“At this point we have an
illustration of the utter falsity of the popular notion that philosophy has no
practical effect upon the lives of the people, that it does not make any
difference what a man believes in the sphere of ultimate reality. For the whole tendency that we are fighting
today has underlying it a definite theory.
Ultimately underlying it, I suppose, is the theory of the
behaviorists—that . . . poetry and art and moral responsibility and freedom are
delusions -- that mechanism rules all. It
is a mistake we are told to blame the criminal . . .” --J. Gresham Machen
“That this country needs to
replenish its moral resources seems too obvious to need saying, but so few
people seem to care that it cannot be said enough.” Dr. Gordon H. Clark
9 Even him, whose coming is after
the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with
all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this
cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:9-12 KJV)
Logical, Biblical, Theological, and Historical Problems with “Reformed”
Libertarianism
Charlie J. Ray, M.
Div.
In light of my many disagreements
with certain self-avowed proponents of the apologetics of the late Dr. Gordon
H. Clark I am compelled to write a response to the oxymoronic term "Reformed"
libertarian. It is my opinion that the
term Reformed libertarian as defined by the advocates of that political
philosophy misrepresent the actual positions of the late Dr. J. Gresham Machen
and Dr. Gordon H. Clark by revisionist readings of what both of these men said
and that such revisions are out of the historical context, cultural context,
and the body of work of both men.
Moreover, libertarianism as a whole leaves out God and seeks only to
emphasize individual freedom at the expense of the moral law of God. The real issue is that the Bible does not
emphasize libertarian free will at all and by implication the Bible does not
emphasize libertarian political philosophy either. Even more importantly, the Bible does not
just deal with individual accountability but also corporate and governmental
accountability. Nations, denominations,
and churches as well as individuals come under God’s judgment many times over
in Holy Scripture. (Revelation 19:15;
Psalm 110:6; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 2:8; Daniel 7:14; Matthew 28:18-20;
Romans 13:1-4).
Ironically, the page that defines
Reformed libertarianism places a quote from the late Dr. John Robbins at the
top of the page and then proceeds to contradict the quote in the body of the
definition below the quote:
[One]
misconception is that the Ten Commandments… apply only to private individuals
and not to governments. This notion, which has absolutely no foundation in
Scripture, illustrates how far we have gone toward deifying government, for it
is attributing divine qualities to rulers to say that they in their official
(or private) capacities are exempt from the law. –John Robbins (What Is Reformed Libertarianism?)
The great error of so-called “Reformed”
Libertarianism is that it teaches a form of antinomianism disguised by a false
proposition of Christian liberty. My
first objection is that the Decalogue or Ten Commandments does not teach only
justice on the human level. That is, the
Decalogue teaches two tables of the moral law, not just one table of the moral
law. The first four commandments relate
to how man is to relate to God his Creator.
The definition given in the post on Reformed libertarianism only
mentions doing no harm to other individuals and completely neglects the effects
of individual sins and individual crimes on society as a whole. When individual liberty emphasizes the right
to commit sins without any legal ramification from the judicial law appointed
in a nation the result is the undermining of Christianity and Christian liberty
and in fact results in secular humanism and a totalitarian regime. This is the point of limited government
argued by J. Gresham Machen and Gordon H. Clark. Neither of these men supported pornography or
gambling, although it is true that Machen disagreed with the prohibition of
alcohol laws. But it does not follow
that Machen would have agreed with making vices like gambling, prostitution,
and pornography legal. It seems strange
to me that so-called Christians of any kind would agree with enslaving women in
the sex trade, pornography, and other forms of degradation of the image of God.
It is true that theonomists have
accused everyone who does not agree with them of being antinomian. Perhaps this is a bit of an overstatement and
the theonomist/reconstructionist movement has had its own problems—due more to
the irrationalism of Cornelius Van Til, accommodation to culture,
cobelligerence with Rome, common grace, conflating judicial and moral law, and
a tendency to produce heresies like the Federal Vision than to the actual moral
law itself. But it seems that fake
Clarkians have produced their share of heresies as well. One Facebook “Clarkian” is now an advocate for
hyper-preterism and denies the future bodily resurrection in the final
judgment. Another denies that the
Westminster Confession of Faith calls for Christians to organize churches and
denominations and to rightly administer the sacraments while rightly preaching
the Gospel. Add to this list the heresy
of a political philosophy which endorses godless secularism, atheism, and moral
relativism. Any nation that does not
uphold a Judeo-Christian worldview is asking for God’s judgment to fall upon
it. To be clear I am not a theonomist or
a reconstructionist. But I will say that
both the Bible and the Westminster Standards uphold the moral law of God as the
standard by which judicial laws will be judged and consequently so will the
nations passing judicial legislation that promotes, subsidizes, and encourages
the violation of God’s moral law—including both tables of the law.
J. Gresham Machen opposed the
philosophy of relativism and in fact stated his objection to the immorality of
the laws promoting sin, rebellion and crime in the following example:
“At this point
we have an illustration of the utter falsity of the popular notion that
philosophy has no practical effect upon the lives of the people, that it does
not make any difference what a man believes in the sphere of ultimate
reality. For the whole tendency that we
are fighting today has underlying it a definite theory. Ultimately underlying it, I suppose, is the
theory of the behaviorists—that the human race has at last found itself out,
that it has succeeded in getting behind the scenes, that it has pulled off from
human nature those tawdry trappings in which the actors formerly moved upon the
human stage, that we have discovered that poetry and art and moral
responsibility and freedom are delusions -- that mechanism rules all. It is a mistake, we are told, to blame the
criminal; the criminal is exactly what he is obliged to be, and good people are
obliged to be exactly what they
are. In other words, liberty is a
delusion and human beings are just somewhat complicated machines.”
[J. Gresham
Machen. 3rd edition. Education,
Christianity, and the State. (Trinity
Foundation: Unicoi, 2004). Pp. 88-89.]
Machen’s opposition to the
Department of Education was that the state would use such uniformity and
conformity to institutionalize immorality and crime while using totalitarian
laws to suppress Christianity:
Doctor Machen. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the
committee, there are two reasons why a man may be opposed to a bill which is
introduced in Congress. One reason is
that he thinks that it will not accomplish its purpose. The other reason is that he thinks that the
purpose that it is intended to accomplish is an evil purpose.
For the latter
reason that I am opposed to the bill which forms the subject of this
hearing. The purpose of the bill is made
explicit in the revised form of it which has been offered by Senator Means, in
which it is expressly said that the [proposed] Department of (public) Education—with
the assistance of the advisory board to be created—shall attempt to develop a
more uniform and efficient system of public common school education. The Department of Education, according to
that bill, is to promote uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central
control, it seems to me, is the worst fate into which any country can
fall. That purpose I think is implicit
also in the other form of the bill, and it is because that is the very purpose
of the bill that I am opposed to it.
[Ibid., J.
Gresham Machen. Pp. 99-100.]
In short, Machen is more
concerned with freedom of thought in the education of the youth of the country
rather than a government enforced uniformity of thought. His remarks are prophetic in regards to the
doctrine of common core and the Marxism now being taught in public schools,
colleges and universities. But this is because
Machen favored classical education and the instruction in the classical
languages like Greek, Latin, and Hebrew as well as learning foreign languages. Another reason he gives for opposing public
education is that there should be competition among schools rather than a
socialistic emphasis on equality of outcomes.
For Machen idiosyncrasies are to be embraced rather than rejected.
But this is a far cry from what
libertarians want. Their emphasis is
moral relativism and anarchy in society with a false premise that what
individuals do does no harm to society or to the community. Is pornography really harmless to individuals
or their families? Does pornography lead
to worse sins like prostitution? And
does not prostitution and pornography undermine the purpose of Christian
marriage and the procreation which God commanded in the creation of Adam and
Eve? (Genesis 1:27; 2:18-25). According to the article posted at the
Reformed Libertarian site morality is optional when it comes to judicial laws
so long as no harm is done to one’s neighbor.
But the article never defines what is considered harmful to one’s
neighbor. Is it harmful to your neighbor
to allow laws that encourage and promote homosexuality, incest, bestiality,
infanticide, and mutilation of the human body in order to change from one physical
and biological sex to another and all subsidized by federal or state taxes?
Amazingly the political
philosophy of the Reformed Libertarian not only opposes the teaching of
Scripture but also the Westminster Standards.
The Scriptures clearly teach that nations are to obey God and the
Westminster divines upheld the same principle or axiom because the Scriptures
teach that axiom. The Reformed Libertarian has only one moral law:
The central
proposition of our school of libertarian thought is this: “no person should
violate the life and property of another human being unless that other human
being has first violated the life and property of another,” and we define the
libertarian as any person who assents to that proposition, and gives no
exception to any individual, State, Congressional body, or corporation. All are bound in the same way to this moral
rule.
It is my contention that this
axiom of Reformed libertarianism is not Reformed at all. Instead it is a direct contradiction of both
Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The Confession clearly upholds the moral law of God as supreme over
every nation and every person whether or not that person believes it or not. That’s because Scripture leaves every nation
and every person without excuse. (Romans
1:18-32; Romans 3:1-23). The WCF says:
CHAPTER XIX. Of
the Law of God
GOD gave to Adam
a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to
personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the
fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with
power and ability to keep it.a
a.
Gen. 1:26,27; Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:14,15; Rom.
10:5,12,19; Gal. 3:10,12; Eccl. 7:29; Job 28:28.
Westminster
Assembly. The Westminster Confession of
Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.
It seems to me that the WCF says
that all of Adam’s descendants are obligated to obey the moral law of God,
expressed here as the covenant of works.
The law of God is written in man’s heart at creation and no one is
excused by any claims to ignorance of said moral law. (Romans 2:17). Since nations are composed of individuals,
the magistrates have a moral obligation to pass laws that uphold God’s moral
law, including laws that allow for the observation of the Christian Sabbath and
laws that allow for religious freedom, not laws that suppress Christianity and
promote immorality.
CHAPTER
XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate
III. The civil
magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and
sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: e yet he hath
authority, and it is his duty, to
take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and
entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions
and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the
ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. f For the better
effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to
provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. g
Westminster
Assembly. The Westminster Confession of
Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851. Print.
But the Reformed libertarian
opposes the suppression of moral evil and says instead that evil should be tolerated
and even encouraged by the government:
This serves to
address the concern that, in allowing a variety of immoral deeds to go
unpunished, we are in effect refusing to make it plain that these deeds are
wrong. But in the same sense that most would agree that lying is both immoral
yet should not be illegal, so there are many things which require “spiritual
weaponry” and not the sword of the state. God will have his own vengeance in
due time. [What Is Reformed Libertarianism?] [Lying is against the law since there are perjury and obstruction of justice laws in place by the way.]
The article also quotes a
Baptist, Isaac Backus, who asks whether or not morality should be enforced by
the sword? But does not the Ten
Commandments say that murder and thievery are immoral and are there not laws
against murder and stealing? If we
follow Backus’s theory there should be no laws against anything. But obviously Romans 13 contradicts Backus’s
Anabaptist moral relativism in the civil realm.
Paul clearly says that the government can enforce morality. And more to the point the Westminster divines
thought that there was nothing wrong with having the civil magistrate enforce
laws against immorality and even heresy.
If we say that the Westminster Confession teaches theonomy should we
then reject what the Confession plainly says?
I think not.
Albeit it is next to impossible
to overturn the Marxist laws in effect in the United States today unless God
Himself should intervene, nevertheless the Christian has a moral obligation to
participate in the legislative process so that Christianity will be promoted,
not secular humanism, atheism, or Marxism.
The libertarian philosophy is anti-Christian and so are those who claim
to be “Reformed” while opposing the Judeo-Christian worldview in the realm of
civil government.
There are those who try to make
the late Gordon H. Clark a moral relativist who opposed blue laws, laws against
prostitution and pornography, etc. I
contend, however, that they are reading into Clark what is not there. Clark was a teetotaler and opposed the use of
alcohol by seminarians but he was presumably in agreement with Machen on the
issue of Prohibition. [Doug Douma says Clark was in favor of Prohibition.] The Bible nowhere
says that social drinking is immoral in and of itself. But the same cannot be said for homosexuality
and fornication. Clark would have
opposed laws that promote prostitution, gambling, alcoholism, and
pornography. In fact, Clark attributed
dereliction and homelessness to alcoholism.
It can be easily demonstrated that Clark was in favor of blue laws by
anyone who reads his brief commentary on the Westminster Confession. In debating a Seventh Day Adventist, who did
in fact oppose blue laws or Sunday laws, Clark says:
Although the
place of worship is immaterial, and although worship may be offered to God at
any time, God has set apart a special time in which worship is obligatory. From the creation of Adam the calendar has
been arranged in seven-day weeks, and God commanded Adam to keep the seventh
day holy in commemoration of God’s completion of his creative work.
With the
resurrection of Christ the day of rest and worship was changed from the seventh
to the first day of the week. Who
changed it? The Roman church claims to
have authorized the change; and the Seventh Day Adventists refuse to worship on
the first day because the Roman church had no authority to change God’s command.
However, while
some imperial edict of the fourth century may be cited as authorizing this
change, the change was made not by any emperor or pope, but by the immediate
disciples of Christ. 1 Corinthians 16:2
. . . A Seventh Day Adventist told me that
this did not indicate any offering at a service on the first day of the week,
but on the contrary meant that on the first day each worshiper was to put aside
what he intended to give the next seventh day.
But consider: if a man is paid
his wages at the end of the working week—Friday night—and then worships on
Saturday, it seems strange to admonish him to put aside his offering on the
next morning.
[Dr. Gordon H.
Clark. What Do Presbyterians Believe?
2nd edition. (Trinity
Foundation: Unicoi, 2001). P. 199.]
Now if Dr. Clark was opposed to
blue laws here would be a perfect place to express his disagreement. Instead he points out that Christian workers
in the New Testament apostolic era were not working on the first day of the
week and that such practice was legally supported by an edict in the 4th
century. It is the Seventh Day Adventist
who was opposed to making the first day of the week a day off for Christian
worship, not Dr. Clark. His objection
was to changing the Sabbath back to the Jewish Sabbath, not the judicial edict
allowing for Christian worship on the first day of the week.
In his
follow up comment on WCF XXI:VIII. Of
Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day he says:
Another attack
on the Christian Sabbath and on Christianity looms on the horizon. The advocates of calendar reform propose to
abolish the regular sequence of seven-day weeks. Their recent proposal is to have every week
begin on Monday and to put a Sunday at the end of the week. This is just a nasty way of expressing
contempt for the day of Resurrection, but by itself it would cause no religious
hardship. The anti-Christian part of the
proposal is to insert a day at the end of each year, which would be neither a
Sunday, a Monday, Tuesday, nor any other week day. The result of such an arrangement would be as
follows: the year would end on a Sunday;
then comes No-Day; then comes Monday.
Hence the following Sunday would be eight days after the previous
Sunday, in stead of seven. A Christian
then would be required to worship on Saturdays that year, on Fridays the
following year, and so on, with all the economic penalty and social hostility
an atheistic nation would impose on this obedience to God.
Perhaps a more
immediate danger lies in Senator Dirksen’s anti-Christian proposal to hold
national elections on the Lord’s Day.
This would be an effective way of disenfranchising Christians. Apparently the time of the antichrist is
approaching. [Clark, Ibid. P. 201.]
I have been told that Dr. Clark’s
son-in-law, Dwight Zeller, said that Dr. Clark was definitely opposed to blue
laws. Apparently, Mr. Zeller has not
read What Do Presbyterians Believe? Obviously, if the calendar were changed by
legal decree or edict, Dr. Clark considers that an affront to
Christianity. But the Reformed
libertarian position is that the law that does no harm to an individual is
permissible. Since laws against the Sabbath
are not harmful to the individual, the law is desirable under the separation of
church and state according to the Reformed libertarian position. Secondly, if a law were passed making national
elections on Sunday it would mean that Christians could not support magistrates
who would pass laws in favor of the Judeo-Christian worldview and the Ten
Commandments. If Clark were a
libertarian why does he associate such laws with the antichrist and not as something
favorable to the libertarian view? It is
general knowledge that blue laws were not just in the southern Bible belt
states but were in effect nationwide in the 20th century. It is only toward the end of the 20th
century do we begin to see the erosion of laws protecting Sunday as a day of
rest and worship as well as a day when a family could be sure to have time
together.
Moreover, having church members
work on Sunday undermines church attendance and the financial support of the
local church. It could cost a person
their job to claim a religious reason to not work on Sunday or it could come at a
very definite financial cost even if the company recognizes the employees’
right to religious freedom.
The evidence that Clark believed
that the government should enforce biblical morality is extensive. Another example comes from his lecture on
Puritan ethics in a section he calls "Contemporary Impuritans":
We need very
much to replenish those reserves today. That this country needs to replenish
its moral resources seems too obvious to need saying, but so few people seem to
care that it cannot be said enough. The list of American deficiencies can begin
with riots, the looting, the arson, and the murders in Detroit, Newark, and
many, too many, other cities. These riots did not just happen spontaneously.
They were prepared. Remember the plot uncovered in Philadelphia to put cyanide
in the soldiers’, policemen’s, and firemen’s coffee. But while these riots were
prepared for by Communists and pro-Communists, like Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap
Brown, and Martin Luther King, of sainted memory, there has been a much longer
preparation of indifference to mounting crime. The government officials whose
responsibility it is to protect life and property are dilatory, because for
years the increase of violent crime has been encouraged by liberal theories of
penology, a perverted judicial development that has hamstrung the police and
prosecutors, and a general sympathy with the criminal instead of his victim.
In addition to
the increase of unorganized crime, there is also the tremendous power of the
Mafia. Not only does it deal in prostitution, narcotics, and gambling, but more
recently it has infiltrated legitimate businesses to confiscate their assets,
all of which entails the bribery and intimidation of government officials and a
few murders when necessary.
Narcotics were
just mentioned. Below the level of heroin there is LSD, glue, marijuana,
alcohol, tobacco, barbiturates, sleeping pills, and tranquilizers. The halls of
scholarship also, where claims to seek truth are proudly made, the halls of
scholarship also are tainted with moral and intellectual decay. Professor Carl
Van Doren, a few years ago, shamed us all on television by being able to answer
a stupendous array of questions on all sorts of topics. Hailed into court, he
denied under oath that he had been coached. He was then convicted of perjury.
After his conviction, the students at Columbia voted to have him returned to
the faculty. They shared their professor’s devotion to truth.
[Dr. Gordon H.
Clark. “The Puritans and Situation
Ethics,” in The Trinity Review,
January, February 1989.]
At the time that Dr. Clark was
alive pornography was still illegal and so was gambling and prostitution. Yet we have fake Christians and fake
Calvinists today asserting that Clark would have agreed with their institutionalizing
immorality in the judicial laws of our land under the rubric of the false
dichotomy of Marxism that there is an absolute separation of church and
state. Need I remind the reader that
Clark lectured on the topic of Christianity where he specifically says that
Christianity is a philosophical and theological worldview and not a
religion? In fact, he even says that
religion is a meaningless term since it could also be argued that godless
religions such as Buddhism and communism exist.
Atheism and secular humanism are also godless religions and appear to be
very organized. Thus the idea or
proposition that the government should not enforce religion is
self-contradictory! Every nation
promotes some form of religion, including the communist nations. The difference is that in America until
recent times religious pluralism was our official position where freedom of
religion was the default position. In
modern times, however, Marxism has taken over and Christianity has become
something to be suppressed and relegated to the privacy of one’s home. State approved churches preach doctrines of
LGBTQ and free sex while Christian churches are infiltrated by liberal
reporters looking for an excuse to charge the pastor with bigotry and hate
crimes. The LGBTQ lobby has already
begun to push for legislation making it mandatory that Christians refer to
homosexuals as good people rather than perverts and for Christians to refer to
transvestites and those who have undergone cosmetic sex change operations as
the biological sex they have tried to impersonate artificially. Not only is this anti-Christian but it
violates both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
Reformed libertarianism therefore
is an enemy of true Christianity and supports the evil agenda of social Marxism
and the legislation of laws that oppose freedom and liberty of conscience. Those who support evil cannot be Christian. Christians should support laws that uphold
the Ten Commandments, religious freedom, and the Sabbath day. Why should secular humanism, atheism or
Marxism be the official dogmatic religion of the state?
13 And he had
power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast
should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the
beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and
poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their
foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or
the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Rev. 13:15-17 KJV)
Posts
