Why Reading the Bible Makes Me More Libertarian

Last week, a friend of mine posted an article on Facebook entitled, "10 Reasons Why Reading the Bible Makes Us More Progressive." To be frank, I was infuriated upon reading this article at its misuse of scripture to provide a rationale for a political viewpoint. I thought it worthwhile to respond to this article here.

The author begins by explaining how he became a Christian progressive because he decided to accept the whole Bible. I personally believe that if you are reading the Bible to determine your political viewpoints, you're probably doing something wrong. Nevertheless, I would like to go point by point to show the logical inconsistencies and Bible verses taken out of context within this article.

1. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize I don't have it all together."
Our friendly author goes on to explain here that when he realizes how little he knows, and how sinful he truly is, he is a lot less likely to pass judgment onto others. This interpretation of scripture he gives here is worthy. We shouldn't condemn people because they have sin in their lives. That's God's job and place. But this has nothing to do with government or the left-right spectrum. Apparently, he is assuming here that to live on the right of the spectrum is to pass judgment on anything and everything, but that is an absurd and offensive assumption. Judging other people has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

2. "The more I read my Bible, the more I develop humility."
This point is really just a reiteration of his first point, so I will reiterate my earlier response. Yes, we as Christians need to be humble and not view others' sins as worse than our own. The great apostle Paul did himself say the he was the chief of sinners, showing us an excellent example in humility, but this has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

3. "The more I read my Bible, the more I discover that justice for the poor and oppressed is at the heart of it."
Here our author again makes a spiritual point I can definitely agree with. He concludes this point by saying, "God wants us to care for, serve, and love these people." That's exactly it right there. God wants US to care for, serve, and love these people, but quite frankly our responsibility to care for the people has nothing to do with the government, and by extension, has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

4. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize “redistribution of wealth” wasn’t Obama’s idea– it was God’s."
Now we're getting into some more interesting material. The author insists that the Israelites had a system of redistribution of wealth through institutions such as the year of Jubilee, restrictions on gleaning your garden and other similar things. Although the Israelites were clearly told to care for the poor, it was a cultural decision not a governmental one. Each individual had a responsibility to help the poor, just as we each have a responsibility to help the poor today. No conservatives or libertarians have any problems with private redistribution of wealth as is being discussed here. No, we have a problem with government mandated redistribution, which is not discussed within these cultural norms. Indeed, these cultural norms and the responsibility to help the poor have nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

5. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that the early Christians actually practiced this re-distribution of wealth." 
Here our author opines,

"They rejected individual ownership, gave their wealth to leadership who in turn, redistributed it according to need... While this still seems too radical for me, it moves me in a right to left trajectory as I read it."

The fact that he refuses to accept this idea fully while accusing conservatives of ignoring parts of the Bible is interesting, to say the least.

I can only assume that he is getting this idea of rejecting property from Acts 4-5. Indeed it is stated in Acts 4 that several members of the church did sell their possessions and give the money to the Apostles to redistribute. However, there is no indication that this was common among all churches, or if this was just a custom at Antioch. It is also unclear whether the Apostles asked for the money from selling properties in the first place. In response, a Christian progressive loves to point out that Ananias and Sapphira were punished for keeping back some of the money they received from selling their property, but examining what the Apostles actually told them about their misdeeds, we see an entirely different story. In Acts 5:3-4, the Bible proclaims,

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

Not only does this passage show that the Lord was punishing them for their lying, not their refusal to fully participate in redistribution, but it also demonstrates that the Apostles in the early church did not "Reject individual ownership." It says that while it remained, and after is was sold, it was in "Thine own power."

Of course, I haven't even mentioned that even if this notion is true (as we have seen, it's not), we would be dealing with private redistribution of wealth, which no conservative or libertarian have any qualms with. Thus, his entire thesis on this point has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

6. "The more I read my Bible the more I realize Jesus taught we need to pay our taxes."
Finally, something the Bible actually says about government! Our friendly author would like to point out that it was the government's job and our private job to administer charity. To prove this, he cites another example where Jesus tells someone to sells their goods and give it to the poor, and also that Jesus tells us to pay our taxes. The former I have no qualms with as it is private redistribution. The latter however is guilty of the non sequitur fallacy. Non sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." In this case, just because we must pay taxes to the federal government, it does not follow that we must support use of that taxation as government charity. Indeed, I can't think of a way in which those two can be linked together meaningfully. Thus, the fact that the Bible tells us to pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

7. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God wants us to be people who are quick to show mercy."
He here once again assumes with no basis that progressivism is the ONLY system centered on the belief of radical mercy. This is another offensive and baseless assumption. Essentially, how merciful you are, and whether you support radical mercy in political areas has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

8. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God cares how we treat immigrants."
I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said (and even implies) here. I personally believe that our immigration standards should be much less restrictive. Is this a progressive belief? I guess this author thinks so, but I always thought of it as a libertarian belief. Oh well, I suppose even a broken clock (progressives) can be right twice! Regardless, your beliefs about immigration are hardly the most important thing in determining whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

9. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God will hold us accountable for how we care for the environment."
We are now back to the issue of what God expects from people, and not what God expects from the government. I agree that as Christians we are called to be good stewards of the earth, but as this has nothing to do with government, it has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

10. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God isn’t judging us by whether or not we get all of our doctrine right– he’s judging us by whether or not we get the “love one another” part right."
Our author would like to point out the following,

"The more I read the Bible the more I realize that God is less concerned with us all sharing the same doctrine but is heavily concerned with whether or not we love each other. In fact, Jesus said this would be the calling card of his followers, and how others would realize we’re actually following Jesus– that we love one another. The more I read my Bible, the more I want to defer my position or preference and instead side with what is in the best interest of others– because that’s the loving thing to do."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Christians should be concerned with loving one another, and should side in all things with what is in the best interest of others. However, I disagree with the once again offensive assumption here that those who do not subscribe to progressivism clearly don't have the best interest of others in mind. I am a libertarian because I believe that libertarianism best upholds the principle of "loving one another." That principle itself however has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.


I have spent a lot of time responding to this article without pointing out why reading the Bible makes me more Libertarian. Going off my "Less is more" philosophy of life, which in this case, details that having fewer, well-developed points is preferable to a laundry list of poorly developed points, I have summarized below three reasons why the Bible supports the beliefs of Libertarianism

1. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord respects private property. 
We have already seen from the passage in Acts 5 that the Lord allowed Ananias and the other members of the church at Antioch to decide whether to sell their possessions or not for use in the apostles' "redistribution" scheme.

I also believe that several Jewish customs in the Old Testament, such as interest-free loans, were established to better allow the Jewish people to buy and sell land. Contrary to some beliefs, the Jewish people definitely had an idea and custom of private property. How else could Judas' thirty pieces of silver be used to buy a field if there was no custom of private property in the first place? How could Boaz own a field of wheat if ownership was not respected? How could David be keeping his father's sheep if all possessions were in common? Indeed Exodus 22 establishes the punishment of retribution for those guilty of theft of private property.

But I believe the better source of proof for the Lord's respect for private property comes from the verse I use in the title of this blog, 2 Timothy 2:6

"The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits." 

This verse is using the capitalist principle of wages and private ownership of the means of production to prove a greater point about how if you wish to reap the benefits of God's work, you must be willing to partake in the labour of it. Although we should always remember the metaphorical meaning of these words (every Friday's post expresses some truth about them), the literal meaning of the verse is still true and supports private property and the basis of all libertarian thought.

If I need to prove my point further, look to the ten commandments. As Messianic Jew Pastor Ted R. Weiland writes,

"Property is inherent to both the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. The Fourth Commandment’s stipulation concerning six days of labor provides a means of acquiring property, and the Eighth Commandment is predicated upon the right of ownership... Property implies ownership, and ownership entitles the owner to do with his property whatever he wishes, provided it does not violate the rights of others (Mathew 20:15) ... The Fourth and particularly the Eighth Commandment stand in stark contrast to the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.” 

So the Lord clearly value private property, and in our dealings with others including government, we must do so as well. This is the primary reason I am a libertarian.

2. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord does not like to coerce people into certain actions or beliefs. 
Jesus had power at many different times to just force the people to his beliefs. Although he would rebuke them, and sometimes use force, he never used his supernatural powers or any type of governmental force to coerce someone into protecting him or believing what he said.

Throughout the entirety of the Bible, the Israelites are not once told to use force to convince someone of their views. Immigrants are given the choice of changing to the Israelites' religion, but they are never coerced into doing so.

Indeed the only time we see someone using force to coerce someone into a belief system is when the Jewish elders try to coerce people into not believing the words of Jesus and his apostles, or when they try to prevent the apostles from sharing the gospel.

Why is this? Why do we only have negative notions of people being coerced into actions and beliefs they may not desire? Quite frankly, I don't think a positive notion of such things could exist. If we are to love one another, shouldn't that start by letting each person live his own life without threat of government coercion? This means everything from being able to retain one's property and not forced to give it to whatever the government considers "charity" to any lifestyle choices that are being made. (Not to mention that the Bible clearly shows the fallibility and corruptibility of man. Why should we trust men to use their power over other men in a way that glorifies God?) We can disagree with the decisions of others, and we can  and should speak out against them, but it is not very loving for us to use the government to force people to act by our (or even the Lord's) standard of right and wrong. At its core, that is libertarianism - protecting individual rights from the coercion of government because that's how you love one another when discussing governmental rules.

3. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord holds each individual accountable for his own actions. 
The Bible proclaims in Romans 14:12, 

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

When I read my Bible, I learn that the Lord is not concerned with keeping governments moral, nor is he concerned with keeping the church moral. No, what the Lord is concerned with, is whether each individual is moral and living a life of obedience to him. When he gives his commands, he is not normally (ever?) directing them at institutions like government, but is almost always directing them at the individual. This tells me that the Lord believes as libertarians do, in individual responsibility. Responsibility that is skirted when we consider it the government's job, not ours to care for the poor and other things. As we analyzed last week, Davy Crockett's summary of Horatio  Bunce's words in Not Yours to Give gives voice to how government can be used to skirt individual responsibility,

"There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give."

Government charity is praised because it allows those individuals to avoid the responsibility to engage and help out the poor themselves. This same principle is true for principles of environmental stewardship, education of children, and most other systems progressives believe to be an essential part of government.

It's not the government's job to do these things. History tells us that government makes the problem worse.  The Bible never tells us that the government needs to act and obey him. The Lord is not concerned with obedience from the government (I do believe he would rather the government just step out of the way), but with obedience from his people.

That is why when I read the Bible, I look for my own spiritual guidance, and not for support for my political views.

Apologetics Series 7: The Day of Reflection

Happy 2014, Everyone! I hope your year turns out to be absolutely fantastic!

This post will conclude the Apologetics Series. For this and my future series, I will write 6 posts on the subject and a seventh post reviewing what was said. This is modelled after the days in which the Lord created the world. 6 days of work, and one day to reflect what he had made.

Framework: Assumptions Necessary

In order to form any sort of worldview, it is necessary to assume something. No matter how hard we try to prove our points without using assumptions, we will inevitably fail. There is a reason there are assumed postulates in geometry. The question we must ask ourselves is, which assumptions are more rational? 

Truth Exists

There is absolute truth in this world. How do I know this? Well, I don't. But it logical to assume that truth is absolute. For starters, as R.C. Sproul states, 

"Modern relativists...proclaim that there are no absolutes (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes!)."

Thus, no matter what anyone wants to tell you, there is a truth universally acknowledged. The question then becomes, how much? It would be easy to draw the line of absolute vs. relative on the issue of preference (i.e. vanilla vs. chocolate). All other lines seem arbitrary. For instance, do we keep morality as an absolute? Yes, we really should because the consequences of relative morality, as Nietzsche himself admits, are absurd!

A God Exists

Standard for Truth

But how is it possible for there to be absolute morals and truth exactly? There must be a standard for these concepts. As Francis Schaeffer writes, 

"If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict.  We are merely left with conflicting opinions.  Yet to say that no judgements are universally true is absurd.  Every instinct within us tells us that at least some moral judgments are absolutely correct."

There needs to be a living being to provide a standard for truth. Furthermore, this being must be immutable and eternal. After all, if this living standard changed or died, then morals would cease to be absolute; they would change with time. Thus, we need a perfect, immutable, and eternal being to provide a standard. That being could be nothing other than the God. (Note: There can be only one because multiple gods would lead to multiple standards for morality).

Recognizing Evil

As Descartes reasons, if we had no perfect being in the world, we wouldn't be able to tell that this world is imperfect. Too often we hear atheists claim that a loving God wouldn't let evil into the world, but how do they know that what they are seeing in the world is evil exactly? Because they compare it to God. 

For instance, if you had never seen a chair before and then saw a three-legged chair, you wouldn't know anything was amiss because you wouldn't have a correct version of a chair to which to compare it. As Douglas Wilson says, 

"It is far better to believe in God and acknowledge the problem of evil than to be an atheist and to have no way of even *defining* the evil that you have mysteriously come to believe constitutes such a problem."

Cosmological Argument

The Law of Causality is a universal law that applies to all of a creation. It states simply that for every effect, there is a cause. For instance, if a frisbee hits you in the back, you assume and know that someone threw it in your direction. It is illogical to believe that this universe itself did not also have a cause. If it somehow created itself, it would have to be existent before it existed. In simpler terms, it's not possible.

Teleological Argument

There is order in this universe. When we look at intricate working of this world, we are amazed. The natural conclusion is that someone formed it. This is our reaction when we look at the order of a dictionary or the beauty of a work of art. Yet that which is both beautiful and orderly, namely the world, is often thought to have come about unplanned. The problem is that unplanned order has never been observed, nor does it make any rational sense. Furthermore, it is definitionally impossible.

The Bible is The Only Book of God's Words

To know who this God we have discussed is, I desire to simply look at the various books claiming to be God's holy words. 

Unique Position of Disciples

When examining all the religions and alleged holy books in the world, only the New Testament has writers who would know whether what they were saying was true when they record for instance that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. As Gamaliel stated at the time, if they were lying, they would not be willing to die for their beliefs. 

"Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

The Canon 

From this view of the New Testament, we can know that the Disciples really did see Jesus after his death (unless all 11 hallucinated at the same time, which is not very likely). This is why the New Testament canon was established based on the writings of the Disciples.

Additionally, we should not doubt the works of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament (which protestants use today). It was good enough for Jesus and his disciples, it's good enough for us.

Cohesiveness

The Bible is a book written either by God, or by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years. One would expect that the latter would be a book with a slew of contradictions. On the contrary, however, the Bible has prophecies written in one book that are later fulfilled in other books of the Bible. One may wish to nit-pick these prophecies, but as Matthew Mcgee writes, 

"Are we to believe that the Old Testament prophets each decided to write the beginning of a great story and then said, "Maybe in a thousand years or so, someone will come along and write a good ending to this?" That would be ridiculous. No man would decide to do such a thing on his own, much less a large group of men who did not know each other or even live at the same time. Therefore, the unity of scripture despite a diversity of writers is evidence of the Bible's divine authorship."

Christian Apologetics Series 2: The Necessity of Assumptions When Forming Worldviews

Some may take offense to the number of assumptions that are within this series, but you can't come to any logical conclusion without use of a few presuppositions.

Although one should minimize assumptions as much as possible, there are many things in this world that simply cannot be proven or disproven. In these instances, it is necessary to assume one way or the other. For instance, as much as Rene Descartes wished to avoid presuppositions, his most popular philosophical argument -"cogito ergo sum," or "I think, therefore I am" - is based on the assumption that it takes an existing person to think. To a degree, I am being ridiculous with this idea, but that's exactly my point.

You cannot prove this to be true, but you readily accept it because to assume otherwise is unthinkable. Similar situations occur throughout our entire life, yet we don't notice. This trend is not a nuisance; rather, it is a quite necessary activity to reach any meaningful conclusion.

In geometry (the most logical of mathematics), we have certain ideas we call postulates. These are statements we assume to be true. From these assumptions, mathematicians crafted many theorems, including the Pythagorean Theorem. We don't doubt the Pythagorean Theorem because it's based on assumptions. Why then does it become wrong when we do the same about other aspects of life?

It's not as if we have any alternative that offers a worldview without assumptions. Even the simplest concept, like Descartes' famous maxim, are built upon other assumptions and presuppositions.

The question is which assumptions are better. What should we take by faith? This is the purpose of this Apologetics series.

Continue to Apologetics 3: Foundation for Knowledge