Why Libertarian Philosophy is Foreign to the Christian Tradition
September 20, 2012 6 Comments
I recently made the claim that Christians should consider Libertarian philosophy a heresy. In part, I was just being provocative; however, I am very serious in claiming that Christians should not embrace the Libertarianism that is increasingly influencing the conservative political movement in the United States. I do believe that at its heart Libertarianism is opposed to some of the core values and beliefs of the historic Christian tradition.
To flesh this claim out a bit I point you to a recent series of blogs by Reformed theologian and ethicist Matthew Tuininga.
Does the Christian Tradition Agree that Property Rights Trump the Rights of the Poor?
Aquinas and Calvin Believed Property Rights were Subject to the Rights of the Poor
Letting Christian Theology Shape our Politics: The Christian Tradition and Property, Part 3
Now, Matthew gets the general scope of the history of Christian teaching on this topic 100% correct. There is a long tradition of the best and most influential Christian theologians insisting that the needs and rights of the poor are among the most important in any Christian politics. To think otherwise is to reject the heart of Christian social teaching. However, that is not the only reason I point you to Matthew’s work. I could have made a similar historical analysis, but the regular readers of this blog would not be surprised to find such an argument coming from me.
See, Matthew is one of the most serious theologians I know – and we disagree about much. We entered Emory’s program in Religion, Ethics, and Society (E&S) at the same time. He and I make up one Emory E&S “cohort.” (And it is a testament to the intellectual freedom one may have at Emory that we have gone through our studies together as friends. One of my favorite stories concerning Matthew is the surprise registered on both of our faces when he learned I had not studied John Calvin in seminary and I learned he had not read Martin Luther King Jr. prior to arriving at Emory. Let’s just say, we come from different theological backgrounds!) He is unabashedly Reformed in his theological orientation, and, in a sea of liberals, is a confessed political conservative at a leading American research university. I do not read his blog because I agree with him on everything. I read him because, though we often disagree, I find him to be one of the most careful and nuanced conservative Christian thinkers in the country who also refuses to allow political commitments to cloud his commitment to the historic Christian tradition.
The point here, however, is that even Matthew Tuininga (a theologian trained at Emory willing to publicly defend an anti-gay marriage stance!) thinks it important to point out the un-Christian foundation of Libertarian economic philosophy.
Dear conservative friends, don’t drink the kool-aid. It is, as far as I can see, impossible to claim an intelligible and faithful Christian politic and at the same time embrace Libertarianism. They are trees grown in different soil and cannot be faithfully grafted together.
Thanks for the kind words Jimmy. May the friendship and mutual challenging and encouragement continue!
I think that Christianity is a way to live your personal life, and by letting those values seep into politics you open up the door to abuse by politicians. Yes, we should all help our neighbor, but we should not be compelled to help our neighbor, and taking some one else’s money to help the poor is also not Christian. I’m not sure if you were suggesting property rights come into conflict with helping the poor, but that is certainly not the case, when people are gaurenteed ownership over their property, everyone benefits, because then there is incentive to create the excess which can be used to help the poor; by individuals of their own free will, not through the government. Libertarianism advocates smaller government, and more freedom. That freedom is consistant with Christian values, you have the freedom to live a life of virtue or sin; why God gave humans free will. When government tells you how to live your life, where does Christianity step in, and will you remain free to live your life according to those values?
Hi Vigilant Vote, thanks for engaging.
To respond to a few of your points: Christianity IS a way to live your personal life, but it is more than that. It is also a social vision. For quick reference I point you to Jesus’s consistent references to the Kingdom of God. For a more in-depth view of this I point you to, say, the book of Revelation, St. Augustine’s masterpiece The City of God, or the many books on political theology that have been published recently. And a consistent part of that vision, from Jesus forward, has been a special concern for the poor and a word of judgment upon those who have participated in their poverty.
“… taking someone else’s money to help the poor is also not Christian.” Well, most churches do this every Sunday, but your point about governments taking that money through taxation as not being something explicitly commanded in scripture is correct. However, there is nothing in Christian scripture or the mainstream of the theological tradition that prohibits this as a legitimate work of the government. In fact, both Jesus and Paul seemed to think that paying taxes for things that were clearly “un-Christian,” like the Roman occupation of Jerusalem, was something Christians could participate in.
Third, of course, property rights do not necessarily conflict with the rights of the poor (and it’s important that you use the language of “helping the poor” rather than the rights of the poor, though I believe Matthew has made it clear that the Christian theological tradition has a notion of the rights of the poor), but they can. The thing about rights is that they can conflict, and when they do one must trump the other. The Libertarian vision proclaims that property rights trump the rights of the poor, the Christian tradition teaches the opposite. This is where the traditions are incompatible: Libertarianism holds property rights sacred, Christianity holds the rights of the most vulnerable of God’s beloved children more sacred than property.
Finally, the Libertarian vision of freedom – using as much of one’s money as possible as one freely chooses in a market economy – is not the same as the Christian vision of freedom. The Christian vision of freedom is dying to self and living for God and others. These are fundamentally different visions of freedom.
Of course, there are versions of Christianity in the US today that teach the opposite of what I have presented here and are more compatible with your argument. However, the point of the post is to point people to resources that demonstrate that this vision of Christianity is foreign to the majority of the mainstream of the historic hristian tradition. In effect, that vision is more Libertarian than it is Christian, and believe me they are different visions of what it means to be human and to live in a good society. They are not, in my estimation and the estimation of many other theologians, compatible.
Oh, and you’re correct that Christianity, just like any religion, can be abused by politicians. I am of the belief that the form of Libertarianism found in the Tea Party movement in the US, which is so closely aligned with certain forms of Evangelical Christianity, is a perfect example of that.
Pingback: Libertarianism is the New Communism « James W. McCarty III
How wrong can a supposed “thinker” be? It is the fallacy of ambiguity to compare religious position to political position without distinguishing the two. One can have a devout belief in Christian life (personal), and a Libertarian life (Governmental). In fact, a Libertarian Governmental position allows an individual to retain more of their earnings that may then be directed to Christian charities that adhere to Christian beliefs than our secular Government may. Therefore, it is more Christian to be Libertarian in your Governmental positions than to be a Secular Progressive Liberal as the author demonstrates in his writings. To begin with his desired hope to support his morally bankrupt positions by pointing to a commitment to Christianity is on its face a morally bankrupt practice.