License is the ability to do as you will in accordance with permission from a governing body. Most people, for instance, get in trouble with the law for killing because they don’t have a license to do so. But some people are licensed by the government to kill and would not be put in prison for doing so.

Meanwhile anyone is FREE to kill another, but they may not be allowed by government (in which case they get in trouble if caught); and they certainly don’t have license from God, excepting perhaps a defense position. Here, they will reap what they sow in one way or another.

In other words, a Christian (or those of most any faith) should trust in freedom, because it comes inherently with responsibility. What they should mistrust, perhaps, is government license.

2)”. . . but it is hard to disagree with the fact that something of the moral character of actions is lost when one is not free to do otherwise.” The argument about allowing “moral laxity” instead of imposing a Christian moral law does not stand up to logical criticism. Many laws restrict moral choices. Merely mandating that Christian morality be a protected option for those that chose it is insufficient. Refraining from murder, incest, adultery, etc. should not just be options but mandatory. Such a Christian libertarianism is not at all Christian but totally libertarian.

3)”A great example is John 8– where Jesus doesn’t chuck any rocks but does exhort the adulteress to leave her life of sin.” A woman who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus. The Jews who brought her there wished Him to judge her under the Law of Moses. They did this because Roman law prohibited the Jews from executing offenders. Thus, Christ was caught between a rock and a hard place (much like in the “Render unto Caesar” situation). His solution was to escape by using the nuances of Jewish law: As head of the bet din (the Jewish court hearing the case) it was His right to qualify witnesses. In such a case, the witnesses themselves had to be the ones to cast the first stones. He decided that the standard for reliable witnesses in this particular case was sinlessness since birth. None could meet it and thus the woman was spared (in accordance with Jewish law). He did not condone adultery, nor did he abolish the death penalty. All He did was escape a trap using divine wisdom.

4)”Much political activism has honest, Christian intentions—especially what originates from the Left.” That is simply untrue. Liberal Christianity is an attempt to gut traditional Christian theology and morality and insert modern progressive liberalism. It is disingenuous and evil.

5) Finally, a general observation: It is tempting to look at the New Testament period as a romantic ideal. In fact, there was considerable persecution because Christians lacked political power. Eventually, due to evangelism and Constantine’s desire to unite his empire, Christianity became the dominant religion of the empire. Post-Christian society has degenerated into unspeakable evil. That is not to say that Christendom was anywhere near perfect. But the normalization and institutionalization of sin as rights is largely a post-Christian phenomenon. Better to have a less free society where Christian morality is enforced than a libertarian/pagan one.

The moral climate of a society perpetuates itself. Culture forms the public’s sensibilities every bit, if not more, than the public forms culture. This is so because culture tends to be formed by the few, the leaders (for purposes of this discussion, I consider the American press to be a sort of fourth branch of government and a leader). In establishing a society wherein there is a synergy between the Church and state in which the state enforces Christian morality, you are not just imposing an unwanted morality on some of the public. You are also forming the morality of many others along Christian standards. On the other hand, if you allow all points of view to be equal, you are not only allowing everyone to indulge themselves at will, you are also educating future generations to be immoral.

Freedom is the problem, not the solution.

To the more thoughtful post of Mr. Pankey, a few thoughts:

1.) I don’t celebrate Libertarianism per se. I find that Christian political activity lines up nicely with the recommendations of Libertarian thought.

2.) I don’t get to those conclusions through the assumptions of Libertarian which cannot be fully reconciled with a Christian worldview.

3.) I neither advocate anarchy nor see Christian activism in utopian terms. I also advocate a stronger role for the church to pursue its Biblical callings.

I sympathize with his rejection of the totalizing State. But being asked to choose between the two modern heresies of centralized utopia and libertarian anarchy is not much of a choice. Instead, let us seek the mind of the Church and Christian tradition. Let them speak into and shine a light on the the Modern mind rather than us attempting to fit them into these Modern boxes.

-Libertarian political philosophy does not necessarily imply moral laxity. It merely speaks to whether govt should be invoked to deal with various forms of (acknowledged) moral laxity. A great example is John 8– where Jesus doesn’t chuck any rocks but does exhort the adulteress to leave her life of sin.

-I’m not sure about the extent to which Church and State should mix. In any case, the larger issue is surely the impact of the State on the Church rather than vice versa. Beyond that, religious belief and the State must mix. One cannot form political beliefs in a religion-less vacuum.

-As for policy prescriptions, I try to distinguish between active and passive forms of support and opposition. For example, I think it is prohibitively difficult to make a case for Christian political activism against gambling. But it does not follow that Christians should devote energy and resources to fight for legalized gambling.

-Finally, an overarching theme– and again, I may fail to be clear enough on this. But I’d say the book (or at least my beliefs) are more anti-govt than pro-market. In other words, it is a negative approach to the question of the extent to which Christians should embrace govt as a godly and practical means to godly ends– rather than a positive defense of markets per se.

Thanks again for your thoughtful review.
Grace, eric