The Defense of Rationalism

Dr. Milton Friedman on one of the more famous inaugural speeches of the twentieth century:

“In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic “what your country can do for you” implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, “what you can do for your ‘country” implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

“The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?

“To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.”

There’s really not much more I can add to that.

Today’s western governments have been charged with an unprecedented array of responsibilities. As Christians in a western country, we’re charged with the task of understanding what responsibilities we attribute to our government in light of Scripture. This is not to say that we necessarily advocate the legislation of morality or the establishment of biblical law as civic law. Rather, we need to understand our government in light of what Scripture says regarding the institution of the state.

The state is a legitimate institution specifically ordained by God. Likewise, of course, the church – the body of Christ – is an institution specifically ordained by God. Each institution has been given specific responsibilities. We can take many of God’s instructions to the ancient Israelite state in the Old Testament as the responsibilities of the New Testament church. Caring for the poor, widows, and orphans are specific tasks attributed to the people of God who were embodied in the ancient Israelite state in the Old Testament but are embodied in the church in the New Testament.

As for the state, we are at a bit of an impasse. Matthew, Mark, and Luke recount Jesus stating “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (NIV) which seems to indicate that the state has a biblical grounds to tax. Also, some, like Justice Antonin Scalia, argue on the basis of Romans 13 that the state has been given the “power of the sword” which gives it the right to enforce its laws, punish “evildoers,” and pursue justice (for more on this see Scalia’s May 2002 article in First Things). But what laws should the state have? What defines an “evildoer?” How should the state conceive of justice? These are compelling questions that Scripture does not directly address.

A number of Christian political theorists have tackled this issue. Some, such as James Skillen, suggest a limited role for government on the grounds that people ought to be free to pursue their various callings from God. Others, such as Abraham Kuyper, argue for a notion of “sphere sovereignty” wherein the world is divided into spheres: family, church, state, etc. Each sphere has its own unit of sovereignty and unique responsibilities. And, while there is necessarily a bit of overlap and redundancy (i.e. Christian politicians are members of the church) each sphere is separate and equal. In sum, these Christian thinkers advocate unique roles for the church and unique roles for the state.

Hence, my “libertarianism.” Folks often equate the term “libertarian” with the Libertarian Party: an organization that advocates a polity just shy of anarchy. In broad terms, however, “libertarian” refers to those who generally believe in human liberty and limited government. Libertarians of this ilk disagree to what extent people should be “free” and how a government ought to be limited.

Defined this way, Christians may rightfully consider themselves libertarians.
Fundamentally, I agree with the theorists above: the church and the state are separate institutions ordained by God with separate functions. Further, since the responsibilities for the church are spelled out so well, I believe that we can infer certain responsibilities to be outside of the state’s purview. For instance, the church is clearly charged with the task of caring for the poor. While this doesn’t necessarily negate certain social welfare programs, Christians ought to believe that the primary responsibility for the care of the poor belongs to the church – not the state. Likewise, since the “power of the sword” has been granted to the state, it would be improper for the church to take up arms. In short, the institutions of church and state have been ascribed specific responsibilities and many of the state’s responsibilities can be inferred by deduction.

In addition to the concept of sphere sovereignty, I believe James Skillen is right in advocating a constitutionally limited government on the basis that people ought to be free to pursue their callings unimpeded by government. Though far from a strict libertarian (i.e. not a member of the Libertarian Party), I believe that constitutionally limited government and human liberty are Scripturally defensible concepts.

I find it interesting that conservatives (in the American sense of the word) claim, in one breath, to be strict constructionists of the Constitution and at the same time tolerate, even mandate the federal legislation of morality. The Constitution clearly prohibits federal legislation of morality as it is a “power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” as the Tenth Amendment reads. At times, especially in the abortion debate, find myself in a position seeking to argue from a (federal)legal/constitutional standpoint that abortion is wrong (and in my heart of hearts I believe it is absolutely wrong) while it is simply impossible to do so. Indeed, the Constitution is (and ought to be) silent on the issue of abortion as it is an issue of morality.

However, although the Federal government is prohibited from legislating abortion, the States are not. Instead, the states are constitutionally encouraged to legislate moral issues as this is an element of their function in the Union. Therefore, with this in mind, what does it matter whether a candidate for a federal office is pro-choice — especially in the executive branch? Unless, of course, the candidate is a loose constructionist.

This is the problem with the loose constructionist (i.e. the Constitution is a “living document”) point of view — the order of the Union is put into jeopardy because if we ignore even the slightest detail in the constitution then what stops us from ignoring large portions of it or ignoring it altogether? If the Tenth Amendment is ignored in any part why can’t the First Amendment be ignored and the federal government mandate Islam or “President Worship” (like Roman emperor worship and Egyptian pharaoh worship) as an official state religion? In such a legal environment there would be nothing holding the government accountable to the people. With the strict constructionist view, however, the integrity of the letter of the law is maintained and no person — civilian, government official, soldier, man, woman, child… — is above the law. Thus, the government is held accountable to the people; the people are sovereign.

If a candidate for federal office (i.e. Hillary Clinton) is a loose constructionist AND a pro-choicer then, from a legal/constitutional standpoint, he or she is a fundamental danger to the Union and no one should vote for them regardless of religion, race, creed, or food preference. Conversely, however, if a candidate believes wholeheartedly in each citizen’s inherent right to choice in all regards and is therefore pro-choice by default but is of a strict constructionist persuasion then he poses no threat to the integrity of the union and is thus a votable candidate.

Therefore, I reason that “maybe” a Christian could possibly vote for a pro-choice candidate if the candidate is a strict constructionist especially for the office of President since it holds little policy-making responsibility. One such highly votable candidate would be Rudy Giuliani. Vote for him.