that associations of all kinds be structured in ways that affirm the freedom, dignity, and individuality of all participants, and thus allow participants the option not only of exit but also of voice—of influencing the associations’ trajectories and exercising as much individual discretion within them as possible. The untrained should not have the same authoritative voice as the experts. But the experts should be open to paradigm shifts from the younger generation.
While rejecting capitalism, left-libertarians share with other libertarians an enthusiastic recognition of the value of markets. They stress that both parties to a voluntary exchange participate because they prefer it and believe it will benefit them; that prices provide excellent guides for producers and distributors (far better than anything a central planner could offer); and that people should internalize the costs as well as the benefits of their choices. But they emphasize that background injustice can distort markets and constrain traders’ options. They also note that commercial exchange does not exhaust the sphere of peaceful, voluntary cooperation and that people can and should cooperate in multiple ways—playful, solidaristic, compassionate—that need not be organized along commercial lines.
"Capitalism" here means "crony capitalism," fascism, or other economic activity coordinated by or dependent upon State aggression.
A Biblical worldview envisions many other ways of living life other than "along commercial lines."
A Transformed Vision
Left-libertarianism embraces and transforms leftist and libertarian ideals.
Many leftists and libertarians already share some commitments: opposition to war, empire, and corporate privilege; support for civil liberties and grass-roots empowerment. However, many leftists and libertarians also embrace, and often share, various mistaken assumptions.
Left-libertarians challenge these assumptions while embracing the commitments leftists and libertarians share. They seek to demonstrate that it’s reasonable both to oppose structural poverty and to favor freed markets, to seek both workplace dignity and robust protections for just possessory claims, to embrace freedom of association while opposing arbitrary discrimination, to foster both peace and economic liberty, to link rejection of war and imperialism with support for peaceful, voluntary cooperation at all levels.
By endorsing leftist and libertarian concerns and challenging assumptions that make it difficult for leftists to embrace libertarianism and for libertarians to become leftists, left-libertarianism offers a provocative vision of an appealing politics and a world marked by greater freedom and fairness.
Thanks to my colleagues in the Alliance of the Libertarian Left/Center for a Stateless Society/Molinari Society, to Anthony Gregory, and to David Gordon, among others, for reviewing earlier versions of this essay. It is markedly better in virtue of the feedback I have received, though I, of course, remain responsible for its flaws. Neither Left nor Right | Both Left and Right
Deuteronomy 5:32
“Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Deuteronomy 17:11
According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you.
Deuteronomy 17:20
that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.
Deuteronomy 28:14
So you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
Joshua 1:7
Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go.
Joshua 23:6
Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, lest you turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left,
2 Kings 22:2
And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
2 Chronicles 34:2
And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
Proverbs 4:27
Do not turn to the right or the left;
Remove your foot from evil.
Isaiah 30:21
Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying,
“This is the way, walk in it,”
Whenever you turn to the right hand
Or whenever you turn to the left.
2 Corinthians 6:7
by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
Additional Comments:
There is a difference between being angry at someone who mistreats the poor, and being compassionate toward the poor. The word "compassion" comes from two Latin words meaning "to suffer with," that is, to be there physically with one who suffers, and thus suggests the need for hands-on, out-of-[own]-pocket assistance toward the poor, not merely lobbying the government to create a job for you to hand out other people's money, or to outlaw compassion that competes with yours.