From The Mailbag – Page 5

The Shortfalls of Movement Libertarianism

Dear Pastor,

I just read an article making the case that Libertarians make good Christians.

Why Christians Make Great Libertarians

I know you like to say that Libertariansim is good as far as it goes but that when it is seen as a system authoritative in itself that it is a positive evil. Could you explain, in your estimation why it is the case that Libertarians who have embraced movement Libertarianism don’t make good Christians?

Leland

Dear Leland,

Thank you for the opportunity to deal with this again. I do think that Libertarianism does at points coincide with Biblical Christianity but as a ideological movement it is opposed to Biblical Christianity. Biblical Christians and Libertarians, for example, both agree that the State should be minimal. However, movement Libertarianism tends to absolutize the individual while Biblical Christianity absolutizes God. As such because of these different absolutes the definition of liberty is different for each. For the movement Libertarian liberty is largely defined by something they call the Non Aggression Principle whereas for the Biblical Christian Liberty is that behavior which is lived out consistent with God’s Law Word. Here are some other ways in which I can see that movement Libertarianism is not consistent with Biblical Christianity.

1.) Movement Libertarians absolutize Liberty so that it turns into anarchy. (Each man does what is right in his own eyes.) Biblical Liberty is ordered liberty — ordered by God’s law word.

2.) Libertarians turn man from Homo Adorans (man the worshiper) into Homo oeconomicus (man the economic being). Movement libertarian reduce man to the sum of his market decisions and turn his whole being into one of economics. Biblical Christians do not see man as primarily an economic being and so the thinking of Biblical Christians on social order issues does not reduce man to the sum of his economic decisions.

3.) Movement Libertarians have no standard by which to measure Liberty except the sovereign autonomous self and its fiat word. Libertarianism insists on doing that which is good for the individual but that which is defined as good in only in reference to the individual.

4.) Movement Libertarainism atomizes man and completely misses His covenant jurisdictions. As such men become free floating integers that are not inherently connected to any covenantal identity. If Socialism makes the mistake of seeing man only as part of the hive, movement Libertarianism makes the mistake of seeing only man as unrelated to anything but his own subjective self (ego).

5.) Libertarians don’t make good Christians because as Rushdoony taught Libertarianism is merely the flip side of the coin to Marxism. Marxism and Movement Libertarianism presuppose one another. Neither get correct the One and the Many and in getting the One and the Many wrong they serve the purposes of each other’s errors in that regard.

Thanks for writing Leland,

From the Mailbag — Question On Obama-care

Pastor Bret,

My mother-in-law went to Sam’s Club yesterday to get some prescriptions. Her co-pay has gone up $30 for some prescriptions. She was flustered and asked the pharmacist what was going on. They had a long chat about the matter. From the pharmacist’s perspective, the co-pay difference was due to Obamacare. From his perspective, also, the govt, via Obamacare, is trying to “wipe out old people,” by increasing costs of prescriptions, by making some medications rare and unavailable, etc. He said that the effect this is having (as he sees it) on the elderly and the middle class is going to be huge.

What is your take on this?

Dear Kirsten,

I’d say your Mother-in-law’s Pharmacist is correct.

What is going on is that the FEDS have these HUGE entitlement obligations to Senior Citizens (Social Security) and to sick (Medicare / Medicaid). There is one of two ways you can get out of those obligations. You can either increase the money supply to fund the programs or you can decrease the recipients to make funding un-necessary.

Now the FEDS could bankrupt the country by raising taxes on younger generations. But that will inevitably lead to generational warfare as younger generations eventually refuse to impoverish themselves in order to enrich the generation or two ahead of them. At some point people realize that there is little use in working if the majority of your income is being taken. The FEDS could also just print more money but in the end that debases the currency and the purchasing power declines precipitously, with the same sure result of social unrest.

Or alternately, you can kill off the people who are the beneficiaries of the entitlement programs. I believe this is the route that the FEDS are taking.

Promises were made that could never be kept. The whole entitlement leveraging by the FEDS was a giant Ponzi scheme. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the voters who originally created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid etc. are going to pay for “the greatest generations” sins in creating this monster. The Greatest Generation created the Monster and now their descendants are about to be eaten by the monster they created.

Obamacare has always been about killing people. The very title tells you that if you are familiar with how Government Euphemisms always work. Obamacare is not about health. Obamacare is about death management. It will very soon, once implemented, be deciding if the contribution of the ill to society is equal to the value of the procedure that the ill person needs to regain their health.

Plus of course Obamacare may be the final piece in totalitarian collectivist government. Now the State can control the cattle (people) it owns every step of the way. From Birth, to school (school to work programs), to the food we eat (The FEDS are in bed with the GMO Creators), to the medicines we take, to the media we imbibe. What Obama-care is, is the final piece in a “Brave New World” social order that the NWO has been working on for decades.

Some of us tried to warn people. But they were to busy with their bread and circuses.

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that the Church is largely asleep on these issues, or where it is not asleep, it is actively fighting for the NWO agenda. Really, we have come to the point where the visible Church is largely the problem.

Ask The Pastor — How Can Cultural Institutions Be Christian?

Dear Pastor,

How can you talk about various social order Institutions being Christian? Don’t you see that the Institutions in any given culture cannot be Christian Institutions in and of themselves if only because those Institutions are common to all men, Christian and non-Christian alike?

Delaney

Dear Delaney

It is not that Institutions are common to all men so much as it is that men are common to all Institutions. As such, Institutions will be Christian, Muslim, Humanist, Hindu, Satanist, Judaistic, dependent upon the men who are animating those Institutions and the Faith that is animating those men.

It is most difficult to speak of a Institution as common to all men without taking into consideration the men who comprise the Institutions.

Remember, Delaney, it is not possible for Institutions to be neutral as if they do not serve the interests of some God or god concept. Cultural Institutions are nothing but a reflection of the theology and the people who staff them.

Also, it will do no good to try to create a distinction that admits that, there are Christian businesses and Christian marriages, and Christian families although commerce, marriage, and family are not Christian institutions in and of themselves.” This will not do, if only because commerce, marriage, and families do not exist without people. To say that there are Christian businesses, marriages, and families, while insisting that commerce, marriage and family are common and therefore neutral is an abstraction of the most intriguing sort.

Ask The Pastor — Hasn’t Constantinism Long Ended & Isn’t That A Good Thing?

Dear Pastor,

Wouldn’t you agree that there is no longer church and state unity / marriage, as it was from Theodosius (380-392 AD) to the Reformation and French Revolution (beginning of secular Europe culture which is hostile to the Christian religion) and American Revolution (separation of church and state, but not hostile to the Christian religion). Since then it has become more and more secular and pluralistic.

First, any reader of Iron Ink would know that I do not believe there is such a thing as “secular” if by secular someone means a culture, government, social order, economy, family life, education, law order, etc. that is un-governed and not beholden to and reflective of some theology, faith, or faith system. There never has been, nor will there ever be a secular something that is un-normed or un-conditioned by some theology or worldview. There is no view nor implementation of that view from theologically nowhere.

Second, the idea that there is no longer Church and State unity is utter nonsense. There never has been a time when Church and State hasn’t cooperated and there never will be. The Crown and the Mitre always walk together. It is never a question of whether Church and State will be joined at the hip but only a question of which religion Church and State will both be serving. Now, this is not the same thing as saying that Church and State will have the same functions or role. Biblical Christians have never advocated that. The Church has a role and function (dispenser of Word and Sacrament holding the Keys to the Kingdom) and the State has a role and function (dispenser of Justice while holding and handling the sword) but they always walk together.

In our current setting Church and State are walking together under the influence of the religion of humanism. The State, being the hammer for the humanist gods, determines how far the other Gods of the other religions are allowed to move in the public square. As such the State is the god over the gods. And the Church serving the State (in league with the State) are the government schools as the Priests there (Teachers) work with the catechism (curriculum) in order to catechize the children into their undoubted catholic humanist faith. There in the Government schools we find Word and Sacrament (free Lunch from the God – State in order to strengthen body and soul unto work in the humanist eschaton). Similarly, the State handles the sword and dispenses justice according to the humanist standard. The goal of both is to create a reality in defiance of God where the citizenry can live, and move, and have their being.

Church and state are not Separate in American culture and it is a unique R2K mistake to suggest that they ever were or are.

Ask The Pastor — Isn’t Postmillennialism Naive?

Brother Bret McAtee,

If the Calvinist System of thought has been around a few hundred years why aren’t things improving if it is the anwser, and why have the proponents of Calvinist thought, ie the presbyterians,fallen into liberalism as fast or faster than those of other systems? I think it is kind of strange to hear a Calvinist think that man is going to bring back Christ by providing Him a Christian world. Seems things are going the other way. I would be really discouraged if I thought it was because I wasn’t trying hard enough. Which leads to the question can we live the Christian life or are we sinners until death?

Steve,

Thanks for your questions. I hope I can give an answer that does justice to the seriousness behind their intent.

‎1.) Are you really arguing Steve that the last 100 years have not seen vast improvements? Why I’m old enough to remember my Grandmothers house with no running water and no indoor bathroom. We have had advances in medicine, technology, and science. Our quality and duration of life has increased markedly. So, I would say there clearly have been improvements and those improvements can be traced directly or indirectly to Biblical Christianity and a Biblical worldview.

2.) Presbyterians have fallen into Liberalism because they are sinners. Of course the problem isn’t with the faith itself. Our sin, as Presbyterians, doesn’t prove the inadequacy of our undoubted Catholic Christian Faith. Rather our sin as Presbyterians proves that we seldom live up to all we know to be true. Secondly, on this point, Biblical eschatology does not argue that the advance of the Kingdom is always evenly steadily upwards. We understand, that in God’s economy there are tides of prosperity that advance and decline, but like the tide that goes in and out we always see the tide coming in further up with each new high tide.

Here I paraphrase Robert E. Lee who summarizes nicely the Postmillennial understanding,

“The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is Christ’s Sovereignty in and over history that teaches us to hope.”

3.) Of course no Calvinist (Biblical Christian) thinks that he is, by his efforts, going to bring back Christ. No man who knows himself would ever think that. No, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in His people, often despite His people, who will do the work of conversion and will ready the world for Christ’s return. Remember I Cor. 15 “He must reign until He puts all things under His feet.” It is only after all things are under His feet (the world’s rebellion put down) that will find our benevolent and great Warrior King, the Lord Christ returning.

I look forward to that day. Even if it should not happen in my lifetime I look forward to doing my part to aid in the hastening of that day.

4.) Finally, the answer to your last question is, “yes.” We remain, throughout our lives, at the same time sinner and saint. We are not what we once were but we are not yet what we will one day be. Our obedience, by the Spirit’s sanctifying work is greater than it was, but not as great as it will be, and yet even when it is greater we will have to say “we are unprofitable servants, we have only done what we ought.”