James is a devastating letter aimed at encouraging believers to live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. Out of his various ethical exhortations, one group in particular emerges as his preeminent target: the rich. Modern authoritarian socialists are enamored of James’s vicious invectives against the rich, supposing him to be a proto-Marxist railing against the excesses of a market economy and private property. There is just one little problem with this argument: it is entirely wrong. As I demonstrate at length in my book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation, drawing ironically on the excellent (if categorically confused) work of several New Testament scholars working within the Marxist tradition, a vanishingly small number of ancients in the Roman Empire acquired wealth through voluntary, consensual production in exchange. Most of the rich, including in Judea and even rural Galilee, were born into wealth and used the levers of political power to extract wealth from the great masses of society at their expense. There were few mutually beneficial transactions, only appropriation of state power to maintain and aggrandize the wealth of a tiny minority of politically favored elites. Every good libertarian knows exactly how to label this kind of economic system: it is, pure and simple, state socialism.

Although something of a minority view in New Testament scholarship, I believe there are enough internal indications to suggest that James was indeed written by the brother of Jesus, pillar of the church in Jerusalem, before the great persecution against the church by the wealthy political establishment following the extrajudicial lynching of Stephen recorded in Acts 7. This means that the “rich” James has in mind are the ruling elites of Judea and Galilee who oppress the poor through coercive, involuntary exploitation. James, therefore, is certainly not advocating for centralized wealth redistribution (which is, ironically, exactly how the ruling elites maintained their wealth), nor is he condemning voluntary market transactions. His eyes are set on precisely the kind of people modern authoritarian socialist Christians want to put in charge of the entire economy. I present below a significantly truncated selection of my section on James, demonstrating exegetically that anti-market interpretations of James are woefully inaccurate.

Miseries Will Befall the Rich

James 1:2-8 opens the letter with an encouragement to endure “various trials” through the wisdom and strength provided by God. Then in 1:9-11, James contrasts the glory of “the brother of humble circumstances” with the “rich man…[who will] glory in his humiliation…[who] in the midst of his pursuits will fade away.” The Greek word behind “rich man” is plousios, a term with which we became familiar in our study of the Synoptic tradition. In Judea, as in much of the Roman Mediterranean, very few people accumulated wealth through voluntary market transactions; designating a person as plousios could easily connote immoral or unjust behavior, and the context of trials and persecution in James suggests this is the intended meaning. The eschatological reversal of riches is a major feature in the Jesus tradition, particularly accentuated in Luke. From the song of Mary in Luke 1:46-55 to the Lukan beatitudes in Luke 6:20-26, the plousios might have their fill now but will find themselves humiliated in the great eschatological conflagration while the poor will be vindicated by the righteous God of Israel. In James 1:27, those who truly honor God “visit orphans and widows in their distress“; the longstanding Jewish tradition of care for the vulnerable, exhibited in passages such as Jeremiah 49:11, must characterize the life of a believer in contrast with the self-serving plousios.

James 2:1-7 is a command to show no partiality between the rich and the poor. When believers assemble, they are not to give preferential treatment to the well-dressed man while disregarding those who are poorly dressed, because “God chose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him,” echoing the beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-26 in which the poor will inherit the kingdom of God, as well as Matthew 6:28-30 in which Jesus instructs his followers not to worry about clothing. Showing favoritism based on wealth and status has “dishonored the poor man,” and even worse, enabled the very oppression which James condemns (“Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?“) according to 2:6. This is another passage in which the authoritarian socialist reading falls flat. The wealthy who are being rightly criticized by James are oppressive and weaponize the legal system against the poor. James is not issuing a condemnation of peaceful, voluntary market transactions in which the production and consumption of goods and services are decentralized. Nowhere can this passage be used in opposition to capitalism; quite the opposite, in fact. Those who have acquired wealth through oppression and the manipulation of courts are the problem. The reliance upon (oftentimes legal) coercion under threats of violence to regulate, control, or appropriate the productive fruits of other people is a feature of socialism, and no quantity of egalitarian rhetoric can mask the fact that James is in reality denouncing economic arrangements based on violence. If we are to adopt an economic principle from this passage for the modern world, it must include a repudiation of the economically coercive system of authoritarian socialism.

This theme reaches its climax in James 5:1-6: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.” The rich will be miserable because all of their wealth will be destroyed. The language James employs is reminiscent of Matthew 6:19-20, where Jesus instructs his audience not to “store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy.” The rich will receive eschatological judgment because they have withheld the rightful earnings from those who labored in their fields. Since abject poverty was pervasive in first-century Judea, day laborers who were not given their contractually obligated wages were in danger of starvation. This explains why James can describe the behavior of those rich landowners as “condemn[ing] and put[ting] to death the righteous man.“

Far from being a critique of free markets, James is railing against the wealthy people who act in an unjust manner to increase their own wealth. As we learned in our study of the gospels, rich landowners were enabled by the political and legal institutions of their day. The socialists of the modern world, determined to grant a massive amount of economic power to a small handful of bureaucrats and politicians, are philosophically aligned with the rich oppressors James rightly condemns for their corruption and exploitation. Only through the most imprecise and inaccurate categorical definitions of “capitalism” and “socialism” could one possibly read this passage as an affirmation of the latter and a critique of the former. The Austrian definition of each term, predicated upon the objective difference between economic transactions based on consent and those based on coercion, allows us to draw the correct modern application: believers should condemn economic arrangements in which wealthy people are given arbitrary power over others. In other words, we must reject socialism root and branch.

In response to the oppressive rich and their impending eschatological judgment, James 5:7-11 encourages believers to remain faithful to God, enduring suffering until God acts to vindicate his people. Stulac explains the function of James 5:1-11: “[there are] two purposes (encouragement and warning) James would have for Christians who are reading how he would address their rich, non-Christian oppressors. His encouragement is for them to leave judgment to God while they persevere in righteousness. His warning is for them to beware of God’s judgment and flee from materialistic sin themselves.” This maps perfectly onto the general New Testament teaching on wealth and poverty. Wealth is morally neutral but must be acquired justly and used to build God’s kingdom by serving others. It entails a massive responsibility which leads many into idolatry and ruin. Believers must commit to radical charity, voluntarily sharing their resources with those who truly need them while fleeing from the destructive love of money. God will judge the rich oppressors, but there can be no violent revolution against them before the final day without compromising the unique, cruciform identity of the church. So-called “Christian” socialists, in promoting an economic system which perpetuates violence and inequality, are just as much in danger of forging economic idols as those who are rich, and James empowers us to rebuke both parties. The solution, as always, is decentralized economic networks of voluntary production and exchange between peaceful people. Leveraging the monopolistic power of a secular state to remake the economy based on the subjective, short-sighted, and barbaric theory of socialism is antithetical to Christian values and will always result in greater wealth inequality and structural poverty. May the modern church one day learn this lesson.

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6:12)

This is what it says in Ephesians 6:12, one of the most profound letters of the Apostle Paul, with the message: The spiritual battle of the Christian is not directed against other people (that is, not against “flesh and blood”), but against the invisible, spiritual powers of evil, including their evil ideas.

The State’s Coercive Money Monopoly

Biblically speaking, ideas are evil when they oppose God, His holiness, His order, and His love. When one reflects on the state’s compulsory money monopoly, its origins, and above all its consequences against this background, one quickly arrives at the conclusion: This is certainly not a good idea, but a bad one. It is, in fact, an evil idea that has come into the world. To recognize this, one should recall the works of the economist Carl Menger (1840-1921).

As early as 1871, he pointed out that money had arisen spontaneously from the voluntary transactions of people in a free market, specifically from a commodity, above all from gold and silver; that money, therefore, had come into the world in a “natural,” voluntary way. Of course, commodity money was not perfect, it had its problems. One need only think, for example, of counterfeiting money: casting coins with inferior metal and/or reducing the weight of coins by “clipping.”

Counterfeiting money is probably as old as money itself. The punishments for it, however, were also very severe. The counterfeiter faced death by fire in antiquity, boiling oil, chopping off of hands, hanging in the Middle Ages and early modern period, and even in the 19th century imprisonment or the death penalty. People were well aware of the evils of counterfeiting money: counterfeit money destroys trust in money and thus in the division of labor, trade, and prosperity.

Counterfeiting money is a form of fraud, of lying, of destruction, and therefore belongs to the works of evil, because it perverts the order given by God. It is no coincidence that Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) in his epic poem The Divine Comedy places the money counterfeiters in the 8th circle of Hell, in the 10th ditch (Bolgia); this is also where alchemists, forgers of persons, as well as liars and false witnesses are banished.

“Legalized Counterfeiting of Money”

It is therefore not surprising that the path from commodity money to today’s fiat money was anything but flawless and innocent. The American economist Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) showed in his book What Has Government Done To Our Money (1963) how the state, in a process that admittedly stretched over a long period of time, literally seized money, replacing commodity money with its own arbitrarily expandable fiat money.

More precisely: The American state committed a serious breach of contract at the latest on August 15, 1971, by willfully ending the redeemability of banknotes and deposits in gold. The U.S. dollar was thereby literally cut off from gold, and thus arbitrarily expandable from then on, and the money holders were robbed of their yellow metal. From Rothbard’s perspective, a system of “legalized counterfeiting of money” has emerged as a result.

The central banks, in close cooperation with the commercial banks, have since expanded the money supply (in the form of “money substitutes,” i.e., banknotes and checking deposits) through credit creation, without the quantity of real money, the “base of money gold,” increasing. Economically speaking, Rothbard argues, it is irrelevant whether private counterfeiters are at work here or whether the central and commercial banks are increasing the money supply through credit expansion. In any case, money is being counterfeited in the aforementioned sense when the connection to its value-creating foundation and physical anchor, gold, is arbitrarily severed by the state.

Inflation, Overconsumption, Debt Servitude, Corruption, and War Economy

The consequences of the multiplication of counterfeit money, of inflationary money, are well known: The purchasing power of money dwindles; saving is discouraged; some become richer at the expense of others; when the new money is created through credit, financial and economic disruptions occur; national economies sink into a swamp of debt; living on credit becomes the normal case, people become debt slaves; the state becomes ever larger and more powerful; corruption and cronyism spread; wars can be financed relatively easily and become more frequent; the morals and customs of people become shallow and decay; and economic decline of the commonwealth follows.

Precisely because one knows the “natural monetary order,” that is, a free market for money, and its functionality, one cannot avoid classifying the idea of the state’s coercive money production monopoly as a bad idea and, in view of its consequences, even as an evil idea; and viewing the state central bank, which embodies the compulsory money monopoly, as the “Beast” of evil. That is, the state central bank coercive monopoly as a visible embodiment of the invisible power of evil.

Territorial Compulsory Monopolist of Coercion and Violence

There is, of course, a direct link between fiat money and the state (as we know it today). In fact, today’s fiat money system would not be possible without the state. The state as a territorial compulsory monopolist with ultimate decision-making authority over all conflicts in its territory, and which also presumes to levy taxes (that is, to take something from people against their will), cannot link its origin and existence to a good idea either. The opposite is the case: The state is based on coercion and violence, on the intention of some to dominate, coerce, oppress, and plunder others.

Whoever does not wish to make the biblical connection to the problem of the state central bank coercive monopoly actually faces the same question: Is perhaps the state (as we know it today) not only the product of a bad idea, but perhaps also of an evil one? Rothbard would answer “Yes” without hesitation: The state as an institution of coercion and violence is based on an evil idea, because it systematically violates God’s order of individual freedom, of property, and of voluntary action; and an idea that promotes coercion instead of love, lies instead of truth (or even self-deification instead of the worship of God) is evil.

Spiritual-Christian Struggle Against Evil

The Christian mandate for action is thus virtually pre-formulated: To confront the evil ideas and their Beast. The Bible shows the way: Evil ideas are spiritual strongholds. One should take them captive, tear them down through God’s truth and overcome them with good, instead of ignoring them or fighting them with carnal means (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). It is therefore high time not to continue overestimating the effect of economic insights that have long been available about the state and its central bank coercive money monopoly, but to rely on the “spiritual armor” of Christianity, its biblical principles for the struggle against evil. Only with this help can one deal with the Evil and its Beast. Insights from economics alone will probably not suffice.

When modern Christians appeal to the apostle Paul in contemporary debates about political and economic structures, they often do so on a superficial, text-by-text basis. A handful of passages, Romans 13:1-7 being the foremost, are invoked, interpreted, and applied, almost always under the implicit assumptions of modern authoritarian socialism. Not only are post-nineteenth-century political and economic categories dictating the parameters of debate, but a more fundamentally dangerous omission is also at play: the failure to integrate individual, isolated passages from Paul within the larger framework of Pauline thought and theology. This has not only led to disastrous interpretive results, it has also screened out several Pauline texts which do actually have something to say about the ways in which believers ought to think about political and economic questions today. In my book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation, I front load my lengthy discussion of Paul’s letters with a chapter-length treatment of major questions in Pauline interpretation, including the main themes which dominate his letters. Of great significance, yet severely under-explored in political and economic debates, is Paul’s ecclesiology, or theology of the church.

For Paul, the Pharisaic Jew, the world could be neatly divided up into two separate categories: Israel, God’s chosen people, the true descendants of Abraham, and an essentially undifferentiated mass of ungodly Gentiles. God’s people were defined by Torah observance, in the hope that those who fulfill the Law would be delivered on the day when God finally returned to rescue his long-suffering people and set the world straight. After Damascus, Paul came to believe that the great day of deliverance had already begun through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of God’s promised Davidic Messiah, Jesus. Surprisingly, especially to the exclusively Jewish leadership of the early Jesus movement, the promised outpouring of God’s Spirit on all mankind, prophesied in Ezekiel 36 and Joel 2, was happening even to Gentiles on the basis of their faith in Jesus! For Paul, the people of God were now defined by faith in Christ Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, and therefore, as he argues at length in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, the family of Abraham was reconstituted around Jesus.

Here’s the catch, though: Paul didn’t abandon his exclusivistic understanding of Abraham’s family as the only true people of God. He simply reworks his ecclesiology around Jesus, who is the decisive revelation of God’s saving righteousness and the inaugurator of God’s new creation. The church, therefore, is still the only community that matters, and God has called this Jew-and-Gentile family of Abraham to proclaim to the world the reign of the one true king. The idea that Abraham’s family would capitulate to national, ethnic, or political identities other than the one granted to them through faith and the Spirit is anathema to Paul, and his conception of Christian political and economic engagement is shaped by his conviction that the church is the true people of God and cannot compromise the integrity of that identity. An excellent example of this phenomenon is found in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul addresses the question of an illicit (and illegal) sexual relationship in the Corinthian church. His instructions are a perfect example of the church as an exclusive, self-regulating community handling its own internal affairs outside the state apparatus, and an excellent place to start thinking about Pauline passages which must be brought into contemporary debates about Christian political and economic theology. I present an edited version of this section of my book below.

Sleeping with Stepmothers

The issue at hand is addressed bluntly by Paul in 5:1: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.” While there have been many reconstructions of Paul’s phrase “has his father’s wife,” the most plausible is that the man’s birth mother either died or divorced, at which point his father remarried. The verb “to have” (translated “has” in the NASB) means “to have sexual intercourse” with another person, and the present tense implies the behavior was continuing to happen. So a member of the Corinthian church was sleeping with his stepmother. Gross. While the man’s behavior is detestable across cultures, in Roman Corinth a perverse relationship with one’s stepmother was more than a matter of transgressing delicate social mores. It was illegal. Roman law punished adultery and incest, and the criminal consequences of engaging in such behavior included banishment, the revoking of citizenship, and the confiscation of property. When Paul says in 5:1 that this is “immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles,” he is likely referencing the Roman legal precedent condemning such behavior.

Not only had the Corinthians tolerated this man’s behavior, they had become arrogant and were boasting about it! The precise reason for the Corinthian boast is unclear; scholar Kenneth Bailey suggests that the Corinthians were celebrating their newfound freedom and grace in Christ by disregarding immoral behavior as if they had somehow overcome it, while another scholar, Bruce Winter, argues that the man was probably a member of the upper class and the church, proud of his presence in its community, was willing to overlook his indiscretions. Either way, Paul thinks this kind of behavior is intolerable and chastises the church for failing to address it. In 5:6-8, Paul compares the man to old leaven which corrupted the dough; the church needed to clear out the old leaven and become “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.“

Paul’s solution, outlined in 5:9-13, holds the church accountable for ignoring abhorrent behavior in the believing community: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people; I did not at all mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the greedy and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to leave the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler, not even to eat with such a person. For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the evil person from among yourselves.” The issue is not the immorality of those outside the church, which Jewish Paul takes as a given, but the allowance and approval of immorality within the church. Paul commands the Corinthians to take action. The man must be removed from the community. While God alone judges those outside of the church, it is the responsibility of those inside of the church, whom Paul has already labeled “holy,” to hold this man accountable. Paul isn’t just being punitive, however. The removal of this man from the congregation is justified by Paul in 5:5: “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” By doing so, the moral integrity of the church is preserved, freeing it from the potentially corrupting influence of the man’s detestable behavior, while the man himself might repent of his deeds and be saved on the final day.

What does an illicit sexual affair with one’s stepmother have to do with politics or economics? Quite a lot, actually. Paul sees the church as its own supra-political entity, demarcated by faith and the Spirit, with Jesus ruling over it as king. Within this framework believers must handle their own internal affairs. The call to holiness, set-apartness, means that the church should not conform to the values of pagan society. If someone within the church is threatening its integrity, they should be judged by the church. On the other hand, the church should not be in the business of either acting against the behavior of those outside the church or refusing to associate with unbelievers. Paul assumes the world is immoral but maintains that salvation comes only through faith in the gospel, and it is the role of God’s family to reveal the gospel to the world. A church that refuses to engage with those who don’t share its values is a church which has abdicated its mission.

Modern Christians on both the political left and right seek the passage of legislation to impose, under threat of violence, their own moral and theological preferences on society. I doubt, based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, that Paul would approve of this inclination. While political authoritarianism may be the prevailing secular (dare I say “pagan”?) political value of our time, those following a crucified Messiah should think twice before proposing political solutions to theological problems. Conversely, problems which arise within the church should generally be handled by the church. The man sleeping with his stepmother should be shamed and removed from the church by the church. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 13:5 and 17:7 in 1 Corinthians 5:13. In contrast to those outside the church who are judged by God, the Corinthians should “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” Christians regulate their own internal behavior instead of seeking to pass some law which regulates the behavior of non-Christians. We should stop acting like worldly people. The contrast between insiders and outsiders, us and them, is sharp, and Paul’s instructions about accountability and purity are prescient for Christians today.

A little-known aspect of history revolves around the Christian Samurai of medieval Japan. Some might know that Pope Francis beatified the feudal medieval Japanese daimyo Justo Takayama Ukon (1552-1615), who was persecuted and exiled from Japan for his faith as the country’s rulers became hostile to Christians, forcing their conversion or expulsion. Few emulated Takayama, who stood firm in the faith, refusing to recant Christ and forgoing his rich inheritance and prestige and power. But he was neither the first nor the last feudal Japanese Christian lord in the islands to need correcting by the government.

I recently completed Christ’s Samurai by Professor Jonathan Clements, who wrote that “In 1638, the ruler of Japan ordered a crusade against his own subjects, a holocaust upon the men, women, and children of a doomsday cult…the Christians would have to die.” But why would the Shogun do such a thing, to his own people?

Christianity was spreading; formerly common among the lower classes, it was now influencing many lords in southern Japan, especially in the Shimabara region. These rebellious Christians claimed there was another god above the divine emperor, one owed fealty exceeding that due to any human or government of this world. After a devastating civil war which reversed the upward trend of Christianity, with many Christian Samurai perishing, the Shogun did not want any more internal trouble. He isolated Japan from the West, and all missionaries were killed, exiled or went into hiding. Persecution of Christians began, the government desiring a people unified around the twin pillars of Shinto and Buddhism.

Jesuits had brought a printing press to Japan, and various Christian works spread rapidly, converting many. At one point, Nagasaki was home to 60,000 Christians. In 1580, the city and its surrounding region was placed under Jesuit administration, with 150,000 Christians and 200 churches, staffed by 85 priests. Many of the Samurai were Christian as well, and they decorated their swords and armor and flags with Christian symbols.

The first anti-Christian law was enacted in 1587. By 1596, Japanese rulers were convinced that missionaries were secretly collaborating with the Spanish crown to unseat the Shogun and convert Japan to Christianity. In 1597, 26 Christians (both European and Japanese), missionaries and laymen, were crucified. More widespread persecution followed, mostly against Catholics, including gruesome public executions, various brutal forms of torture and expulsion from Japan. Inquisitors were sent to homes to discover and punish Christians.

Eventually, the government killed anyone suspected of Christian allegiance, and they forced any suspect to prove they were not Christian by renouncing Christ, Mary, and the saints, ensuring they held no loyalties to some foreign God beyond the sea. In 1614, Catholics were banished from Japan entirely. The island country, known for its isolationist ways, was to be kept “pure” from outside forces economically, politically, and religiously. Yet, there remained over 300,000 Christians in Japan at this time.

The Resistance

Masuda Shiro Tokisada (Christian name Geronimo, the Spanish form of Jerome) was born into a Christian Samurai family c. 1621. Though the religion was persecuted, the family was one of many that were part of the underground church, which also hid foreign and domestic priests and evangelists. In an echo of long-ago Roman days, many at this time willingly faced martyrdom, turning themselves in, from all ages, to tell government officials that they were Christians just to be killed; even being very respectful to those who would kill them, and also very kind. The martyrs’ behavior bothered governmental officials, especially since all they had to do was tell a white lie and be left alone. Instead, the underground church that Geronimo and his family were part of faced constant persecution involving brutal torture and death.

For example, sometimes they would be scalded in water, or drowned slowly over days, their flesh cut, dipped in hot water until near death, just to be pulled out and the torture repeated over and over. However, it was not just religion that was punished, but also tax evaders faced such torture and murder as well. And it was a mix of persecution of local Christians and also heavy taxation in the area that led to rebellion.

It began in 1637. Rebellion started when, as usual, citizens who were discovered to be Christians were rounded up and executed, but the locals, in turn, then killed one of the government officials, in part because of the brutal torture of various non-compliant young women. This had outraged the local rural farming communities, many of whom were underground Christians. Thought to be a rabble of peasant farmers, many were former Christian lords and samurai who had taken up farming after losing their status during an earlier civil war, often hiding in rural areas to practice their religion.

They began by burning down Buddhist temples while the rebels adorned their clothing and hairstyles with Christian symbolism. And then engaged in various battles and skirmishes, achieving many victories. The rebels were helped by the fact that the governmental forces consistently underestimated their ability, not realizing they had a decent number of former samurai, and instead thought of them as just rural peasant farmers, thus allowing the rebels to gain multiple small-scale victories.

Though he was young, Geronimo became the leader of the resistance. A fiery preacher, he was said to be a miracle worker sent by God to lead the rebellion. The rebels never expected victory, they prepared for and assumed death. They were vastly outnumbered, had few weapons to match the government’s, no armor, and most were peasant farmers with no experience, but they were fighting for eternal reasons and were willing, even desiring, to die for the faith. After various local successes in battle and advances, they decided it was enough. Instead of advancing and capturing more towns, they chose a defensive position to gather and be besieged and die together, this in turn allowing the opposition to mass its forces for a final battle.

Eventually, the rebels settled into a ruined fort to defend themselves, constructing timber barricades to supplement the broken-down walls. They then, surprisingly, repelled multiple attempts by governmental forces to break through their defenses. They even taunted the professional army and told them just how fearless they were. Geronimo told his men “as we have resolved to sacrifice our lives for the sake of our religion it is not to be supposed that we will easily be overthrown.” They proclaimed to their opponents “We have assembled in this castle merely to sacrifice our lives for our religion here, and then depart to the future world…in the present world we must meet the punishment of the sword, but in the future, we will, without a doubt, be raised on high.” The defenders did what they could to avoid a long siege as they would rather die fighting, but after multiple failed attempts, a siege ensued that lasted for months.

The governmental forces even brought in a Dutch ship and massive artillery to bombard the fort. After the garrison began to starve and suffer from artillery fire, the defenders were allowed to go home so long as they would disown Christianity and accept Buddhism. They refused, and after months of siege, the starving, depleted garrison was assaulted and taken. They fought to the death, many women leaping off a cliff rather than surrender, and horrifically, some burning themselves and their children alive. Some ran into burning buildings and lay on top of their children, so they also would die rather than be taken by the invaders. Out of ammunition and even rocks, the final assault by the professional and modern governmental army was at times met with pots and pans being thrown from the castle walls.

After the defeat of the rebels, universal Buddhism was instituted to unify the people and prevent further wars, while maintaining the Japanese shogun and government as the sole authority; no other gods or allegiances were allowed. Persecution of the remaining Christians continued until the church was all but eradicated.

The few traders that were allowed must first reject Christian principles before admission to the islands. All written works of Christians were burned and destroyed. But word of mouth remained, and when in the 19th century Japan was forcibly opened to Western contact it was found that a hidden church had endured the intervening centuries in rural areas. Although without written texts various heretical beliefs had crept in, a form of Christianity had survived, once again, despite persecution and repression by all the power of the State.

The Paradox of Centralized Power

Let us begin with an obvious observation: the political outrage machine is running at maximum capacity. Every election cycle, and practically every news cycle, gets framed as an existential crisis. Headlines feel like battle cries. Partisans on all sides are genuinely convinced that if the other team wins, society as we know it will collapse into utter ruin.

We live in a culture obsessed with capturing political power. We’ve been fed a lie that the only way to protect what is good, fix what is broken, and stop what is evil is to grab hold of the state’s steering wheel.

I am admittedly no historian, but every time I step back from the outrage du jour and dig into a history book, documentary, or podcast, the exact same paradox emerges. It is a blind spot that both Christians and secular thinkers keep stumbling over, yet almost nobody wants to talk about out loud.

The Fundamental Contradiction

My baseline for understanding human behavior is pretty straightforward: human beings are profoundly flawed. The prophet Jeremiah summed it up well:

“The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NET)

You don’t have to be a Christian to see this, either. Cognitive scientists and evolutionary psychologists reach the exact same conclusion using different language. They talk about “confirmation bias” and “cognitive dissonance” to explain how our brains are wired. We naturally protect our own interests and excuse our own missteps.

So here is the question that keeps bothering me: If we all agree that individual human beings are inherently biased, self-interested, and easily corrupted, why do we believe that putting a group of these exact same humans inside a fancy marble building and hand-delivering them a monopoly on physical force will magically result in justice?

Please make it make sense! Slapping a title on someone and seating them at a mahogany desk doesn’t cure their flawed nature. It just arms their personal flaws with an unchallengeable weapon.

The Warning We Keep Ignoring

This isn’t a new problem. History is essentially one long story of humanity falling for the exact same trap over and over again. Three thousand years ago, Israel decided they were tired of being a decentralized, voluntary network of tribes. They wanted to be like the “cool kids” among the surrounding nations. They wanted a central ruler.

God told the prophet Samuel to give them a reality check about what a centralized ruler would actually do:

“He will conscript your sons and put them in his chariot forces and in his cavalry… He will take your daughters to be ointment makers, cooks, and bakers. He will take your best fields… He will demand a tenth… and you yourselves will be his servants.” (1 Samuel 8:11-17, NET)

God wasn’t warning them about some uniquely evil foreign tyrant. He was warning them about themselves and what they would become if they went this route. He was telling them that the very structure of centralized, coercive power naturally scales, oppresses, and expands. No matter how noble the ruler’s initial intentions might be.

Lord Acton famously put it this way: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Secular thinkers like Russian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin saw the exact same problem: “If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

Whether you read ancient Hebrew scriptures, 19th-century historians, or modern political history, the takeaway is identical. Giving any group of human beings an exclusive monopoly on force does not solve the problem of human self-interest. It simply exempts them from accountability.

The Spectrum of Governance

So where does that leave us? Are we trapped into choosing between a tyrannical state on one side or chaotic, Mad Max lawlessness on the other?

That is a false choice the outrage machine wants us to buy into. But governance isn’t a binary light switch. It’s a continuum. On one side, you have total state coercion. Totalitarianism. The government claims ownership over life, property, and conscience. Moving down the line, thinkers have made noble attempts to build fences around the State through classical liberalism or minarchism.

At the other end of that spectrum sits polycentric voluntaryism: a society built on voluntary agreements, peer accountability, mutual aid, and non-coercive dispute resolution. While Scripture doesn’t prescribe a specific blueprint, voluntary systems align far better with what God teaches us about human dignity, agency, and stewardship.

Laying Down the Sword

If human nature is genuinely untrustworthy, then concentrating force into fewer hands is the most dangerous thing we can possibly do. Centralized political power doesn’t restrain human fallenness. It amplifies the problem.

True societal flourishing cannot be built on top of political coercion. Real peace requires us to stop believing the lie that we can force our neighbors into compliance if we just win the next election. Until we lay down the sword and stop demanding a king, we will remain trapped in the very cycle of tyranny Samuel warned us about three thousand years ago.

Sources & Further Reading

• Scripture citations are taken from the New English Translation (NET).
• Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (1887).
• Mikhail Bakunin, Statehood and Anarchy (1873).

One of the many modern ideas which readers of Scripture frequently impose upon the text is the supposed distinction between “politics” and “religion.” This is enshrined in American political discourse as the “separation of church and state,” and for many contemporary Christians, we simply assume that the writers of the Bible share our dichotomy between the political and religious. This is, however, an idea which only seriously entered the Western intellectual tradition in the wake of Enlightenment skepticism. The ancients, as well as our medieval forebears, did not neatly divide the world up into those two discrete categories. One of the interpretive casualties of the modern distinction between church and state is to assume that the Jerusalem establishment, opposed to both Jesus and his followers, were the “religious” authorities, while Pilate (and to a lesser extent Herod) represented the Roman “political” authorities. This is historically inaccurate. Under the Roman provincial system, local or regional administrative bodies were often left in place, giving local political institutions the ability to manage a large, multicultural empire in a contextually sensitive manner. Herod ruled as a client-king for Rome, and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council based in Jerusalem, retained a wide degree of political autonomy. Roman governors like Pilate held the imperium, the power of capital punishment, but only intervened in local affairs in the case of political unrest or instability, under the wise Roman intuition that local leaders were best suited to handle local political affairs, knowing the subject population better than some governor from faraway Rome.

While Christians endlessly debate Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, far less attention has been paid to the ways in which the first followers of Jesus, based in Jerusalem, interacted with the Jerusalem establishment. For Jews, the Sanhedrin was as much a political institution as a religious one, and therefore every interaction Peter and his associates have with the Jerusalem council must be interpreted as a political engagement. In Acts 4 and 5, the Sanhedrin commands Peter to stop proclaiming the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and Peter twice tells them he will not stop. His reason is recorded in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.” We cannot allow modern assumptions to distort our reading of this text; Peter is not simply defying a religious injunction, pushing back against religious leaders, he is flat-out refusing to obey the political governing authorities. This complicates facile readings of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Notice that Peter isn’t calling for a new political party, the passing of a new law, rebellion against the state, or a reframing of Jewish political philosophy. He is simply acknowledging the truth: Jesus is Lord. He is willing to play ball with the political authorities until they tell him to compromise the truth, and then he refuses to acquiesce. Acts 4 and 5 must impact our reading of political themes in the New Testament, and I have a large section on these chapters (and the surrounding material) in my forthcoming book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation. I present to you an edited version of that very section below.

Peter vs. the Political Establishment

Peter’s several encounters with the political elites provide ample opportunities to proclaim Jesus, and many of these traditions resemble the conflict Jesus himself had with the Jerusalem establishment before his crucifixion. In Acts 4, Peter and John stand before a cast of characters with whom Luke’s audience is familiar. Acts 4:5-8 describes a gathering of the Sanhedrin, the “rulers and elders and scribes…Annas the high priest…Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.” Like Jesus, the two apostles must make a defense before the most powerful political leaders in the Jewish world. They specifically ask Peter, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” referring to the healing in Acts 3. Peter offers a direct response in Acts 4:8-12, telling them that it was done in the name of Jesus, blaming them for his crucifixion, and testifying that God raised Jesus from the dead. Peter then references Psalm 118:22, the very same passage quoted by Jesus against the authorities in Luke 20:17, informing the Sanhedrin that salvation is found in no one else. The council is flummoxed. In Acts 4:13-18, Peter and John are depicted, correctly, as “uneducated and untrained men,” but the council is amazed by their confidence and the undeniable presence of the man they had healed. There is no adequate reply to Peter because they cannot dismiss what had happened. The council’s only option is to instruct them to stop speaking or teaching in the name of Jesus. Peter, confronted with a direct command by the Jewish political authorities, refuses. Acts 4:19-20 records Peter’s response: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Peter, when confronted with a choice between following the Jewish political leaders or honoring God, chooses God. Following Jeremiah and Daniel, Peter neither calls for rebellion nor legitimizes the Sanhedrin’s power. His loyalty and mission transcend the political powers, whom God will deal with on His own time. Peter must obey his God no matter the consequences.

After this exchange Peter and John are released by the council. Acts 4:23-31 is a strategic selection of Lukan theology. The men return to the other disciples and report what had happened. They praise the God of creation, citing Psalm 146:6 and Psalm 2:1-2: “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.” By conflating the Sanhedrin with Gentile rulers who oppose God, Luke is delegitimizing their authority and placing them in direct opposition to the Messiah Jesus and his people. The dividing line is drawn, and those who oppose Jesus are on the wrong side even if they happen to be the self-proclaimed leaders of Israel. Peter would soon find himself in trouble with the Sanhedrin for a second time. As the message of Jesus continues to increase, “the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.” In Acts 5:19-25, an angel rescues Peter and his associates from jail during the night and instructs them to “Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.” The following day, they obediently preach in the temple and are once again apprehended and brought before the Sanhedrin.

The apostles are questioned and specifically asked why they had disobeyed the council’s previous command to stop proclaiming Jesus. Peter’s retort is framed by the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and builds upon his previous statement in Acts 4:19-20 about giving heed to God rather than men: “Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.’” Why is it that Peter firmly expresses his obligation to obey God rather than the Sanhedrin? Because Jesus is the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Lord of creation through whom forgiveness was accomplished and the Holy Spirit poured out on those who obey him. Luke strongly emphasizes the concept of “obedience,” using cognates of the Greek term peitharcheo in both 5:29 and 5:32. Interestingly enough, the word peitharcheo denotes submission to a ruler or superior and is most likely employed by Luke as a subtle jab at the illegitimate authority of the Sanhedrin in comparison to the real authority held by the ascended Christ.

Peter’s words should have a profound impact on the way in which modern Christians think about their engagement with political authorities. Following the longstanding Jewish tradition of Jeremiah 29:7 in which God’s people are instructed to be at peace with the authorities without compromising their faithfulness to God, Peter advocates neither violent revolution nor blind submission. Since Jesus is currently sitting on the throne, Peter’s loyalties transcend temporal political structures and profoundly relativize them. The Sanhedrin isn’t really in charge. Peter isn’t recklessly disobeying the law or advocating that the council be overthrown and replaced with new leaders who are more congenial to the Jesus movement. He doesn’t lobby the Jewish elite to impose Christian values on Jerusalem by force of law. He testifies that the crucified Jesus is also the resurrected and ascended Christ who must be obeyed before all worldly leaders. This is precisely the kind of attitude the New Testament authors encourage their audiences to have towards the governing authorities and is an extension of the Jesus tradition’s political ethic. Revolution is off the table. So is compromise. We can seek to live at peace with our neighbors and the authorities without denying that Jesus is the Lord who will soon return. If our choice is between man and God, we must obey God rather than man.

One of the major objectives in my forthcoming book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation is to offer a political and economic reading of the New Testament that is in dialogue with the field of contemporary biblical scholarship. Over the past fifty years, our understanding of the gospels as texts, and the themes represented in those texts, has been radically transformed. Scholars now recognize that the gospels are examples of ancient Greek biographies, which are written with the goal of recounting the essence of their subjects in the hope that readers would either emulate or, if the subject is wicked, repudiate their behavior. Instead of the debates about the historicity of particular traditions found in the gospels, scholars have analyzed them as literary phenomena, emphasizing story dynamics, plot development, and main themes. The question is not, as it was for much of the modern era, whether Jesus actually said or did exactly what the gospel writers claim, but rather, following the genre of Greek biography, how the evangelists were concerned with conveying the gist or quintessence of Jesus. As scholars like James Dunn and Dale Allison have argued at length, the gospels were designed to give us an accurate impression of Jesus, so that, in the words of the fourth evangelist, their audiences “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing [they] may have life in His name” (John 20:31). The final word of my book title is “Interpretation,” after all, and before I analyze the texts of the gospels I provide readers with an introductory chapter that is intended to orient them to the methods by which we read, interpret, and, for believers, apply the gospels.

One of the main themes that appear repeatedly throughout the gospels, so pervasive that it is entirely appropriate to call it the main theme, is the kingdom of God, or, as Matthew redacts it, the kingdom of Heaven. Medieval appropriations of Platonic spirit-matter dualism, along with a theological tradition that tended to privilege a disembodied afterlife, tended to leave interpreters with the impression that the kingdom of God was a place, namely “heaven,” which the righteous would enter upon death. That reading of the kingdom has been dealt a decisive blow, both in biblical scholarship and systematic theology. It is now widely (and correctly) recognized that the kingdom of God is a concept rooted deep in the soil of the Old Testament and refers not to an eternal state of disembodied bliss but rather the restoration of God’s rule over all creation. The kingdom of God, then, is about who rules both now and forever, and the gospels’ central claim is that the reign of God breaks into creation through the ministry of Jesus. The kingdom is no mere “spiritual” reality, divorced from the real world in which we live and breathe, but the active rule of God in which those who follow Jesus, God’s Messiah, participate in the present! The political implications of the kingdom of God are massive, and worked out in the gospels and the rest of the New Testament. I present below an edited sample of my section explaining the kingdom of God as a theme in the gospels, and I hope it helps you reflect on the political implications of the gospel tradition.

The Kingdom of God

There are several related expressions in the gospels which denote the kingdom of God: “the kingdom, kingdom of God, kingdom of heaven, kingdom of the Father, kingdom of Jesus, and kingdom of the Son of Man.” Each of these expressions has the same referent, so I will use them interchangeably. Of particular note is the phrase “kingdom of Heaven,” which is found nowhere in Mark or Luke but used almost exclusively by Matthew. The traditional explanation of this variant is compelling: Matthew was most likely composed for a Jewish audience that avoided using the proper name of God when possible out of respect for the Third Commandment. The phrase is directly equivalent, however, to “kingdom of God.”

The Greek term for “kingdom” is basileia, which can mean kingdom, reign, rule, or domain. While many Christians throughout history have taken the word basileia in a geographical sense as denoting a particular place, usually a heavenly afterlife, this doesn’t appear to be the primary way in which Jesus uses the term. Jesus envisions the kingdom as a state of God’s reign, not confined to a particular location but encompassing all of creation. Joel Green explains this dynamic in the gospels: “what happens most frequently with respect to God’s kingdom is that it is entered…with the result that people can be in…not far from…or out of the kingdom…imagine entering a sphere—that is, entering a field of influence, activity and/or operation—in this case, then, experiencing, identifying with, participating in, coming under the influence of, and joining the community formed in relation to God’s kingdom…God’s kingdom cannot be confined to a particular set of borders…because God’s rule is not subject to any geographical boundaries.” At the creation, God sat as king. Israel’s demand for a king was a rejection of the kingship of God. The prophets longed for a day when God would return to rule as king again.

This evidence all suggests that the “kingdom of God” should be understood as the rule or reign of God. When Jesus speaks of the kingdom, he is making the bold and audacious claim that God is finally coming back to rule, making good on His promises. Because of this we cannot depoliticize basileia. When Jesus uses the phrase he isn’t proposing a rule of God over individual hearts, facilitating a private “religious” experience which has no bearing on social, political, or economic realities. While the kingdom does make claims over individual lives, nothing in Second Temple Judaism or the ancient world would suggest this term can be understood in a private, religious sense. That line of interpretation imports anachronistic modern categories into ancient texts. Crossley and Myles, commenting on the kingdom, state, “the kingdom of God referred to an actual kingdom, ruled by God’s anointed…not a heavenly afterlife or ethereal vision as it has sometimes come to be understood through the Christian tradition.” God’s rule results in concrete consequences for the political loyalties of those who enter it. Only one king rightfully sits on the throne. The entire world must change as a result. Green agrees: “Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom belonged thoroughly within the complexities of Second Temple Judaism, whose intertwined threads of religious, political and social interest could (and should) never be disentangled. God was coming as king, so the whole world would be set right.”

N.T. Wright summarizes the meaning of “kingdom of God” in the Second Temple period: “‘The kingdom of god,’ historically and theologically considered, is a slogan whose basic meaning is the hope that Israel’s god is going to rule Israel (and the whole world), and that Caesar, or Herod, or anyone else of their ilk, is not. It means that Torah will be fulfilled at last, that the Temple will be rebuilt and the Land cleansed…Israel’s god will rule her in the way he intends, through properly appointed persons and means…it clearly implies a new order in which Israel is vindicated, and then ruled over, by her god—and, by implication, in which the rest of the world is ruled in some way or other, whether for blessing or judgment, through Israel.” This is the constellation of themes, all informed by the Jewish Scriptures, that those who first heard Jesus would have associated with the coming kingdom of God. While Jesus is offering a new interpretation of the kingdom which challenges several prevailing first-century theories about how God will establish His rule, Jesus retains the essential components of this popular hope.

James Dunn agrees with Wright and Green’s assessment of the kingdom of God. Dunn identifies three aspects of the kingdom which most Jews of the Second Temple period would have accepted. First is the fundamental assumption that God is king of the entire world with His rule encompassing all of creation. Second, even though God is the one true king, only Israel presently acknowledges His kingship. The nations have either ignored or rejected Israel’s God, a situation which cannot be maintained in perpetuity. Finally, God will one day return to rule from Jerusalem, at which point His kingship would be manifested to the entire world. God’s reign, finally revealed through Jesus’s prophetic ministry, isn’t reducible to a private religious experience. With Judea under the direct rule of Roman governors and Galilee under Rome’s client Herod Antipas, the kingdom of God fueled dreams of liberation. The Romans didn’t accept Israel’s God and Herod was a sellout collaborator with the pagan imperialists. Oakman convincingly argues that rhetoric of the kingdom betrays a keen awareness of Israel’s political situation under Roman rule; this wasn’t to be Israel’s lot forever, and God would return to do something about it. Jesus, of course, radically redefines how God returns to rule and the consequences of restoration for those who hear him, but the political and economic repercussions are unavoidable.

In Luke 13:22–30, someone asks Jesus why only a few people are being rescued. Jesus responds by echoing Matthew 7:13–14, exhorting his interlocutor to enter through “the narrow door.” In the kingdom of God many will come from the ends of the earth to recline at the eschatological banquet with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets. This group, however, will include people who were not expected to participate, and many who believe they have a place in the coming kingdom will be cast outside. Jesus concludes his saying with an ominous warning in Luke 13:30: “Behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last.” Entering through the narrow door means accepting Jesus’s redefinition of basileia, which unexpectedly fulfills the promises God made to Israel in the Old Testament. Jesus follows this saying with a condemnation of Herod, the Pharisees, and Jerusalem in Luke 13:31–35. Those who hold political power expect to inherit the coming kingdom, but unless they repent and accept the prophetic proclamation of Jesus they won’t make it. God is bringing about His basileia in unexpected ways: “when Jesus spoke of the ‘reign’ or ‘kingdom’ of Israel’s god, he was deliberately evoking an entire story-line that he and his hearers knew quite well…[but] he was retelling this familiar story in such a way as to subvert and redirect its normal plot.”[1] The world is changing, and those currently in charge won’t be for long. God’s plans are finally coming to fruition; the dramatic climax of Israel’s Scriptures, foretold in the prophets, commences with the ministry of Jesus. The end had arrived.

[1] Wright, Victory, p. 199.

Jesus’s teachings on the kingdom of heaven were politically-charged statements in opposition to the Roman empire, not merely campaign speeches to rouse support for His second coming. Jesus’s message was that his kingdom has come (Matthew 4:17) and that our job is to seek his kingdom above all else (Matthew 6:33). When we consider the modern political implications of seeking His kingdom first, we arrive at an inescapable reality: compared to our identity as citizens of heaven, our political party alignment and national identity is as unimportant as what HOA we live in.

Many Christians hold the perspective that we have a dual citizenship between the kingdom of heaven and the USA. This is illustrated well by the bumper sticker “Jesus is my Savior, Trump is my President.” But this dual citizenship mindset is not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught us that “No one can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24) He taught us that we are citizens of heaven and merely reside in a different land for now. While in that land, we must follow the laws of that country so long as they don’t conflict with the laws of God’s Kingdom. But whenever there is incompatibility, we are called to be ambassadors of God’s Kingdom, no matter the cost.

In other words, for Christians, God’s kingdom is to the governments of our world (most of which qualify as empires) as the governments of our world are to Home Owners Associations (HOAs).

Home Owners Associations are recognized as having legitimate power by the state and federal governments. HOAs have the authority to tell you to mow your grass, to collect assessments, and, in many states, to foreclose your property if you refuse to comply. All of these powers are recognized and allowed by the state and federal governments. However, an HOA cannot imprison you for not mowing your lawn or steal your piggy bank to cover your HOA dues. An association cannot go to war against a neighboring HOA, and it definitely couldn’t conscript the neighborhood kids to fight in that war.

In the same way, the governments of this world have been granted limited, legitimate authority by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But these governments frequently assume way, way more power than God allows and often use that power for all sorts of sinful, depraved actions. As citizens of God’s preeminent kingdom, we should be keenly aware of those overreaches and should follow Jesus’ commands and example to oppose those actions. Jesus’ Kingdom is highly political by putting the rulers, powers, and principalities in their place as being massively subservient to God, similar to HOAs’ position to the state/federal government.

Now let’s say you were a good ol’ statist American patriot who moved into Shady Hills, an HOA full of people who are obsessed with the neighborhood, so much so that they lost their identity as Americans and now consider their entire identity as Shady Hillsians. They are committing egregiously illegal acts like locking up a neighbor who has overgrown bushes. To improve the analogy, let’s ignore the justice system as an immediate solution since God will perfectly judge all people and sins in His timing.

As a patriot who believes in the laws of the land, wants his neighbors to uphold the laws and will not break any laws himself, what would you do? You might go plead with the board of directors (BOD) to stop overstepping their authority. You might go read the US constitution and laws yourself to find exactly what laws they are breaking and confront the board with those sections. You would probably attend every board meeting to make your appeals known. You would similarly appeal to all your neighbors, hoping that they will also discover their inner patriot and oppose the HOA board’s actions.

As a good patriot, what would you not do in this scenario? You wouldn’t start a secret club for patriots where all you ever do is talk amongst yourselves about all the HOA’s problems. You want to spread patriotism, not just pat yourself on the back for being right. You wouldn’t rally behind a new BOD president candidate who vows to release all detainees and instead lock the current BOD in his basement. That would be just as illegal! You wouldn’t lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, your greatest identity is that you are an American, not that you’re a Shady Hillsian.

It’s the same idea for us as children of God interacting with our governments. Political success for residents of God’s Kingdom is to increase the citizenship of God’s Kingdom and to increase the sanctification of those citizens to Jesus’ commands (the great commission). Making the governments of this world enforce God’s Kingdom’s rules will not accomplish that goal. We should instead follow Jesus’s political directions and example by speaking truth to those in power, loving our enemies in the government, loving our nation’s enemies, and being a peacemaker. We should personally feed and clothe the orphans and widows, regardless what our government does or doesn’t do. We should love God, love others, and seek first the Kingdom of God.

If we spend our time, energy, attention, and efforts seeking God’s kingdom first, we will manifest our identity as a citizen of heaven and loosen our grasp on our national and political party identity until it falls to the level of our HOA.

The thesis of my forthcoming book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation is quite simple: the New Testament does not endorse modern authoritarian socialism. For libertarians, this should come as no surprise; authoritarianism and socialism both require, by definition, the arbitrary initiation of violence against peaceful people for the achievement of the subjective social preferences of those who hold power. Jesus blesses the peacemakers, authoritarian socialists bless the warmongers. Socialists, of course, don’t see it that way, and a large part of the problem is a lack of definitional and categorical precision. Most Westerns, including (perhaps especially including) professional academics, rarely seek to define these terms in a coherent manner and either openly or implicitly acquiesce to the ubiquitous political and economic authoritarianism of our times. Biblical scholarship is no less immune to this criticism, and, as I argue at length in the book, has actually internalized modern authoritarian socialism and made it an interpretive assumption, distorting both historical exegesis and the modern conclusions which exegetes draw from their interpretation.

While I provide several examples of New Testament scholars who have fallen into this trap in my book, I want to highlight one prominent figure: N.T. Wright. Perhaps the world’s most popular and influential modern scholar, Wright has had a profound impact on the way millions of Christians read their Bibles. While there are many aspects of Wright’s work which I admire, he is, to put it bluntly, quite wrong about political and economic concepts. In my book Wright is the first scholar who receives a lengthy critique and serves as an example par excellence of a phenomenon I address in the book: biblical scholarship consistently falling prey to political and economic incoherence. The following is a truncated critique of Wright’s assumptions which serves as an introduction to the larger problem plaguing the field, and I hope this helps you see why the need to reframe our understanding of political and economic concepts in biblical interpretation is so significant. Enjoy!

Biblical Scholarship and Unclear Political and Economic Reasoning

A perfect example of unclear political and economic reasoning is found in Wright’s 2019 book History and Eschatology. Included in a section where Wright explains the impact of Enlightenment thought, he describes the reception of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and explains how it led to the acceptance by many in the Western world of a “full-on laissez-faire view of economics”, generating the widely held perspective that the economy would simply “work by itself”. He continues: “this has become highly influential in subsequent economics, being used to justify unfettered industrial expansion within the spreading imperial worlds and ending up with the greed-is-good philosophy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. No care for the poor, let alone the remission of large debts”. While Wright doesn’t explicitly use the term ‘capitalism’, it is obviously the conceptual referent of his critique. One of his progressive conversation partners, Richard Horsley, has no problem drawing the connection between Ronald Reagan and capitalism, thus the justification for reading this passage as a critique of capitalism popularly conceived. Wright has provided us with a classic example of how biblical scholars use economic concepts in an unsystematic manner.

Wright’s claim that laissez-faire means the economy somehow ‘works on its own’ is patently false. As the Misesian articulation of praxeology makes abundantly clear, the ‘economy’ is simply a description of the totality of individual human actions; there are no metahistorical forces driving economic activity, only the actions of individuals and the consequences which result from them. Subscribing to capitalism simply means recognizing that people should be free to produce, consume, and exchange property without the arbitrary intervention of outside forces. The notion that the economy ‘works on its own’ is simply the recognition, as we will see when we outline political categories below, that there doesn’t need to be a central planning committee in order to produce economic growth. The idea that the economy must at least in some manner be centrally directed, as Wright implicitly suggests, is a product of nineteenth-century thought which relies on a theory that history itself ‘works on its own’, one which has held a powerful influence over Western epistemology ever since. Wright has simply confused categories.

He also attributes to laissez-faire ‘greed’ and a disregard for the poor. As in Ludwig von Mises’ description of ‘the anti-capitalist mentality’, Wright is clearly using the language of free markets to decry any activity he finds morally deficient. ‘Greed’ and a disregard for the poor are not intrinsic to the private ownership of capital, private property, or free exchange. Wright’s inability to comprehend a social order free from state economic intervention does not constitute a failure of the free market but rather an oversight of his own imagination. Wright also dubiously claims that ‘imperialism’ is a result of laissez-faire free markets. Capitalism as defined by the Austrian school precludes the idea of imperialism and any politically-driven ‘public policy’. Capitalism respects the private property rights of all human beings and outright rejects any intervention in the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and groups. Imperialism by definition is a project of the state; this point is so glaringly obvious it amazes me how so many professional intellectuals miss it entirely. The idea that governments waging war (often involving conscripted soldiers, fiat currencies, and heavy taxes) in far-away places to control resources which weren’t acquired contractually is somehow a manifestation of the respect for private property and free exchange would be comical if it wasn’t a generally accepted view among academics. The arbitrary intervention of the state into economic activity, the very definition of socialism, is what actually drives state-sponsored imperialism. Capitalism is antithetical to imperialism because imperialism is an abandonment of the fundamental presuppositions of capitalism. Wright reveals why defining these terms in a clear, consistent manner is so important; it helps us analyze and assess events as they occur in the real world without unnecessary intellectual baggage.

This leads us to Wright’s commentary on the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Observant readers will already anticipate my response: any so-called ‘public policy’ where the political class makes decisions about property, resources, or economic activity is by definition not a form of capitalism. We must seriously reevaluate the capitalistic credentials of Reagan’s supposed free-market revolution. In shallow historical evaluations of 1980s American politics Reagan is either the hero of free-market capitalism (for conservatives) or the villain of deregulated imperialism (for progressives). Both narratives are false because they assume the Reagan administration actually pursued a policy of economic freedom. N.T. Wright uncritically accepts this popular understanding of Ronald Reagan, making his Reaganite critique of free markets historically false.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan administration from 1981-1985, resigned from his position after elected Republicans failed to decrease government spending. In his book The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America Stockman explains how Reagan and congressional Republicans weren’t at all the defenders of free-market capitalism political commentators chalked them up to be. After slashing taxes in 1981, mostly benefiting politically-connected corporations and their sleazy D.C. lobbyists, the Reagan administration failed to cut government spending, predictably resulting in massive budget deficits. The economic logic is elementary. In order to reduce income, the government must reduce consumption. In the following years Reagan signed several tax increase measures into laws, thereby reigning in the deficit. While observers like Wright and Horsley, analysing history with an imprecise definition of basic economic concepts, frame this as a breakdown of the free markets, it was unmistakably the consequence of government policy. A group of politicians make economic decisions which benefit one group of people at the expense of another, it backfires, and so they raise taxes without cutting spending. Had Wright consulted the Austrians, he wouldn’t have been so off-base. In the purest sense of the term the Reagan administration was implementing socialist policies.

Another nasty and inconvenient fact is often left out of the conversation about concrete economic policies, one with relevance to Wright’s assertion regarding the relationship between markets and imperialism. Reagan dramatically expanded the military-industrial complex. Stockman explains how “a riotous expansion of the warfare state was foremost among the policy errors of the Reagan Revolution…the White House made a historically devastating mistake by signing over to the Pentagon a blank check known as the ‘7 percent real growth top line’. This…nearly tripled the annual defense budget from $140 billion to $370 billion…it fueled expansionist impulses through the military-industrial complex at exactly the wrong time in history”. Increasing government expenditures for the warfare state, often to the benefit of politically-connected corporations and further expanding the imperialist ambitions of America’s federal government, is the opposite of free-market, laissez-faire capitalism. Resources are being taken by force from private citizens and decisions about the utilization of those resources are made by politicians and bureaucrats. What Stockman is describing can only be described as socialism. The expansion of military power is in violation of economic freedom, private property, and voluntary exchange. That ain’t capitalism, friends. Wright has correctly identified an important problem but because of his lack of linguistic and categorical precision he provides an incorrect analysis and proposed solution. Every single scholar quoted in the opening to this chapter has fallen into the same rhetorical trap; unable to provide a clear, irreducible, and universally applicable definition of basic economic categories has distorted economic discourse in biblical scholarship.

Pre-order Your Copy Today!

Pre-order Direct from LCI

Pre-order on Kindle

After nearly two decades of reading New Testament scholarship, I was constantly frustrated by how carelessly even the best of professional scholars were unable to think clearly and consistently about political and economic concepts. Having worked on my degree in biblical studies in the late two-thousands, the heyday of anti-imperial scholarship, I understood that Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God and Paul’s vision of a Spirit-defined, transnational family of believers entailed significant political and economic consequences. Yet I found myself uneasy with the modern consequences Christian scholars derived from their historical research. In nearly every case, the so-called “anti-imperial” scholars ultimately advocated for more money, power, and authority to be granted to contemporary secular governments, a phenomenon which seemed contradictory to their own power-skeptical research. As I continued to develop my thinking, my research ultimately led me to the study of political philosophy and economics, and I quickly realized, coupled with the experience that comes with age, that perhaps the field of New Testament scholarship needed to seriously reconsider its political and economic presuppositions. I waited years, in vain, for a scholar to offer a wholescale critique of what I perceived to be a major intellectual lacuna in the discipline. While scholars would occasionally offer fleeting flashes of concern, the discipline remained mostly shrouded in darkness. Ultimately I grew tired of waiting for someone else to write the book, and decided to do it myself.

Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation, my forthcoming book which will be published by Christians for Liberty Press on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, does just that. I challenge the nearly universal assumption in New Testament scholarship that the Bible legitimizes modern authoritarian socialism. I carefully and clearly define political and economic concepts, discuss the methodologies we employ when interpreting the text, and set the New Testament in its historical context. I then embark on a long journey through the entire New Testament canon, analyzing texts which have political and economic significance and demonstrating time and time again that they do not, in fact, point us in the direction of political or economic authoritarianism. This is a massive, extensively-researched undertaking, but I deliver my readers all the tools they need to combat false prevailing interpretive paradigms. Over the next few weeks I will be releasing small sections of the book, giving you insights into the larger scope of this project and setting the stage for our September 15 release. If you are at all interested in how the New Testament relates to the political and economic structures of our day, this book is for you.

In an effort to package these sections of my book in neat, clean, and brief snippets, I will be removing the footnotes and slightly amending the texts to make them shorter. In the first installment, I lay out both the problems I identify in New Testament scholarship and the goals of my book, including its main thesis: the New Testament is incompatible with modern authoritarian socialism. Enjoy.

The Goals of Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation

I believe that anchoring our modern understanding of politics and economics to consistent, irreducible, and universally applicable categories, exploring the differences (and occasional similarities) between ancient and modern political and economic concepts, and analysing the biblical texts in light this data will inject a level of nuance and refinement into a debate which has far too often been hindered by unclear thinking. My research and reflection on the relationship between modern political and economic thought and biblical interpretation has led me to the conclusion that there might just be a way to clarify the parameters of this discussion after all. The basic premise of this book is as follows: biblical scholarship has generally failed to adequately define political and economic concepts, and this failure has resulted in drawing contemporary conclusions from the biblical texts which are diametrically opposed to the original intention of the biblical authors themselves. In particular, biblical scholarship almost always implicitly or explicitly assumes (and sometimes endorses) the political and economic paradigm of modern authoritarian socialism, even when it contradicts certain conclusions scholars derive from their interpretations. By properly defining and delineating the political and economic categories, New Testament interpretation (and the conclusions which believers in the modern world draw from their interpretation) undermines authoritarian socialism and provides us with a more historically satisfying and accurate reading of New Testament texts. This argument of this book can be reduced to a single thesis statement: the New Testament does not endorse authoritarian socialism.

To this end, there are three goals I hope to accomplish by writing this book:

1. Define modern economic and political concepts and compare them with the ancient world in which the New Testament was written.
2. Demonstrate the complexities of applying biblical texts to modern social and political questions and explore the use of modern social and political categories in biblical interpretation.
3. Analyze several prominent New Testament texts which are often assumed to address ‘political’ and ‘economic’ issues.

A quick word regarding all three.

The first goal is to do what nearly every professional New Testament scholar or theologian who writes about these issues has failed to accomplish: actually define what we mean by ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’. I have spent the last several years studying the Austrian school of economics and it has become increasingly apparent that proponents of the Austrian school have constructed the only categorically consistent and irreducible definition of these terms. Political philosophers who understand the consequences of Austrian economics have provided a more accurate method of understanding modern political dynamics. Instead of the conventional ‘left-right’ spectrum (associated with the terms ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’, respectively) which is constantly shifting and generally interpreted through the subjective preferences of political commentators, Austrian-informed political theorists have correctly relabeled the political spectrum using the categories of ‘libertarian’ and ‘authoritarian’. I will show that this tradition of economic and political thought is intellectually stable, generally applicable, and less susceptible to subjective misappropriation. Related to this, I want to provide a general overview of the ancient political and economic institutions which impacted the early followers of Jesus and contextualized the works that were eventually included in the New Testament. To that end, there will be chapter-length reviews of both the Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts within which the earliest followers of Jesus were located. By understanding this essential background information we will be in a much better position to interpret biblical texts and demonstrate the ways in which our contemporary categories create more hermeneutical dilemmas than they solve.

This leads me to my second point, which is about the difficulty of applying biblical texts to modern economic and political questions and, vice versa, utilizing modern economic and political categories in biblical interpretation. There are, as a matter of pure historical fact, profound differences between the modern and ancient mind. Our categories for interpreting reality are a product of, to put it broadly, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment. These long periods of cultural transformation forever altered the Western intellectual landscape and have created such a profound epistemological revolution that we often fail to appreciate just how different the ancient world was from our own. This dynamic stems from the Renaissance itself; the great architect of fourteenth century Italian renaissance thought was Petrarch, who very much understood the times in which he was living as a return to the grandeur of classical Greece and Rome. He is in large part responsible for creating the (mis)perception that the time between Augustine and the rise to prominence of the Italian city-states was a ‘dark age’ characterized by a European rejection of its glorious ancient past, resulting in a popular misconception that the Greek and Romans weren’t really too much different from us after all. Even though the Enlightenment problematized over-simplistic Renaissance readings of history, in popular reception many Western thinkers have internalized Petrarch and assumed we are of one mind with our classical forebears, a myth which has had a profound impact on biblical interpretation.

These differences aren’t just restricted to the world of ideas, however. The social, political, economic, and material fabric of antiquity is entirely different from our own. The urban economies of the Roman cities in which Paul evangelized, as well as the agrarian economies of regions like Galilee, were in many respects entirely dissimilar to modern economic systems. Understanding these differences is essential for contextualizing the ministry of Jesus and the works of other New Testament writers. Similarly, the complexities of Roman imperial rule, which was sometimes administered with a light touch and sometimes enforced through a clenched fist, differs in many important respects from our so-called ‘modern liberal democracies’. Understanding the nature of Roman imperialism and the very real political power held by local rulers will provide precision and nuance to our understanding of biblical works forged in antiquity. We need more research in this area and I hope to contribute another perspective which draws on much of the excellent research already conducted within the field of New Testament scholarship.

My third goal, which will comprise the majority of this book, requires the shortest amount of explanation. Once I have established definitions, methods, and contexts I will examine passages from the New Testament which are often debated in contemporary political and economic discourse. The scope of this work is much wider than many related monographs, however, as I plan on reviewing texts which are often marginalized or overlooked. I will include material from all twenty-seven works in the New Testament, exhaustively demonstrating the utility of employing precise political and economic concepts in biblical interpretation. The scope is massive, to be sure, but I hope my humble exegetical proposals presented in this book will help refine a categorically confused conversation. I strongly believe the prevailing modern political category of authoritarian socialism, which I will define below, is entirely incompatible with the principles embedded in the New Testament. A bold proposition demands substantial evidence, but the scales of probability tip in favor of my thesis.

Pre-order Your Copy Today!

Pre-order Direct from LCI

Pre-order on Kindle

Despite all our present problems and challenges, aggravated by so many daunting divisions, how awed, thrilled, and grateful our Founding Fathers would be to see just how extraordinarily well our republic has done over the last quarter-millennium. They were not sure if we could even survive as a nation at all, and we have certainly suffered through many terrible trials of economic depression, political and social upheaval, wars, world wars, a Cold War, and even a War Between the States. Yet, guided by our founding principles (and their faith-based origins), the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, we have not only survived but thrived in a manner unprecedented in history. We are just four percent of the world’s people, but we have an outsized impact on the rest of this planet.

Economically, though we are but one of nearly 200 nations, we make up about a fourth of the world’s economy. Most U.S. dollars are abroad; in fact, about 30 nations and colonies use it as official currency. The rest of the world hopes our economy does well because we are their top export market. Even our poorest state, Mississippi, has a higher GDP than the United Kingdom, France, Italy, or Spain. In fact, most Americans are in the top one percent of the world’s income-earners.

A huge global influence we have is our popular culture which has long been our top dollar export: movies, TV programs, the internet, music, Coca-Cola, blue jeans, fast food, etc. In 1986, the French Marxist Regis Debray predicted we would win the Cold War because “There is more power in rock music, videos, blue jeans, fast food, news networks, and TV satellites than in the entire Red Army.”

But the ideas behind America remain our greatest influence: freedom, equality, democracy, private property, justice, and altruism. As Margaret Thatcher understood, “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” We understand that all rights come from God, and our Constitution guarantees that our government must respect and protect them. By far the safest country in which to be any kind of minority is America because our Constitution protects equally the individual rights of all U.S. citizens. 

No nation has a tradition of charity that can remotely rival ours. No nation has given so much economic, technological, and philanthropic help to the rest of the world. More than any other country, we have maintained our Judeo-Christian commitment to honoring the sacred value of every child of God. 

No wonder folks all over the world vote with their feet to come to America as a “shining city on a hill.” From 1620 to 1858, 388,000 black Africans were brought to the present-day U.S. on slave ships. But, just since 2000, 3.2 million black African immigrants have freely chosen to move here because, as a Nigerian told me, America “is the closest to a perfect country” due to all its great opportunities. In fact, the average median home income of Nigerian-Americans is over $5,000 higher than the average American’s. This is just one of the very many reasons why immigration involving America is all one way.    

With all our bountiful blessings, we should recall how the Book of Luke instructs that “For

those unto much has been given, much is required.” Precisely because we Americans live in the most free, democratic, rich, powerful, and blessed nation in history, we must use these blessings wisely, justly, and always morally, here and abroad.

Of course, this does not always happen. Despite our history and principles, government still has an inappropriate impact on too many aspects of our lives. Our elected public officials have a terrible ability to restrict freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and so much more – and they often choose unwisely. Look at just the enormous economic impact of government on all our lives via taxes, government jobs, government contracts, regulations, spending, interest rates, loans, education, and thousands of other public policies. 

Witness our growing national nanny state cracking down on personal freedoms. Did we really need the 2020-21 lockdowns over the Corona Virus? Some governors and mayors even banned church attendance. Look at the “hate speech” movement, especially on college and now even grade school campuses. Now almost all states have “hate crimes” laws — paging George Orwell’s 1984. How scared so many Americans have become even to be honest in public regarding any controversial issue in light of all the many reputations, careers, friends, and even families lost due to “cancel culture.”

Liberty has perhaps never faced as many or more powerful enemies in the U.S. as today, first and foremost being those in power. We have lost an enormous amount of our freedom via spiraling taxes and government regulations – and to think we fought a revolution largely over a three-cent-a-pound tax on tea. (News flash: Britain’s King George III never taxed, regulated, or policed us remotely as much as “Fedzilla” does today.) 

But, inspired by our faith, Constitution, and history, we can see to it that the ship is righted. It is as dedicated, hard-working individuals that we will either protect or lose what the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. hailed as “the sacred heritage of our nation.”

And every single one of us has a far greater impact on others than we will ever know.

Many years ago, at the funeral of an 80-year-old WWII veteran, in lieu of a eulogy, the pastor asked the departed’s friends to come forward and share how Sandy Head had positively impacted their lives. I knew Sandy as a brother volunteer at Athens, Georgia’s Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic, but I had no idea what an amazing life that man led, touching so many lives in so many helpful ways. One after another, people spoke of how “Sandy gave me a place to stay when I went through a rough patch in my marriage,” “Sandy did this for me,” “Sandy did that.” I sat there mesmerized, not even knowing most of these folks from Adam, because it turned out that this little-known gentleman, who we will never read about in a history book, had immeasurably enriched the lives of an enormous number of people. Truly, his really was a wonderful life. And what felt like the fastest church service of my life lasted almost two hours. When the final mourner sat down, the minister said, “You see, you see? Every single one of us is a role model – for better or worse – in everything we do and everything we don’t, in everything we say, and everything we leave unsaid. Yes, we all impact far more people than we will ever realize – for better or worse.”

So, during this 250th year commemorating the Declaration of Independence, may all of us grateful for our American heritage stand tall with confidence and good cheer, rejoicing to be part of such a heroic people, flawed sinners like everyone but, as William Faulkner told us, “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.” Let us utilize our record opportunities to the fullest and never forget we are Americans. Let us work hard to promote our values and recall a few good words from President John F. Kennedy: “With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own. 

May God continue to bless the United States of America, and may we always be worthy of His blessing.

Mixed emotions on Independence Day 250 (July 5, 2026)

There was a big patriotic party last night for the “4th of July 250.” As always, a lot of revelry, happy faces, loud music, dancing, bright lit drones, and the tried and true fireworks and flag waving. Go team America! 

Does it seem appropriate and meaningful that so many Americans refer to that day as simply “the 4th of July”; a day off, to barbecue and celebrate? Yeah! Maybe? But it is also a day to reflect on the blessings of liberty. Do we really understand what universal freedom is? How we get it? How we keep it?

“A republic, if you can keep it.”
– Benjamin Franklin’s reply to Elizabeth Willing Powel as he left Independence Hall at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. She asked Franklin if the delegates had created a republic or a monarchy?

In contrast, some of us quietly spent the day away from the sights and sounds, reflecting on the meaning of independence and the freedom we inherited from those Americans who have fought for our liberty, with “sword” and “pen” since 1775. After all, fireworks can be a reminder of war for its warriors and victims. Not that I’m either, but I both celebrate, and mourn for their sacrifice, loss, and the loss of our freedom at the hands of foreign, and even domestic tyrants, none the less. 

“The pen is mightier than the sword.” 
– Edward Bulwer-Lytton

^‘11And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; ¹² and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. ¹³ And when Eli′jah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him, and said, “What are you doing here, Eli′jah?”’ 
– 1 Kings 19:11-13

Then again, most children and adults delight in the glorious marvel of controlled colored explosions. However at some point in life, peace and prosperity are the main focus over noise and chaos. Since actual physical conflict, represented by that noise and chaos, almost no one likes. As Americans, immersed in fictional representations of conflict and actual news of military action, we would be surprised that some isolated rural populations in other parts of the world, who have heard rumors about us, do not covet our culture.

At the end of the Revolutionary War George Washington relinquished his power and position as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, and on December 23, 1783, quietly mounted his horse, and rode home to Mount Vernon in order to be home for Christmas. Prior to that day he avoided fanfare, military reviews, parades, and the trappings of fame and power. Before he left for Mount Vernon he gave his emotional resignation speech at a crowded Maryland State House. His emotion was so intense that he had to hold his speech with both hands and many in his audience wept.

The idea that a commander of an army would hand military power back to a civilian government was unheard of, and shocked the world. King George III remarked that Washington was “the greatest man in the world” for not declaring himself emperor of America.

George Washington was a devout Christian and therefore a humble leader, understanding his subordinate place in the hierarchy of leadership in “one nation under God.” In similar fashion, the person he worshiped – Jesus Christ – mounted a donkey on his way into Jerusalem, through the cross, His death, Hell, His resurrection, and finally home to Heaven. 

Washington’s life’s earthly battle required superhuman strength, which he would likely say did not come from within himself. Jesus Christ’s earthly battle was in His time, in the non-eternal end times since, and of the here and now – still waging, is matched, and will be defeated by a divine strength, love, and power we cannot comprehend. 

God’s love for us is such that He laid down his life for our ransom. The authoritarians at the time saw His death as a victory, until he victoriously resurrected and defeated death itself. In the subsequent centuries, that resurrection conquered the world through the “minds and hearts” of whole populations of common people; in spite of human political and military coercion cloaked in religious clerical intent. Instead, the discipleship of Christianity offered meaning, purpose, peace, courage, salvation, and free will within the framework of willing the good of the other – love.

“Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.”
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.”
– Lord John Dalberg-Acton


The American Revolution started, as John Adams remarked four decades after the war, as the thoughts and spirit in the “minds and hearts of the people.” How is it that so many Americans united with the same important idea of human free will and self governance forgotten repeatedly throughout history? Answer: A miracle of Divine Providence.

Let’s make our 250th year a call for common Americans to learn and live their heritage of freedom. True liberty needs a dominating culture instilled in the general population upstream from politics and protected from those who would dominate us. Let us call July 4th what it is – Independence Day! As Americans, we are not here to be dependent on our government. Our government is dependent on us to give consent to govern, as stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence. And our rights and free will are given by God.

Learn more here at the Libertarian Christian Institute, and the states’ Article V, US Constitutional Amendment efforts at ConventionOfStates.com .

picture attribution: Independence Day “Let Freedom Ring” Event – U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, South Korea – 4 July 2012

In honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of these United States of America, I wanted to say a few words of reflection on why we care about this day. Enjoy, and have a great Independence Day celebrating great principles of individual liberty!

Mass immigration is a topic of intense controversy in the US today.  Donald Trump used it as an important pillar in all 3 of his election campaigns.  It is also one of the reasons that the Democratic Party has opposed him so vigorously.  The subject has also split the liberty movement in two.  Some libertarians have been at the forefront of conducting economic analyses to study possible economic benefits.  In many ways they follow the teachings of Ludwig Von Mises on the topic.  After all, he did write about the benefits of the free flow of labor, and how it improves economic efficiency.  On the opposite end of the spectrum there are libertarians like Hans Herman Hoppe and Lew Rockwell, who have written about the problems that mass immigration presents.

Part of the distinction between the two camps is that their stance is framed in different settings.  Mises, Kaplan, and others analyze immigration in the setting of organic flows of labor and goods in a free trade system.  Hoppe, Rockwell, and Rothbard analyze the issue within the setting of government immigration policy.  Ultimately, they encourage full privatization of public property, so that private owners get to decide who enters the country.  Whereas, in America today, we face a situation where the government sends money to immigrants and NGOs to subsidize immigration.

To better understand the “proper libertarian view”, it is important to assess the topic using Austrian economic principles.  Specifically, Say’s Law, the Law of Supply and Demand, the Cantillon Effect, and Ralph Raico’s commentary on the welfare-warfare state offer insights that libertarians of all types should consider.

First, it is helpful to analyze the subject through the lens of Say’s Law, which in short says that supply precedes demand.  Its conventional expression states that the first step for a market exchange is the production of goods.  The next step is that a person takes the value of the goods he produced to the market (supply) and seeks to exchange those goods for other goods that someone else produced (demand).  When applying the law with immigration in mind, today’s supply of goods in a nation is based on what was produced by yesterday’s population.  With no immigration, today’s demand is equivalent to yesterday’s production.  However, when adding immigration into the equation, the situation changes.

Say’s Law doesn’t say what happens next, but it does explain the relationship between supply and demand in an equilibrium.  If demand increases, it comes from a supply increase in the recent past.  When that equilibrium is disturbed, demand can change without a corresponding change in supply.  Then the Law of Supply and Demand is able to explain how prices change in response. They are different but intertwined economic laws.

Initially, mass immigration increases demand to a degree, while increasing supply to a lesser degree.  The overall result is an increase in prices.  Some of the goods whose demand is affected the most by increasing population are things like housing, medicine, education, food, social services, roads, and transportation.  For each of these things, it takes significant time and investment to increase supply, so it is inevitable that continuing mass immigration will lead to continuing noticeable price increases.   Though the cause is very different, the effect is similar to continual money supply inflation, a thing that virtually all libertarians oppose.

The labor market suffers from the same deleterious effect, but in the inverse direction.  Increasing labor supply increases competition for jobs, thereby decreasing the price of labor, all other things being equal.  Wages don’t decrease equally for all jobs, of course.  Most immigrants have a relatively low level of skills and education compared to the average American, so they mostly compete with lower-income classes.  It harms those most who are already struggling to make ends meet, which should at least cause us to consider our position.

That brings the discussion to the Cantillon Effect.  The classical framework says that money supply growth first affects the prices of goods that are purchased first with newly created money.  Along with that, prices increase more for goods where a greater amount of the new money is used.  As an example, if all the new money goes into student loans, then the price of tuition and fees which universities charge will increase before anything else.  In addition, the price increase will be larger compared to other goods and services unrelated to a college education.  New money enters the economy in specific places causing the biggest price effect and then “trickles down” over time affecting other prices in the economy in diminishing amounts.

When applying the same concept to mass immigration, a type of quasi-Cantillon Effect emerges, because there is a difference between injecting money and adding new workers.  Money is only a medium of exchange and therefore doesn’t result in more production.  Whereas, workers both produce and consume, affecting the economy in a more complex way.  The new workers enter the economy in specific sectors, decreasing labor rates in those sectors. Then over time excess labor will flow to other sectors spreading the effect over time and to a diminishing degree.  The new workers, as consumers, also increase prices for goods which others in their demographic demand.  What this means is that the resulting wage decreases and price increases are focused on lower-income workers.  In the US system, the government decides what types of workers to add and therefore directs the economic effects, not free market interactions.

So far, applying Say’s Law, the Law of Supply and Demand, and the Cantillon Effect has shown that mass immigration reduces wages in specific areas of the economy whose workers are at the low end of the scale.  The implications of these economic principles show us that three groups do benefit from mass immigration.  First, employers looking for low skill workers in areas like construction, child care, elder care, maid services, janitorial services, yard care, etc; who want to keep operating costs low. Second, political parties who promote immigration and provide financial assistance to new residents create a new voting bloc for themselves, not to mention the NGOs who are paid to make it all happen.  Last, owners of discount retailers and general merchandising stores receive more demand for their products, facilitating higher prices or maintaining the profitability of low margin items. 

Next, libertarians need to consider how state welfare programs fit into the equation.  As Milton Friedman said, “it’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”  Dr. Friedman recognized the problem that if immigrants can enter your country and immediately receive government assistance, then there will be a mass influx that will push government programs to the breaking point.  As usual, even though he was correct, he only saw half the picture. 

Fortunately, Ralph Raico saw the whole thing, writing about the intimate relationship between immigration and welfare in his book the “Struggle For Liberty.”  Raico¹ states that mass immigration isn’t just bad if welfare exists, but explains that it is used to fund the welfare-warfare state that we all loathe so much.  The issue isn’t their coexistence, but that the one feeds the other.

Further, Raico describes a never-ending cycle that needs to be broken.  It starts with the state engaging in war.  War puts social and economic stresses on a country’s citizens.  To ease the burden of those stresses, the state starts social safety net programs.  Now the government is spending money on multiple fronts, to build empire internationally and build loyalty domestically.  That isn’t sustainable, so the state must decide whether to reduce spending or increase revenue.  Consistently, governments push forward and increase revenue.  One way to do that is to encourage immigration through policy and subsidy. More workers means more taxes for them.  However, that causes significant social change in the country, which further burdens citizens by shifting political power and increasing competition for government largesse.  Overseas, more war means more refugees and destabilization, which results in more people seeking to immigrate to more secure countries like the US. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

If we libertarians want to see an end to entitlement spending, we will have to starve it of resources, and to do that we need to understand Raico’s observations and respond accordingly.   Some immediate, practical ways to do this are to stop funding NGOs that facilitate immigration, close the borders, remove those here illegally, and reduce the number of Visas available.  Of course, the real libertarian solution is to privatize everything.  Social safety nets and charities should be private organizations with no government funding.  Private citizens should own all property.  No more public land.  Then and only then, will market forces determine immigration levels and what types of workers to bring in.

Once again, Austrian economics is a reliable tool for libertarians to use to better understand the critical issues of our day.  Applying Say’s Law, the Law of Supply and Demand, and the Cantillon Effect reveals that mass immigration can focus negative economic outcomes on Americans that are already in tough material circumstances.  Additionally, Ralph Raico’s history of political thought, The Struggle For Liberty, exposes just how necessary it is for building the U.S. state apparatus, while helping those in the ruling class solidify their positions of power and extract more value out of our society.

1. Ralph Raico, “Chapter 10: Classical Liberalism and the Welfare-Warfare State” in The Struggle for Liberty, ed. Ryan McMaken (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, 2025), 237-258.

Book Review: The Idol of a Nation: Christ, Community, and the Limits of the Modern State by Steve Cunningham, Sensus Fidelium Press, 2026

Steve Cunningham, founder of the popular traditional Catholic YouTube channel and website Sensus Fidelium, has written an important book titled The Idol of a Nation. Cunningham asks the reader a question that he believes modern political systems have forgotten to ask: “How large can a political community become before self-government ceases to be possible?

This excellent, well-sourced book is a deep dive into the historical and philosophical transformation in politics that engulfed the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. He writes, “The nineteenth century witnessed several political consolidations. In each case, a landscape of multiple semi-sovereign polities was compressed into a centralized nation-state.” Using Italy, Germany, France, and the United States as prime examples, Cunningham reveals to the reader the secular philosophical reasons behind the modern centralized, managerial and authoritarian states that, for convenience and necessity and often driven by war, have consolidated massive amounts of power at the center, or federal level. Everything became permissible in the name of the “will of the people,” but in reality “the people” are controlled by bureaucratic elites. The institutionalization of nationalized education, uniform legal codes and central taxation, among other measures, compelled formerly diverse local customs and politics into a top-down formula.

But at every step this centralization has constrained and eventually removed the ability of local communities to live as they desire. Increasingly, they become mere statistics, production units to be managed by distant bureaucracies in a manner that gives no concern to local interests and desires. They are no longer treated as humans, but as products. Self-governance is lost in the name of efficiency and the survival of the nation-state, now elevated above the common man. And colonization and globalization are simply an expansion of the logic of centralization and the removal of the self-rule of now-powerless minority groups to the benefit of managerial states.

Further negatives arise in centralized politics, where voting becomes warfare, each side forcing its way on the other. Centralization drives hatred and anger, making politics a bigger issue than it needs to be, and political losses become more devastating to the many who don’t get their way. Instead of diverse local self-governing communities, a centralized government enforces uniformity on all. A large, diverse empire or nation is simply too hard to control; thus, all must be alike for functional managerial purposes, and all must think alike. Media and education shape political thought and teach each nation’s beliefs, myths, and forms of partisanship. Further, Cunningham is concerned with accountability, which dissipates at larger levels. Local school boards, mayors, sheriffs, and more can be held more easily accountable by the local community, but non-elected bureaucrats and judges cannot.

As a counterpoint to the centralizing policies of the West during these centuries, Cunningham delves into social Catholic teachings that arose in response to them, grounded in subsidiarity and human dignity. He says local control and subsidiarity’s priority is not efficiency, economics, or military progress, as in a central state, but is first based on human dignity. Politics is not simply a political issue, but a moral one based on humanity. He writes, “Subsidiarity is not merely an administrative preference. It is a defense of human dignity.” In sum, politics is not separated from morality. It is immoral to subjugate people and dehumanize them with centralized systems.

And part of this Catholic local control and human-first approach (as opposed to prioritizing military necessity, economics, etc.) involves levels of control: not everything begins at the center and filters down to all, but the opposite. Locals decide and have various policies, with higher state levels doing only what the local cannot, and Cunningham reminds us a few times that this position is not anti-government; the central government still plays a role, but it is minimal and only what the lower levels cannot do. The government is local first. And in this decentralized system based on self-governance and benefiting humanity, secession is also acceptable to throw off tyranny and abuse when human dignity is subjugated by over-mighty centralized powers. Secession is not so much a political movement (as decentralization should provide self-government) but a “moral corrective” and a “mercy” to humanity being dehumanized.

The Idol of State

The crux of the book is in where sovereignty and authority are placed. Do Catholics declare Christ as King, or a parliament, president, or “the will of the people”? The Catholic Church opposed this “idolatry of state”. Cunningham states from various Church teachings that true authority comes from the Cross, not parliament. Popes during the political transformations of recent centuries opposed the direction of modernity and declared that Christ was king above the state.

Cunningham goes back into history to the Middle Ages, when Christ and the Church were the highest authority. Christ was King above any governing body, and all law was restricted and had to conform to His law. Natural law and divine law left large segments of “politics” outside of political thought and discussion; those belonged to the church. The church and this Christ-as-King mindset prevented modern authoritarian states from becoming the highest authority, as they did once secularism diminished opposing forces, and the state was elevated above all. Families, parishes, local communities, distant authorities, all contested, challenged, opposed, and played a part; now all these are wiped out or under the central state.

Nationalism placed priority and authority with the state, allowing the government to build unprecedented military might, utilizing industry, taxation, forced recruitment, and more to deadly effect, leading to WW1 and WW2. Further, when the state becomes the ultimate authority, its morality and laws become the priority and assume a religious character. The secular state did not remove the Church, it incorporated it into a single ideology: the nation. By overcoming its competitor, it was able to declare what was moral and what was evil. Also, Cunningham writes, “The nation provided saints, martyrs, relics, shrines, monuments, and feasts, national holidays. heroes, rituals, commemorations, etc. Its existence, maintenance, and symbolism became an all-encompassing worldview and belief system. Because the nation and its economic and political system are elevated above humans, its preservation must be maintained at all costs, allowing it to compel slaves (conscripts) to fight on its behalf and for its survival. The state that educated its people will treat this sacrifice as the highest honor; they are martyrs willing to die for nationalism and will have statues erected in their praise.”

Central states do not see people as individuals but as collectives. Cunningham points out that this mindset makes sense of current demands for reparations. He explains that it views nations as sinners, collectives, not individuals, and nations are moral agents who must atone for sins. So, for example, if only a small minority of people in the United States owned slaves, it matters not; all are guilty, all must make amends for the sin committed by the state. Redemption becomes nationalist instead of individualistic.

Conclusion

The Idol of a Nation is a wonderful attempt at calling Catholics back to Church teachings and local human political systems, and to rid the reader of the idolatry of elevating the modern state above the kingship of Christ. Cunningham writes, “If modern societies wish to preserve liberty, responsibility, and moral clarity, they must rediscover the beauty of the small and the sovereignty of Christ above every throne.”

Christians must be discerning when our leaders call for another war. Our last interventions in places like Iraq and Syria didn’t bring stability or liberation. They devastated ancient Christian communities that had survived for nearly two millennia. So before we repeat the cycle, we need to pause and consider what’s actually at risk: Iran’s deep Christian history, the reality behind the justifications being offered, and the response our faith truly calls us to.

Iran, like much of the Middle East, looks nothing like the version Americans inherit from Hollywood or the nightly news. Yes, Christians in Iran face real persecution: arrests, surveillance, imprisonment, and even death. But what almost never makes it into our headlines is the other half of the story. Since 1979, both the legal ethnic churches and the underground Persian‑speaking church have grown to nearly a million believers. To anyone who knows the history of Christianity in Iran, this shouldn’t be surprising. The church there has always grown under pressure. At one point, it was the beating heart of global mission, sending the gospel eastward long before Europe ever imagined itself the center of Christianity.

Christianity has been present in Iran since the beginning of the church. Acts 2 names Parthians, Medes, and Elamites as some of the first people to hear the gospel at Pentecost and carry it back to the regions that make up modern Iran. Over the next centuries, that small witness grew into a distinctly Persian church centered in Seleucia Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire. This became the Church of the East, a missionary movement that carried the gospel along the Silk Road into Central Asia, India, and even China.

Islam arrived in the seventh century and changed the church’s status but not its existence. Christians became a restricted minority, yet they endured for centuries by running schools, translating Scripture, and maintaining monasteries. The real decline came much later when the Safavid dynasty enforced Shi’a Islam and pushed Christians into ethnic enclaves.

After the 1979 revolution, Persian language churches were shut down and pastors imprisoned. Yet in the shadows of repression, an underground church quietly grew and now includes hundreds of thousands to more than a million believers. Despite surveillance, raids, imprisonment, and the constant threat of death, Iran is home to one of the fastest‑growing Christian movements in the world. 

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq told a similar story. Nearly 1.5 million believers whose roots stretched back to the first centuries of the church. They worshiped in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They lived in cities like Mosul and Baghdad, where Christian monasteries had stood for over a thousand years. When the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein, it didn’t usher in freedom for these communities. It unleashed chaos. Militias filled the power vacuum. Churches were bombed. Priests were kidnapped and murdered. Families fled by the hundreds of thousands. Today, fewer than 200,000–300,000 Christians remain. Entire neighborhoods that once echoed with ancient liturgies now sit empty. Iraq’s Christians weren’t targeted because Muslims suddenly hated them. They were destroyed because war destabilizes everything, and minorities are always the first to be swept away in the collapse.

Syria tells the same story with different names. Before the civil war, Christians lived with a measure of stability under Assad’s authoritarian but predictable rule. They were not free in the Western sense, but they were protected. They worshiped openly, ran schools, and maintained communities that traced their lineage back to the apostles. When the war began, Syria fractured. Christians are now kidnapped, raped, sold in open‑air slave markets, and have been forced to flee ancestral homes. Towns like Maaloula, were emptied. Fewer than 400,000 Christians remain in a land that once held more than double that number. 

In both Iraq and Syria, the pattern was the same: the United States and other foreign powers attacked directly and indirectly through a maze of proxy groups. At one point, Pentagon‑backed militias were fighting CIA‑backed militias on the same battlefield. The push for regime change was justified by false claims and destabilized these nations leaving two ancient Christian communities defenseless in the chaos. That’s why we cannot rush into another conflict on the strength of slogans or fear. We have to examine the reasons being offered for this war with a sober mind.

Prophetic sensationalism: Christians have always been tempted to cast geopolitical enemies as characters in an end‑times drama. But turning Iran into “Gog and Magog” is not discernment, it is fear dressed up as prophecy. It replaces the real people of Iran with an apocalyptic caricature and baptizes our anxieties as divine insight.

“Defending Israel”: Many believers assume supporting modern Israel militarily is a biblical mandate. But the New Testament never commands Gentile nations to wage war on Israel’s behalf. When American Christians treat geopolitics as theology, it is often the local church; Jewish, Muslim, and Christian alike that suffers the consequences.

“They started it in 1979”: This story begins long before the hostage crisis. The 1953 U.S.-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s elected government set the stage for decades of mistrust and hostility. Pretending history began in 1979 allows us to moralize a conflict we helped create.

“Iran is racing for a bomb”: Ayatollah Khamenei issued a religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and the 2015 nuclear agreement was verifiably constraining Iran’s program until the U.S. withdrew. The current crisis is not the result of Iranian inevitability but of diplomatic collapse much of it of our own making.

Righteous nationalism: The belief that “God is on our side” is the oldest temptation in the politics of war. It baptizes violence, blinds us to the human cost, and turns national interest into a divine mandate. Once we assume our nation’s cause is God’s cause, there is no limit to what we will justify.

Beneath these justifications lies a harder truth: the people who call for war are never the ones who bear its cost. In every conflict, it is the poor, the young, and the powerless who bleed. War is the luxury of the rich, paid for with the blood of the poor and the vulnerable. If Christians cannot see through the romance of violence, we will bless the suffering of those Christ commands us to love.

Scripture calls us to a different ideal. Jesus rejected retaliation and entrusted judgment to God alone. Peter told persecuted believers to endure suffering without vengeance. Paul warned the church not to be conformed to the patterns of this world, patterns that always justify violence in the name of peace. The uncomfortable truth: both the United States and its adversaries claim they are protecting the vulnerable when they wage war. The logic is the same on both sides but Christians are called to break that cycle. 

The call to enemy‑love is the point where many Christians quietly step off the path of Jesus. It’s easy to love victims; it’s far harder to love the people we’ve been taught to fear, but the gospel doesn’t give us an escape clause. God’s love does not stop at national borders or political narratives. It extends to the names we would rather not say out loud: Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Khamenei. It extends to the Iranian soldier on the front line, the mother in Tehran trying to keep her children safe, and the underground pastor who knows he may be arrested at any moment. They are all image‑bearers. They are all people Christ died for.

Enemy‑love is the most demanding form of discipleship. It requires refusing to let propaganda shape our ethics, or to let the state tell us who counts as human. In a world where every side justifies violence as moral necessity, enemy‑love is the only posture that keeps us from being swallowed by the logic of war. This is the same narrow way the historic Anabaptists, Mennonites, and other peace‑churches tried to walk, refusing the sword even when every nation around them claimed God’s blessing for its wars.

If western Christian thought has been shaped by fear and war, then the first step is to refuse the reflex. We don’t have to accept the narratives that rush us toward violence or equate national interest as a divine mandate. Instead, we can choose the slower, harder work of discernment. We can refuse to let headlines or political pressure decide who counts as our neighbor. We can pray for those we’re told to fear, advocate for peace when others demand escalation, and remember the global church. 

What we can do now is return to the ancient Christian path of peaceful resistance. That means  speaking with clarity when our leaders move toward war. We can insist that our elected officials pursue de‑escalation, diplomacy, and the protection of vulnerable communities rather than another cycle of destruction. Inside the church, we have to correct the narratives that try to shape this conflict as necessary for Jesus’ return. Christ’s coming is not a summoning ritual, and no nation may sacrifice the civilians of another to hasten it.

Silence in moments like this is not neutrality. It is consent. To speak is to stand with the global church, with the image‑bearers caught in the crossfire, and with the crucified King who calls His people to truth, courage, and peace.

“Leftists have tried to kill the president three times now. They killed Charlie. They’ve shot up churches and Christian schools and rioted in the streets. They are the party of terrorism. Political violence comes from one side. How much longer will we allow these people to wage war on the country?”

That was Daily Wire talking head Matt Walsh on X on the evening of April 25.

Let’s set aside for a moment research from the Cato Institute which suggests that violent activism is not in fact a one-sided issue. Let’s even gloss over the fact that multiple assassination attempts were conceived and even attempted against President Obama, with little discussion from conservative influencers. The biggest problem with Walsh’s assessment is that political violence is a redundant term.

Violence is, after all, the only tool which the state possesses. It is not suggested that you pay taxes to bomb Iranian schoolchildren, nor are peaceful illegal immigrants persuaded to pile up in cages, to be beaten, and denied access to outside communication in immigrant detention centers like Alligator Alcatraz. Whether you use a bullet or a ballot, the effect is often largely the same–your neighbors can be wrongfully hurt, robbed, and even killed. Both are political, and both amount to violence.

So why do we justify one and not the other? Why is one called “political violence” and the other “doing your civic duty”? The latter is different only in these regards: 1. that rather than engaging in the violence yourself, you have an intermediary do it for you. 2. That the violence is sanctified by “going through the proper channels.” Thus, when Donald Trump is responsible for the deaths of 120 schoolchildren in an effort to satisfy a foreign government’s policy aims, that is democracy manifest — a cost perhaps, but one worth paying. But when a gunman tries to kill Donald Trump, that’s “political violence.”

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, black activist Malcolm X drew considerable ire for saying that this murder was the result of his nation’s own hate and violence coming back upon it — that it was America’s “chickens coming home to roost.” Regardless of whether one is inclined to make such a statement in regard to attempts on President Trump’s life, one thing is clear: it will not do to assert a double standard when it comes to the violation of human rights and the use of violence against peaceful people. It cannot simultaneously be good when the Trump administration violates the rights of human beings but also bad when others attempt to violate the president’s own right to life. Despite how much we try to sanctify the former with magic words like “democracy,” it is just as evil as the latter; and it is immoral to pretend otherwise.

In short, the war that Matt Walsh speaks of — the war being waged on the people of this country — is not one-sided. It comes from politicians and voters of many political persuasions who have fallen for the superstitious lie that the decision to harm others is holy when it emerges from a voting booth or the Oval Office. Moreover, it’s a self-perpetuating war because it teaches us to hate and be suspicious of those who vote differently than us since they wield the power to take our freedom, our livelihoods, and sometimes even our very lives from us. It is difficult to make friends with someone who holds a knife against your neck.

Right wing evangelical influencer Allie Beth Stuckey thinks she has the solution to political violence. It is “a soul-level sickness” that requires “an awakening, which can only happen through Christ.” But, she writes, “in the meantime, it should be priority number 1 for the Trump admin to find every radical, pro-violence activist cell and shut them down without mercy.”

This not only regurgitates the false assumption that political violence is simply when leftists wield guns while not wearing badges or dog tags, but it cheapens something beautifully and wonderfully true. Yes, Christ is the cure to our climate of violence and hate — but not in that paltry and saccharine sense that if we only had the Ten Commandments posted in schoolrooms, America would be a paradise. Christ is the cure to be sure, but only if we truly obey Him — if we choose to live by the wisdom He gave us in the sermon on the mount.

This also means that the answer to political violence is not, as Trump’s attempted assassins wrongfully believed, to engage in more wicked political violence. It is to finally hang up the idea that I have a right to take my neighbor’s life, security, freedom, or property — even if I can get a politician to side with me. As libertarians, we can speak very clearly to the evil of using force against peaceful people. But as Christians, we can do even better–we can speak prophetically to God’s command for all of us to put away the sword before it is turned around and used against us. We can actually stop the chickens from coming home to roost.

A truly peaceful future is possible. This is not the future Matt Walsh is advocating, where a so-called Christian president sics jackbooted thugs on anyone who might be considered one of his political enemies. Instead, it is the future that the biblical prophets talked about — where we will “beat our swords into plowshares” (Isaiah 2:4) and “everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid, for the LORD Almighty has spoken” (Micah 4:4, NIV).

These last several weeks have been difficult to comprehend and to process. Our hearts are broken daily, not by a bad headline or drummed-up partisan talking points, but by personal accounts and live video footage of unlawful, dehumanizing, and violent activity being conducted by “law enforcement” itself. Our local police departments decry the aggression of the federal personnel in their own jurisdiction, and chaos abounds. The world feels upside down, and folks in many parts of the city feel as if we are under occupation from a foreign power that does not seek our good nor that of our neighbors whom we love.

Friends of mine who have committed no crime are locking their doors this evening and keeping their kiddos inside, asking for prayer for protection from state-sponsored violence. Why are they being targeted? One would have to ask the federal government, but ostensibly, it’s because some folks who look like them have committed some crimes. The targeting is saddening but not surprising. Governments often expose their insecurities by seeking the next “enemy” to identify and then eliminate. The surprising (and deeply disappointing) part is how many self-described Christians are supportive of the racial targeting—and even the violence.

“But it’s not about race! It’s about crime and fraud!” If that is the case, then the traditional route is to prosecute the criminals. However, when any particular group is subjected to house-to-house visits or stopped as they drive home from work, simply for some intrinsic quality identified in some criminals, this is nothing short of racial profiling and group punishment. It is a classic example of a state seeking a scapegoat to punish in an effort to alleviate its own insecurities. One could only imagine the outrage if authorities started showing up at people’s homes who look like me—a person of Scandinavian origin. The vast majority of school shooters and the last several major political assassinations were made by young men who look like they could be my near-blood relations. So, if we are being consistent, why have the authorities not visited me at my front door?

I’m afraid we know the answer. There seems to be an unexamined assumption that folks of European descent are to be treated individually, while “those people” should be subjected to group identification, with the criminal taken as the representative of the entire group. The allure of the human urge to scapegoat is that it works! It has a cathartic effect on the group that performs the violence. So, I suppose we can all just forget about Jesus since we’ve found a better way—good old-fashioned tribalism. We will just segregate ourselves from “those people,” and we will all be OK in our fragile little insular corners.

Of course, we don’t allow ourselves to think soberly about the fact that we are collectively committing this scapegoat expulsion. We swallow the party line from the State like it’s a feeding tube. To admit the wrongdoing of the State is to admit our collective wrongdoing in giving wicked men power in this democratic republic. That’s too much to bear for many of us, so instead, we spin like we’re Ilya Malinin—justifying every unjust act of our beloved Big Brother, no matter how convoluted our explanations become. 

An odd phenomenon has caught my attention recently–when I publicly critique or denounce State violence, Romans 13 comes flying off the shelf faster than you can say “justice for Renee Good and Alex Pretti.” It’s ironic, because Romans 13 was nowhere to be found on our lips when we evangelicals didn’t like mandated vaccinations just a few short years ago (perhaps for fine reasons). I recall our Facebook posts quoting Scriptures of a quite different flavor: “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Now, “be subject to the governing authorities” is being used as a battering ram to silence any disagreement and condemn civil disobedience of any kind. I have a profound sense of bewilderment, having grown up in an evangelical world where the Jew-hiders in the Third Reich were held up as heroes (and they were!). Now, when I advocate for the scapegoated group of our time, I am told by my dear friends that I am being immature, if not rebellious. “Be subject to the authorities” has conveniently become, “agree with and be allegiant to the State.”

In many ways, we live in Orwell’s world, witnessing the subtle shifting of the meaning of words for propagandistic purposes. Genocide is redefined as war, war redefined as defense, piracy as police action, and execution as neutralization. Protesters are dubbed domestic terrorists. The forced deposition of world leaders is aggression when other countries do it and national security when we do. In my town, our Somali friends are described as garbage by POTUS because of the crimes of some, and the entirety of the group is intentionally slandered as being suspect or dangerous.

The powers of the world see themselves as sovereign, and language is simply a tool for the advancement of State interests. This totalizing impulse to subject all things to the legitimization of the Empire is neither new nor unique to our government. But I think it is incumbent on Jesus-worshippers to heed Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s admonition to “live not by lies,” resisting the lie that national identity and empire supremacy demand we perpetuate. To speak forthrightly—justifying, defending, or otherwise doing apologetics for State violence is living by lies.

I’ve found it puzzling to see a number of my self-described Christian loved ones acting as faithful foot soldiers of the State whose violence harms the very image bearers our Lord taught us to love. When “our people” get power, Romans 13 enters stage right, and we nod along like docile sheep, carrying a disposition, not of the prophets, but of yes-men. We Evangelicals tend to think of the Empire as friend when “our guy” wins and enemy when he doesn’t. However, I would contend that the Biblical authors had a quite different view of the State altogether.

In Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the nations were given over to the control of the “gods” (what modern Christians may call “demons”). In Daniel 10:13, this understanding persists. In the gospels, we see the Adversary offering Jesus the kingdoms of the world, implying they were under its control (Luke 4:5-7). Paul is comfortable listing spiritual and governmental powers together as related realities (Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15). The author of Revelation explicitly leans into this—depicting the Roman empire as indistinguishable from the Adversary itself (Revelation 13:1-7). The point is, according to the Christian tradition, the State is not really our friend, and it may well be under the control of dark spiritual forces. It can do good in restraining evil at times, but it often itself commits grave evil, and it does not advance God’s kingdom.

As followers of Jesus, we have no other and no higher obligation than to be the body of Christ on earth. We have no obligation to prop up the oppressive power structures we’ve inherited. We have an obligation only to pray for all those with authority, to do good to all, to love our neighbors, and to love even our national enemies. The State cannot accept that last one. When the State identifies an enemy and then scapegoats it in an attempt to form allegiance through fear, we have an obligation to tell the truth. The community of Jesus will always, at the end of the day, be viewed as the enemy of the State, since we give allegiance to a different King with different ethics and a different vision for the future of the world. 

So, though we do not seek the violent overthrow of our government or any other, we certainly don’t always obey it. When it commands we disobey our Lord, we firmly yet meekly say “no,” and we carry on as usual—loving the neighbor that the State is trying to harm. Right now in my town, the worldly powers seek the dehumanization of Muslims, refugees, leftists and others. We say “no” because our Lord called us to seek the good of these folks. We adamantly do no violence in our resistance, because that is to live by the same lie that the State believes—that life must be built in death. On the contrary, we bear the consequences of our resistance in our own bodies if need be.

I am left contemplating the confession of Martin Niemöller, swapping out the scapegoated groups of 1930s Germany for some of those in our moment:

“First they came for the undocumented immigrant
And I did not speak out
Because I was not an undocumented immigrant

Then they came for the Muslim
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Muslim

Then they came for the refugee
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a refugee 

Then they came for the leftists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a leftist

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me” 

We are not the church in 1942 Germany, but we may be daydreaming listlessly into our own hell. Auschwitz wasn’t built overnight; it was allowed in the ‘30s by one ordinary day after another of submitting to the propaganda that selected, then scapegoated, then genocided entire groups of God’s children.

As restored people, we showcase the world to come. Until that Day, our relationship to the State will never be that of fan, friend, or fidelity. It will always be one of nonviolent, peacemaking resistance to its worst impulses, and prayer for its leaders to repent—showing the way to a peace not found in the State but in the body of Christ. According to the Scriptures, the totalizing State has no future in God’s world, and therefore it can provide us no identity. If the State provides us no identity, we do not need to defend its violence. The meek inherit the earth—not the violent—and certainly not the State.

For a record number of Americans in this ever more secular era, their real religion is politics, their faith is their political ideology, and their church is their political party. This seems especially so in the most secular professions like entertainment where an unprecedented number of actors, singers, writers, comics, and athletes now routinely use their fame to push their political agendas.

Way back in 1972, Americans were shocked when, during the Vietnam War, the actress Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam to propagandize for our communist enemy. Similarly, people were stunned in 1973 when Marlon Brando refused to accept his Godfather Oscar because of Hollywood’s portrayal of American Indians. But when was the last time you saw an awards show without many performers interjecting their political views, and often with the ugliest obscenities?

No wonder ever more Americans refuse to “separate the artist from the man,” choosing instead to boycott entertainers who use their bullhorn to promote public policies they dislike. In fact, the ratings for awards shows has plummeted in recent years, and Hollywood has long been in a terrible financial slump.

As a libertarian, I totally support everyone’s God-given, constitutionally-protected right to express whatever opinions you please. Furthermore, if you are not free to say what I least want to hear, then you are not really free.

But I enjoy an equal right to avoid movies, TV shows, novels, records, games, and other works of performers who use their platform to push grossly irresponsible government actions, dangerous drug use, public profanity and coarseness, promiscuity, and out-of-wedlock births, all of which have wreaked substantial damage on our culture. Why should I subsidize folks assaulting the religious values, norms, and way of life I cherish?

However, as a Christian libertarian southerner, if I let artists or athletes’ pronouncements or decadent lifestyles dictate whose performances I patronize, I would likely see very little art or entertainment — and my life would be significantly poorer.

One of my favorite novelists, Harry Crews, wrote that “What the artist owes the world is his work, not a model for living.” Basketball superstar Charles Barkley bluntly declared, “I’m not paid to be a role model…. Parents should be role models.”

Yes, I think Pablo Picasso was an egregious egomaniac and a complete narcissist who abused a slew of women, wrecked many lives (especially his family’s), and was a communist to boot (even during Stalin’s reign!). But I also believe he was the greatest artist of the 20th century, and I appreciate a lot of his paintings. To let what I judge to be his private and political wrongs prevent me from enjoying his public work would be my loss.

My favorite filmmaker is Woody Allen. Not only are we politically far apart, but I cannot condone his dating an ex-girlfriend’s daughter who was 21 when he was 56. But he committed no crime and they have remained a couple since 1991 and reared children together. Is Allen’s off-camera life any of my business anyway? Plus, I adore his movies. Indeed, how many fewer laughs my film-going life would have suffered without seeing them.

I don’t like the politics, alcoholism, or sordid private lives of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck. But their writings are magnificent, and how all the more impressive that they transformed painful personal strife into compelling literature that still inspires.

Try finding a major writer, composer, or artist whose biography has no appalling chapters. The only ones I know are Johann Sebastian Bach, Emily Dickinson, and Eudora Welty.

If I need surgery, I want the best surgeon. While I would ideally prefer a strait-laced, good Christian or Jew, I still want the finest doctor for the operation — even if he’s an atheist communist and serial adulterer. Some of the most obnoxious students I ever taught nevertheless got A’s in my classes — because their work earned them.

Should it matter if a performer might not qualify to join our own political or private club?

With the exception of Jesus Christ, who is without sin or living in a glass house?

So should we still buy art we like provided it is not distasteful propaganda? Or so long as the artist is not too aggressively inflicting obnoxious views or misbehavior in public?

I remain ambivalent. While I generally do not mind seeing a film on TV starring someone whose politics or personal life I deplore, I am less inclined to pay for one at a cinema. I’ll purchase a singer’s records I like but avoid his concerts if I learn he insults my beliefs between songs. Nor will I buy a ticket to any benefit show whose proceeds further a cause I oppose.

Frankly, I would just rather not know the politics or lifestyles of entertainers. But I do know that this political science professor emeritus will be politically influenced by what some ill-informed, narcissistic, virtue-signaling actor, singer, or athlete says about politics when he cares what I say about acting, singing, or sports. Indeed, when playing with balls confers moral or intellectual authority, I’ll consult the neighbor’s dog.

Democracy creates an avenue for politicians to access your pocketbook and liberty. It offers everyone who desires to get at your money or to regulate you a legal avenue to do so. Hereditary kingship eliminates the potential for these sorts to gain power over you; instead, the leeches and busybodies must produce for themselves. Removing the crown enabled those who craved dominion over you to achieve it.

The desire to control others often stems from a dislike or hatred for them. When you love something, you allow it freedom; you might attempt to guide, but you ultimately want the object of your love to make a choice. When you hate something, you wish to eradicate it, or at least control it, minimize it and mold it to your image. Democracy invites those who hate us to rule us.

The typical Christian libertarian does not want to be involved with the moral degradation and corruption of politics. They want to be far from a place like D.C., much less live or work there. Most libertarians desire only to live and let live. They lack the desire to control others’ money or boss them around. So, naturally, most of them will never run for office, and those lacking the drive for power and control will not succeed in elections as often as those who have it.

In competitive elections (the higher the level, such as federal, the more competitive), only those who are the most eager, who desire power the most, will be victorious. Those willing to lie, cheat and steal will have the advantage over a more moral candidate; elections attract and install the wrong people to govern. History demonstrates in democracy the moral candidates are removed from power, and the worst characters rise to the top.

The established national political parties and their major backers support candidates they can use. They need candidates willing to obey and to do whatever it takes to gain access to the money and power available in and through D.C. After the victory, the politician must repay his donors through legislation. He must repay his backers and support the national party agenda to maintain his standing. Likewise, the secular politician is after his own gain; he is rarely a local representative at the national level. This helps explain the disconnect between what politicians tell their voters before the election and their actions after gaining office.

To win a competitive national election, politicians must bribe, be bribed, conform to donors’ desires, and tell voters what they want to hear rather than the truth. Journalist H. L. Mencken summarized election oratory as “the art of…one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.”

A moral  and honorable Christian candidate refrains from lying or telling voters what they crave to hear; therefore, such candidates will upset sections of the country, lack excitement among the base, and be at a disadvantage. They will be principled, “rigid,” “uncompromising,” and unwilling to work with the system, further impeding their success. They will tend to be honest, tell the truth, run on principles, and act on their beliefs. Political parties weed out such candidates often before they even attempt to run for national office.

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues political competition ensures the worst will rise to the top. The more competitive the more corrupt one needs to be to succeed. So the town-level local politicians will generally be more honest and unwilling to bribe their way to the top. But at the federal level, due to the greater competition, they must battle competitors and do favors necessary to achieve power. It would be nearly impossible for a politician to tell voters the truth and reach a federal seat.

Hoppe argues competitive elections will “lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing.” And again Hoppe wrote, “Thus democracy virtually assures only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government.” Elections necessitate moral decay among politicians, which will follow all competitive elections. Historian Christophe Buffin de Chosal wrote:

“The qualities necessary to ascend to power through democratic vote are precisely what make for defective leaders. To rise to the head of a political party and win elections at the national level, one must pander to the voters and tell them not what is, but what they want to hear. One must bow down to particular interests, especially to those of the money powers. One must not let any scruples get in the way; one must be about superficial externals rather than about substance; one must also be devoted to one’s party.”[1]

 In a democracy, secularists and relativists are heavily favored; they are fighting on their home turf, as philosopher Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn explained:

“The true Christian as a candidate in a thoroughly democratic state is almost unthinkable; only in rare cases will he succeed in maintaining his position…The Christian candidate would be sincere, frank, serious. He would confess ignorance where need be, he would oppose his constituents when his conscience advocated disagreement, he would refuse to distort facts by popularizing them or by “boiling them down” to a deceptive simplicity, thus flattering the intellectual vanity of the credulous masses. The bad pagan simply lies to his voters…He pretends to understand problems he is not acquainted with, and simulates knowledge; he is determined not to stick to his promises or even to act against his conscience. The good pagan is in the worst situation of all: he lies, quite subconsciously, to himself. He believes, perhaps in all sincerity, that one can square the circle…The good Christian’s position is an almost hopeless one, since he is not willing to sacrifice ethical values to the Moloch of popularity.”

People don’t like hearing the truth; they enjoy living in a world of their own making. Jesus would never be elected in a democracy because he constantly told the truth. He purposely drove away people following him for his miracles, or for what he might do for them. Truth was more important than popularity.

While politicians portray themselves as experts in multiple areas, the only thing they really do well is sell an image voters desire. For success, they only need to be experts in manipulation, knowing the right people and lying. Mencken wrote, “Will any of them venture to tell the plain truth…will any refrain from promises that he knows he can’t fulfill…they will promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, or she wants…votes are collared under democracy not by talking sense but by talking nonsense…the winner will be whoever promises the most with the least probability of delivering anything.” Elections are advertisements where politicians create an image they think will be successful in achieving votes.

Politicians hire campaign advisors to determine what is best to say in each area. They will categorize us into herds and discover this number of “suburban women” live here, so say this, but when you are over there where there are plenty of evangelicals, don’t say this, this here is an industrial town, so preach on this. Then, after the election, you will hear both parties “congratulate” the victors for “running a good campaign,” in other words, great job manipulating people and saying the right things in a suitable place to achieve votes.

Undomesticated people like those in the Middle Ages would never submit to a corrupt system of elected officials campaigning for power. They would rid us of the whole system, and you would see the return of a king.

[1] (Buffin de Chosal 2017, 132-133)

Series Introduction

Not everyone is born a libertarian, and even those who were must come to it on their own terms. We believe in the importance of hearing the stories of others, including what they wrestled with, what they rejected, what they embraced, and how their journey led them to where they are today. We know these stories are important to share, not because each of us is a hero, but because heroism is found in all efforts of any size to pursue a Christian ethos and embrace a way of life that enables and encourages flourishing. We offer you these stories as an encouragement and inspiration to help you bolster your faith in the Lord and your belief in human freedom.

Listen to this essay:

I’m an independent researcher and writer, an education entrepreneur, and co-host of the Reformed Libertarians Podcast. I’m Principal Educator and socratic guide at Vita Nova Academy Of Albuquerque, a learner-driven mastery-based microschool. My writing, podcasts, and seminars at MereLiberty.com focus on challenging prevailing paradigms in politics, theology, and culture, from a confessionally-Reformed biblical and philosophical perspective. Among others, I address such topics as abortion and views of womanhood. Additionally, one of my primary interests is in promoting a Reformed view of libertarian anarchism.”

I was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico in a politically and theologically conservative home. I was baptized, catechized, and confirmed in faith at a local Missouri Synod Lutheran (LCMS) church. My mother, raised Irish Catholic (the only person I’ve known with a BA in Home Economics) was never interested in politics. But my father^[1] was. And his views shaped mine as I grew up.

He was a Green Beret, Vietnam veteran, working for the Federal Department of Energy by the time I was born. He was more or less a constitutionalist (as he understood it) and registered Republican. His major influences, as I recall, were Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and to a lesser extent Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. I was enamored with my father’s sense of patriotism, duty to uphold the Constitution and America’s founding principles, and distrust of the government. Among other things, he impressed on me the importance of not working for (or depending upon) the government, insofar as it was possible.

In my experience, Lutherans don’t often have any sort of robust political theology. This may be because their view of God’s “two kingdoms” (in conscience and external matters, respectively) tends to separate politics from spiritual concerns. In any case, my parents were actively involved in both the fledgling homeschooling movement and prolife activism. One of my dad’s religious influences at the time was Francis Schaeffer^[2], a Presbyterian minister who promoted the prolife cause among conservative Protestants. My three brothers and I were homeschooled in our younger years, before it was legal in New Mexico. We spent many field trips at the State legislature as my and several other parents worked to legalize it. Although, in later years, I attended both Lutheran and government schools.

I distinctly recall attending a number of prolife events with my parents and brothers. What I took away from those experiences at the time were the religious and emotional appeals of the movement. The emotional appeal being the graphic nature of abortion. The main idea was that the hearts and minds of those who supported abortion would be changed if they were adequately exposed to the horrific reality of what abortion actually is. The religious appeal, at least among so-called Evangelicals, seemed to be that Scripture alone is sufficient and effective to argue against abortion. I later came to the conclusion that, while both appeals have a certain degree of merit, they are ultimately naively reductionistic and therefore insufficient and ineffective in changing the social, political, and economic facts and beliefs that contribute to the legality and practice of abortion.

In 1996 I followed the Clinton v Dole US presidential election, in which so-called “partial birth” abortion was specifically at issue. I turned eighteen in 1999 just in time to vote in the Bush v Gore election. Not yet recognizing the political theater that such elections are, I became engrossed in cable “news” about the drama.

Meanwhile, I was enrolled at the University of New Mexico (UNM) in the Fall of 1999. I intended to double major in Medical Lab Science and Political Science because of my support for the prolife cause.

I was strengthened in my understanding that contemporary legal arguments for abortion had no basis in biology, the Constitution, or human rights. And I came to recognize how such arguments were erroneous attempts to separate personhood and rights from being human.

While attending UNM, I was exposed to Evangelical (Non-denominational) Baptist beliefs and worship through the Baptist Student Union. Some classmates there tried to persuade me that I wasn’t actually a Christian if I didn’t have a conscious conversion experience and hadn’t been baptized as a professing believer. I was deeply shaken by this, and sought out my Lutheran pastor to assuage my anxieties about whether I was saved. My Lutheran pastor did a good job of doing that. And that’s all I wanted for the moment. He also gave me several introductory pamphlets that contrasted Lutheran and typical non-denominational beliefs on baptism and eschatology.  It wasn’t long before I had more questions. Regrettably, my questions weren’t really answered. My pastor was still seeking merely to emotionally reassure me. Not finding the more theologically substantial answers I was then seeking, I eventually became discontent with the LCMS altogether.

Over the next year or so, I tried to work full time while fitting-in college courses when I could, without much success. Motivated partly by a misplaced sense of patriotic duty following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and partly by the prospect of medical lab education and job experience, I enlisted in the US Air Force in the Spring of 2003. I also got married that winter. By 2005 I was pregnant, and accepted the offer of an honorable discharge. I took that option at eight months pregnant and came home to NM.

While I was pregnant the baptism question came up again. This time, I wanted a more thorough understanding of what Scripture actually teaches. I wanted to be more confident in what I believed. Either I would baptize my infant son in the Lutheran church, or I would become Baptist; raising my children as Baptists. However, mostly through exposure to the teaching of the Presbyterian minister R.C. Sproul^[3], the next two years of study would unexpectedly lead me to the Reformed (Presbyterian) perspective.

By the time I came to the Reformed view of baptism, I had already given birth to my first two children, born about a year apart. And I had them baptized in the LCMS in 2007. We were attending a non-denominational church at the time. That church was largely opposed to the Reformed Faith, and I didn’t yet know of any Reformed or Presbyterian churches in the area to join.

2007 was also the time running up to the 2008 housing crash. The GOP primary was in full swing and, still a registered Republican, I had the first opportunity to vote in the presidential primary. But there were 13 candidates at one point, and I had no idea how to choose from among them. Knowing what I did about the Constitution, I reviewed its statements about the role of the Executive. As I watched debates, heard candidates speak, and read their campaign platforms, I realized that among them all, only Ron Paul^[4] paid any attention to the Constitution.

Listening to videos by former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Michael Badnarik, I learned more about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I read Badnarik’s book, Good to be King^[5]. He explained that property tax was renting from the state property you owned, and that a driver’s license was a grant of permission to use your own car. This perspective was paradigm-shifting for me. I decided to vote for Ron Paul, but ultimately couldn’t. He dropped out before the primaries reached New Mexico^[6]. Instead, I voted for Chuck Baldwin (no relation) of the Constitution Party^[7]. I voted once more for President in 2012, for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I haven’t voted for a presidential candidate since, though I will still vote on referendums.

In the following four years, I experienced two parallel journeys: one towards full-fledged libertarianism, and the other towards full-fledged Reformed theology. In 2012, we left the non-denominational church we had been attending. After considering several supposed Presbyterian congregations, we began attending a small Orthodox Presbyterian church (OPC)^[8]. That year I started mereliberty.com with the goal of challenging the false paradigm of left vs right, and of promoting a libertarian perspective.

The housing crash and bailouts in 2008, the so-called “Affordable Care Act” in 2010, Ron Paul’s second run for president in 2012, and all the GOP shenanigans increasingly disillusioned and radicalized me. I was primed for anarchism, but couldn’t yet make that leap, mostly because of my misunderstanding Romans 13 and not seeing how non-monopolistic, polycentric law was supposed to work. It’s said that it takes only six months to become anarchist once you accept libertarianism. From 2008, it took me 8 more years. In the meantime, I was active locally in municipal politics. But, I was ultimately disillusioned^[9] when I realized the city is also run by unelected people, namely, the City Manager and City Attorney.

In 2014, my family and I officially became members of the OPC. And by 2015, I completed my Bachelor’s of Arts in Philosophy from Arizona State University.

During these same years I came to realize (belatedly, as is all too common among those who are abused) that my husband was abusive towards me and our children, verbally, emotionally, and financially. He never took responsibility or expressed remorse for his mistreatment and fits of rage. When confronted by our pastor, he refused to listen. The elders of our church supported my decision to divorce in 2016.

Later that year, in a Reformed libertarian online discussion group, a friend had asked what my remaining objections were to libertarian anarchism. Before the year was over, I had been introduced to the writings of economists Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Especially Rothbard’s anarchist political philosophy^[10] and a better understanding of the confessionally Reformed view of Romans 13^[11] resolved my objections. In many ways, my parallel developments in theological and political understanding dovetailed, and I became a convinced Reformed (libertarian) anarchist.

My understanding of our God-given self-ownership, property rights, and corresponding obligation of non-aggression, resulted in the consistent conclusion that monopoly states are inherent aggressors and so, illegitimate. I began to understand more clearly how non-monopolistic civil governance is both prescriptively ordained by God, and a realistic possibility, even —or especially— in sinful human society. (At the end of this essay, along with several other resources, is a playlist of episodes addressing our answers to minarchist objections.^[12] It explains some of the key points that persuaded me of libertarian anarchism.)

It wasn’t until I became aware of Jeff Durbin^[13] (a Baptist pastor) and the Abortion “Abolition” movement sometime in 2016, that I would take up the prolife defense again. I published a libertarian critique of prominent prolife and prochoice views.^[14] On the prolife side I pointed out that the lack of economic understanding contributed to addressing abortion in an overly-narrow and reductionistic way. On the prochoice side,^[15] I pointed out that the broader leftist appeal to protecting marginalized groups was fundamentally undermined by their own arguments favoring abortion. 

In 2019 I published a two part episode attempting to articulate fetal rights in terms of self-ownership. In December 2019, I was invited to debate Walter Block^[16] on his “evictionist” position at the Soho Forum. In 2020, most states around the world began implementing lockdowns and other disastrous measures in response to COVID.

The policies of the New Mexican governor were especially tyrannical in prohibiting gatherings, and mandating business closures, masking, and pushing vaccinations. When she could no longer keep people away from church, she mandated worshippers not to sing or take the Lord’s Supper. She would make frequent public addresses that were fear-mongering and threatening. The parallels between abusive personal relationships and the inherent tyranny of the state became more apparent than ever. Not only do states depend on aggression, but also mass psychological manipulation and financial control to perpetuate their abuse.

That same year, I began collaborating with my co-host, Gregory Baus, on developing the Reformed Libertarians Podcast. Recognizing the tremendous need, we committed ourselves to promoting an understanding of libertarian anarchism grounded in a distinctively Reformed faith and worldview. And by late 2022, we began publishing episodes with the Christians For Liberty Network through the Libertarian Christian Institute.^[17]

Since 2020, a lot of libertarians I’ve known online abandoned libertarianism entirely. The lockdowns and other leftist policies in government and its crony institutions were enough for them to oppose non-aggression as a practical principle. They went full “post-libertarian” and began promoting a statist strategy on behalf of supposed traditional values. They believe their re-embrace of violence and authoritarianism is “putting away (the) childish things” of libertarian principles. If anything, such post-libertarians only reveal that they themselves held to certain ideas childishly.

However, I remain fully convinced of what we at Reformed Libertarians call the Boetie Option. As we explain in episode 8,^[18] The Boetie Option is a strategy of the peaceful “underthrow” of the state. It’s an active strategy of educating a critical mass of the population, towards withdrawal of compliance with the state’s tyranny. A critical mass need not be a majority; it is the smallest number required to sustain a chain reaction.

It may be that the promulgation and wide-spread embrace of Christianity is requisite to achieving a more just and free society. But that will only be hindered, and cannot be helped, by the use of aggression. In any case, I am devoted to the propagation of the confessionally Reformed Faith and church, because I’m convinced it is the most faithful expression of biblical Christianity.^[19] I also believe Reformed Christianity provides the truest and most robust grounds for understanding all of human life as God has revealed it to be, whether political normativity, or how we should oppose abuse in other societal spheres. I pray that others will join us, as we promote these things through the Reformed Libertarians Podcast.

“See the written version of this essay at libertarianchristians dot com for endnotes with links to further resources. This has been a reading of “From Lutheran Republican to Reformed Libertarian” by Kerry Baldwin.”

^[1] Kerry Baldwin, “A First Person Perspective of the First Battle of Loc Ninh, Vietnam,” episode 38 of Dare to Think | Mere Liberty Podcast

^[2] In A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer highlights Samuel Rutherford’s book Lex, Rex and the Reformed “political resistance” view shown in this bibliography 

^[3] For example, see Sproul’s booklet What Is Baptism? Another helpful resource is Lee Irons’ And The God Of Thy Seed in 8 parts on infant baptism and covenant nurture.

^[4] See the Ron Paul Institute here

^[5] Good To Be King, by Michael Badnarik

^[6] Kerry Baldwin, “DTTNM – Ep 39 What’s Going on in New Mexico?,” episode 39 of Dare to Think | Mere Liberty Podcast

^[7] The Constitution Party

^[8] The Orthodox Presbyterian Church | See other NAPARC (confessionally Reformed) denominations here 

^[9] Kerry Baldwin, “The Reason You Hate Politics,” Libertarian Christian Institute, January 12, 2021

^[10] See Rothbard’s For A New Liberty and The Ethics Of Liberty, among other helpful books, here

^[11] See Reformed Libertarians Podcast episode 2 on Romans 13

^[12] Answers To Minarchist Objections playlist

^[13] Kerry Baldwin, “Abortion Laws: How the Prolife Movement Is Aborting a Prolife Era,” Dare to Think Podcast

^[14] See my website articles on abortion and info on my SOHO Forum debate

^[15] Kerry Baldwin, “Evaluating The Christian Feminist View Of Abortion,” Dare to Think Podcast

^[16] Kerry Baldwin, “Kerry Baldwin and Walter Block Debate Abortion (2026),” Mere Liberty, n.d.

^[17] The Reformed Libertarians Podcast

^[18] Episode 8 on The Boetie Option

^[19] For an introduction to the Reformed Faith, see The Westminster Standards (statements of faith), Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, by Michael Horton https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801014212, and Sacred Bond, by Brown and Keele

When you’re a libertarian Christian, you keep a number of Scriptures on your theological Rolodex. We love to talk about 1 Samuel 8, where Israel asks God for a king and He responds by chastising them for their lack of faithfulness. Revelation and Daniel have lots of great passages about Jesus coming to destroy all empires at the end of the age that serve to salve the longsuffering libertarian. Acts 5:29 is short and sweet–it’s better to obey God rather than men. I probably quote Luke 4:6-7 the most. That’s the one where Satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world on the basis that Satan is actually the one who directs the rulers of nations.

But we also have passages we get tired of responding to–render unto Caesar, be subject to the governing authorities. But the Bible verse that seems best poised to take down libertarianism is all the more anxiety-inducing because its author isn’t content to say it only once–he has to repeat it three more times! You may have already guessed it: “in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, NASB; but repeated in whole or in part in 18:1, 19:1, and 21:25).

Why is this one so dangerous? Because a cursory reading seems to suggest that the reason Israel was in such a bad way was not just because they didn’t have a state, but because they had a decentralized approach to governance. Now that’s really rubbing salt in the wound.

How can a libertarian deal with such a thorny verse? One might say, as David Beldman did in his book Deserting the King, that the missing king in Israel at that time was actually God. Thus, far from being a monarchist, the author of Judges was really advocating what we might today call a “no king but Christ” approach. But while this response is tempting, it seems a little too convenient, even a tad contrived. The period of the Judges was a period without a central monarch, so this is more than likely what the book’s author had in mind. In addition, it would be inaccurate to say that God was not Israel’s king at this time. He was still Israel’s King, even if His people didn’t honor Him as they should.

Finding a more plausible answer requires us to take a step back and take in the larger narrative Scripture is telling of Israel’s early history. 1 Samuel 8 tells us that the period of the Judges ended with Israel insisting on a king and God warning them that in their rejection of Him as their true Monarch, they would have to contend with all of the indignities, confiscations, and warmaking that centralized government brings about. If having a king is so bad, then why did the author of Judges seem to suggest that all of Israel’s problems in that period came from a lack of centralized authority?

If we step back a little more yet and look further down Israel’s timeline, we discover a problematic historical fact about kingship in Israel once it gets established–a good king makes the whole country better, but a bad king makes everyone behave at their worst. David and Hezekiah might have brought about some short-lived spiritual golden ages, but there were far more evil and idolatrous kings than good ones–and evil flourished all over the country under their reigns. The pattern skewed so strongly toward wicked kings making wicked people that it was actually during the period of the kings when God sent Judah and Israel into exile–not during the Judges.

But decentralization carries with it a different challenge–without a good or evil king to force his will on everyone, each community, each family, and each individual must pursue the good as they see it. Instead of everyone being good or everyone being bad, something much more complicated emerges.

The claim of 1 Samuel 8 is that the people actually could have been righteous without a king. Decentralized authority does not automatically mean moral lawlessness. But this would require something of them that they weren’t willing to do–bow down to God as King. They would listen to a human king, whether it meant following him into holiness or even the pit of sin and debauchery, but they would not give their allegiance to God. This is both the promise and the peril of centralized human government, and Scripture tells us that it’s far more peril than promise.

But here’s where Beldman is unquestionably right–far from urging us to create a powerful central government, the book of Judges tells us one part of a larger story that we must understand if we’re going to get the whole picture. And that story is this: whether you have a top-down society or a decentralized one, sin will inevitably reign when God isn’t on the throne. For a “no king but Christ” libertarian, this is hardly a defeater for our position.

Watching the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis and other major cities, it is striking how enraged and utterly unrestrained the protesters appear. So many target ICE agents with shouted profanities, obscene gestures, loud whistles, spit, and even violence against ICE vehicles and the agents themselves. Regardless of the merits of whatever their arguments, such hooliganism is unlikely to persuade viewers to embrace their cause.

This is in complete contrast with almost all the civil rights marchers of the 1950s and 1960s. When our nation was still saturated with racism and racial segregation laws, the civil rights protesters dared to attempt the seemingly impossible: overturn centuries of ugly attitudes and oppressive laws. Yet, in little more than a decade, every Jim Crow statute came tumbling down, liberating America to enter a new era of dramatically more racial equality and less racism.

It was not just the civil rights movement’s Judeo-Christian themes of love and brotherhood that helped convince Americans to reform, but the inspiring example of the civil rights demonstrators who conducted themselves with such dignity and remarkable restraint, even in the face of sometimes horrific violence against them.

This was not a coincidence but the consequence of the noble example provided by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the rigorous training required of his supporters. In his workshops, wannabe marchers were assaulted to test whether they could emulate Christ’s example of turning the other cheek in the face of violence. Demonstrators also had to be well dressed and groomed, and at all times conduct themselves with the utmost decorum, especially when facing hostile bigots.

Each marcher had to respect the legal authorities and the rights of all others, behaving in as Christ-like a manner as possible. Indeed, Rev. King proclaimed that “Christ gave me the message. Gandhi gave me the method,” alluding to the Hindu nationalist leader whose peaceful protest marches and boycotts helped India achieve independence from the British Empire in 1947.

As many Britons were moved by Gandhi’s principled efforts, the non-violent civil rights marchers here soon helped create a new American consensus that Jim Crow was morally wrong. Even many segregationists acknowledged how extraordinarily well the Rev. King and other demonstrators comported themselves, and despite sometimes confronting lethal danger. As the Atlanta pastor predicted, “We will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. So in winning the victory we will not only win freedom for ourselves, but we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that you will be changed also.” Most segregationists did repent of their former ways.

It is no happenstance that almost the entire 1950s/’60s civil rights movement was led by Christian ministers: the Rev. King, the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, the Rev. Andrew Young, the Rev. Hosea Williams, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, the Rev. James Bevel, the Rev. James Lawson, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and many other preachers of the gospel. Every one of them brought a deep religious commitment to redeem a nation and to do so guided by Biblical principles. As Rev. King understood, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: Only love can do that.”

But too many anti-ICE “protesters” fail to prove they are motivated by the Christian virtues of love, doing unto others as we want them to do unto us, or humility. Whereas the Rev. King and his supporters found inspiration, organization, and sustenance in the Christian Church, prominent anti-ICE demonstrators have chosen instead to disrupt a peaceful Christian worship service.

If anti-ICE demonstrators really want to change hearts and minds about immigration, they should emulate the triumphant tactics of the Rev. King and Mohandas Gandhi. But the violent hysteria of so many anti-ICE agitators calls into question whether they even want a peaceful dialogue. They reveal how much less Judeo-Christian our culture has become since the 1960s.

With all the sordid revelations that have come out since his tragic martyrdom, the Rev. King was certainly no saint – and never claimed to be. Like all of us, he was a sinner. But not even his biggest critics can deny that his public persona was ever anything less than completely peaceful, poised, eager to engage in respectful debate with his fiercest foes, and willing to go to prison or even give his life for equal rights.

Wherever we stand on immigration or any other issues, we could all learn a lot from the remarkably self-restrained and strictly non-violent way that the Rev. King and other devout Christian ministers led the civil rights movement. They provide a role model not just in how to engage in political discourse responsibly, but successfully.

Elisha, the Widow, and Helping the Poor

It is common to profess concern for the poor. But much of this is mere sentiment. In The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky documented how the definition of the word “compassion” was changed in the dictionary over time—from its Latin roots (com-pati meaning “to suffer with”) to merely feeling sorry for someone. “True” compassion requires action, beyond simple emotion and getting one’s hands dirty.

A Role for Government?

Many of those who purport to care most about the poor are fond of using government as a means to addressing poverty. This fails the “compassion” test above, but it falls short on other grounds as well. For example, in addition to the troubling ethics of taking money from Peter to pay Paul, using the impersonal bureaucratic systems of government hardly fits the bill.

Another problem: Government specializes in brute-force material approaches. This can work relatively well to build things or blow things up. But when circumstances vary so much and nuance is key, it’s difficult to imagine inflexible mechanical policies being effective. Government might ably address the short-term material aspects of poverty—by giving food or cash to people. But it is generally unable to provide what each poor person really requires to make progress. As Olasky notes, the poor often need our time and energy—and even when we provide resources, we’re stingy with what is most important.

In his classic book on public policy, In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government, Charles Murray uses Maslow’s hierarchy to describe the frequent tradeoffs within efforts to help the poor. A haunting question emerges: What if gains in one part of the hierarchy come at the expense of other goals? For example, what if providing material assistance undermines the agency and self-actualization of the indigent? Alternatively, how can welfare policies address both in a positive manner?

Government is also prone to what economists call the “welfare dilemma”—a type of “moral hazard” problem where subsidizing an undesirable state leads to more people in that state. In a word, it is impossible to provide assistance without reducing incentives to work. When you give people money, they’re less likely to work. And if a welfare program has a “benefit reduction rate” (less assistance as you earn more money and need less help), then work is further disincentivized.

Likewise, most subsidies are predicated on not being married. This encourages the formation of single-parent households, with all of the unfortunate statistical outcomes that follow for kids raised in those settings. Finally, note that longer assistance is more likely to breed long-term dependence. Giving more help for more time creates inevitable tradeoffs that we ignore at our peril and the peril of those we try to help.

It’s easy to be critical of government for all of the above. But most of these concepts can also be problematic for charity. Although it would be surprising if government handled this complicated topic well, private efforts can also encourage long-term dependence, foster sloth, and dehumanize the human person. (Corbett and Fikkert have a great book on this within charity and ministry: When Helping Hurts.)

We understand this in other aspects of life. Don’t feed the bears. Think twice before giving your kid a candy bar in the checkout aisle at the grocery store. How much should I help my child with the science project? Don’t choose a coach or teacher who will coddle you. When am I enabling rather than actually helping my friend? But in ministry, missions, and charity, we often overlook the inherent tensions within our efforts to try to love others well.

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible speaks to all of these principles—from negative concerns about government policy to positive principles about effective charity. The New Testament describes principles and examples—in particular, as the Early Church lived out Christian community in what is often described as “socialism”. Even if that’s the right term (likewise, one could consider families a form of socialism), the Christian versions were voluntary and small-scale—in contrast to the immense ethical and practical problems with coercive and large-scale government efforts.

In the Old Testament, the Law is replete with rules and institutions that effectively addressed poverty in Israel. The book of Ruth has the most prominent narrative example—as Boaz subsidizes Ruth’s work in the field and then plays the role of “kinsman-redeemer” in rescuing Ruth and Naomi from poverty and childlessness. The power of the story is underlined when we read that the child of Boaz and Ruth is in the lineage of King David and Jesus Christ.

Elisha and the Widow

There is a less popular story that is arguably more useful in illustrating effective charity: the prophet Elisha helping a widow and her two sons in II Kings 4:1-7. As the narrative opens, the widow of a fellow prophet comes to Elisha, worried that creditors will seize her two sons as “slaves”. The relevant institution in the Law is what we would call “indentured servitude”—a limited period of “slavery” to survive and pay off one’s debts.

Life would be tough enough when her husband was dead and gone, especially in that time and place. But the text doesn’t explain why they were in debt prior to his death. Was it persecution by the hostile king, life circumstances, or a bad character trait? Elisha probably knows from his relationships with the prophets, but he doesn’t seem to care about the cause. Even if the husband and wife could have been more effective stewards, that’s of little importance now.

As such, Elisha asks “how can I help?” First, note that Elisha is not too busy or important to get involved. When you read the account of his life, he was active with kings and even international affairs. But this was no impediment to him embracing everyday ministry opportunities with “the little people”. In the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10), Jesus makes the same point. Among the reasons why the priest and Levite would have been reluctant to get involved, “too busy” was on the list. As per Olasky, the Samaritan exercised (true) compassion by making time for someone in need.

Then, Elisha asks her “what do you have?” Her answer is, in essence, “not much”—only a little bit of olive oil. She actually has much more than that—time, energy, knowledge, skills, and her network of family, friends, and neighbors. Elisha’s prescription will use what she has acknowledged and harness what she has not recognized as resources. Good charity does the same.

His instructions: Get all the jars in the neighborhood and pour your oil into them. The implication is that the oil will be miraculously expanded. Her faithful participation results in miraculous provision—what could be considered the world’s first oil well! From there, Elisha tells her to sell the oil to pay their debts and care for her family. Faith, obedience, and humility. The individual working in community. Honor your commitments and look to the future. Diligent effort using available resources. In sum, the best kind of charity.

From a biblical perspective, the charity is effective in an ultimate sense, because it maximizes glory to a good and great God, instead of the giver. Notice how Elisha tells her to close the door and he removes himself from the location to avoid taking credit for the miracle. Think how this differs with politicians claiming credit for modest success, while ignoring the immense costs of their efforts.

Elisha mitigates the welfare dilemma with a one-time charitable offer. This is not going to be a repeated handout. And the provision would allow her a long-term source of wealth, income, work, and dignity. But it was also limited by the number of jars she could collect and each jar’s capacity. And it was connected to the extent of her faith and humility. (One can imagine scenarios where she would be tempted to avoid asking certain people.)

The charity involved her and her children. It required effort within the blessing. She collected jars, poured the oil, and engaged in selling the oil afterwards. The method did not require coercion or income redistribution. It enhanced the local economy through additional resources—like manna from heaven or what was equivalent to a temporary form of technological advance. It was a blessing to all who participated.

Spiritually, this promoted humility—having to ask for what she didn’t have. But it also promoted human dignity, empowering her along the lines of the material provision she brought to the table. It harnessed both personal responsibility and community involvement. And one can imagine how material assistance would easily extend to the social, the psychological, and the spiritual.

My ministry partner and I have developed discipleship curricula and training for the local church (“Thoroughly Equipped” and “Getting Equipped”). When we work with our African ministry partner, Hope Alive Initiatives, they are always aiming for empowerment and multiplication. What can people do with what they already have? How can they develop their leaders and their laypeople? Whether they start a new school, church, or business, they take steps to multiply leaders and entrepreneurs. It’s tempting to drop resources on poor people in Africa and elsewhere, but will that help as much in the long-run?

In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25), it’s telling that the two servants with more resources are quite effective at stewarding what they’ve been given to invest. They are commended as “good and faithful”; they are blessed with more resources to steward; and they get to join in the master’s joy. But the one-talent servant makes excuses and fails in his stewardship. One lesson is clear: Work diligently with what you’ve been given, rather than focusing on what they don’t have. Likewise, the implications for charity follow closely: Exercise compassion, finding ways to encourage people to work well with what they have been given.

The world’s financial capital will soon have a self-identified socialist mayor. Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s mayoral election campaigning in the vein of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The rise of politicians openly identifying as socialist provides Christians with an opportunity for greater political clarity.

Christians must carefully consider definitions when analyzing the changing landscape of our nation’s politics. This care helps us evaluate what we say and how we say it. Proverbs 15:2 declares, “The tongue of the wise makes knowledge attractive, but the mouth of fools blurts out foolishness” (CSB). Solomon exhorts readers to carefully consider their words. We must avoid blurting out foolishness and falsehood in political discussions or debates.

The writings of Ludwig von Mises foster clear thinking and accurate speech by dividing political and economic systems into three categories: capitalism, socialism, and interventionism. Christians should be able to distinguish between the foundational tenets of each system. Such knowledge enables proper, biblical analysis of each system’s assumptions, assertions, and accomplishments.

Capitalism

The term “capitalism” has a surprising origin. Mises unpacks the history of this word writing that “capitalism” was not termed “by a friend of the system, but by an individual who considered it to be the worst of all historical systems, the greatest evil that had ever befallen mankind. That man was Karl Marx.” Despite this hostile beginning, “capitalism” is an accurate term.

Essentially, “capitalism” means a free market economy. A market system includes the free use of capital in productive enterprises. No central authority guides key industries and private property rights are rigorously protected. Free exchange of goods and services occurs in an open market.

Minimal government intervention characterizes capitalism (the “free” in free market). It restricts state activity to protecting the market through actions such as enforcing contracts and punishing fraud. Socialism, however, accepts a much broader role for the state.

Socialism

Mises defines socialism as a system in which “all the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community.” He further notes that “all other definitions are misleading.” The organized community manifests itself in the state or government.

The DSA’s 2025-2026 platform contains many recommendations for “progressing” toward a socialist system. However, it does not mention controlling all the means of production. The platform calls for policies that fall short of full socialism—Medicare for all, housing for all, etc.

Mises’s definition highlights the importance of clear and precise language. Even the DSA fails to clearly identify itself with socialism as defined historically. Ironically, both the DSA and politicians like Mamdani during his campaign use the term socialism inaccurately. A more precise word to describe their political and economic agenda is “interventionism.”

Interventionism

If socialism means total state control of the economy, then interventionism means partial control. Society still operates by a market economy but with restrictions (at times severe). The state in this system plays a considerable role directing production and consumption. Mises writes that the state acts by “injecting into the workings of the market, orders, commands, and prohibitions, for whose enforcement the power and constraint apparatus stands ready. But these are isolated interventions.”

Many policies that modern socialist politicians embrace are better termed “interventionist.” Mamdani’s policy goals to continue price controls on rent stabilized apartments, raise the minimum wage, or provide “free” bus service are isolated interventions in the economy. They are not full-blown control of productive forces.

However, Mises emphasizes that these policies are harmful. He notes, “Interventionism does not take all freedom from the citizens. But every one of its measures takes away a part of the freedom and narrows the field of activity.” The government in an interventionist system has significantly fewer limitations than in a free market system.

The state assumes the role of market director. It declares what economic activity can and cannot occur. Mises sums up interventionism: “The real meaning of the interventionist principle … amounts to the declaration: Business is free to act as long as what it does complies exactly with the plans and intentions of the government.” Mises saw nefarious and continual growth of government in an interventionist context—to the point of morphing into socialism.

Conclusion

Mises humorously wrote that “the usual terminology of political language is stupid.” He decried misuse of the word “capitalist” to describe a system with significant government intervention (such as exists presently in the United States). Mises valued clear and accurate definitions.

Albeit less comically than Mises, Solomon provided greater wisdom about proper use of language. Proverbs 14:3 asserts that, “The proud speech of a fool brings a rod of discipline, but the lips of the wise protect them.”  Christians follow this admonition, and avoid embarrassment, when they carefully consider their words. Accepting Mises’s threefold division of political life helps us avoid using unhelpful, biased, or downright incorrect terms when communicating. Instead, Mises equips Christians with a solid theoretical foundation to engage in accurate and winsome dialogue on political and economic topics.