[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Libertarian Christian is an extremely difficult balance. It's virtually impossible to be consistent, imho.

"Libertarian Christian" is an extremely difficult balance, because it's not even a balance which should be struck.

We're called to be Christians. Not "Libertarian Christians" -- just Christians. Theonomically-astute Christians may end up identifying with a great many "libertarian" positions, but that is a consequence of applying Christian Ethical Logic to the voting booth -- not a "balance to be struck".

• Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to put a gun to a man's head and steal his money for the benefit of his fellow's education or retirement security. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all Social Security and Public Education -- these things are Theft. What's that? I can't be a "Liberal" anymore, I must be either a "Conservative" or a "Libertarian"? Okay, I'm fine with that -- but regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.
• Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to break into a private household, smash down his doors and threaten to blow the man's head off for consuming an herb (tobacco, hemp, grain alcohol, whatever) the man grew in his private garden. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all substance-usage laws affecting Adults on Private Property. What's that? I can't be a "Conservative" anymore, I must be a "Libertarian"? Okay, I'm fine with that -- but regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.
• Applying a simple test of the Ten Commandments and "What Would Jesus Do?" -- I cannot possibly imagine Jesus Christ advising his apostles to stand by and do NOTHING but pass out gospel tracts while a human baby is being killed, butchered, and ground into potting-mulch in front of their eyes. Ergo, it seems to me that a theonomically-astute Christian must support the ultimate abolition of all legal permission of Abortion, in all cases, everywhere (even "to save the life of the mother" should be the regrettable consequence of necessary ovarian-falopial surgery, not a deliberate act IMHO). What's that? I can't be a "Libertarian" anymore? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn -- regardless of labels, I have an obligation to consistency of Christian Ethical Logic.

There are some (relatively few) issues which are sufficiently logically-difficult that they may not be solved with a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test -- for example, Public Display of a Ten Commandments Monument on State Property (for myself, I do not support taxing an Atheist to pay for such a monument, but I do see accepting a donation of such as being morally-equivalent to the Public permitting a VFW-donated monument to War Veterans on public property, and well within the Public's "collective ownership" of the Public Commons).

However, MOST of the time (I'd guesstimate better than 95%), a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test will supply the theonomically-astute Christian with the Biblically-Correct answer on questions of Public Policy, whether economic or social or whatever. For is it not said:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Do we then imagine that Scripture leaves us without guidance at the Voting Booth? That "democracy" permits us to shelve our Bibles, in favor of our personal desires and prejudices, on Election Day? If so, then Democracy is an Idol, and American Christianity worships at her altar.

There is no need for us to "strike a balance" as Christians between Libertarianism and Christianity, because there is no balance to be struck. We should simply be Christians -- even on Election Day.

I tend to think that if all American Christians -- or even all Church-going American Christians -- were to get serious about Biblical Theonomy, even just so much as to rigorously apply a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test on all questions of Public Policy, it would revolutionize the Party Platform of the GOP. I also tend to think that we shouldn't expect any such change in our lifetimes.

So be it. IMHO, we should simply be Christians -- socially, culturally, and politically. In my case, that roughly translates into checking to see if there is a Libertarian candidate, and then checking his website to see if he is Pro-Life (30-40% of Party Libertarians). If he is not, then I go on to examine the rest of the electoral slate (Republican, Constitution, etc.) But regardless of Party Labels, the important thing (to me, anyway) is, does the Candidate advocate Christian Moral Ethics? Does he oppose Murder and Aggression? Does he oppose Theft and Contract-Breaking? Does he oppose Fraud and False Witness?

In short, I am not a "Libertarian Christian". I am not even, strictly speaking, a "Christian Libertarian" -- at least not if the two philosophical terms are supposed to be balanced (they are NOT balanced; they are not even in the same league).

I prefer to consider myself a "Theonomically-Minded Christian", which at present means that I identify myself in terms of tactical politics with the Pro-Life wing of "Libertarianism", most (but not all) of the time.

However, while the Platform of the Libertarian Party (which is already sufficiently flawed as it is) could change tomorrow, the Christian Moral Ethic changeth not. Am I a "Christian Libertarian"? I am to the extent that a Libertarian candidate endorses the Christian Moral Ethic. But it's purely a one-sided proposition; there's no "balance" with Libertarianism to be struck. Libertarianism must conform (and frequently does -- on Property, Parental-Rights, and Religious-Liberty matters) to Christian Moral Ethics, in order to warrant our interest; but Christian Moral Ethics are under no obligation to conform to Libertarianism.

Thus endeth the Rant.

(With apologies to Xzins for using his post as a platform; it's not that I think he generally disagrees on these points, I just wanted the segue -- and his post provided me one)

[xzins]

Thanks for the rant. It demonstrates the difficulty of any balance.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar flunks the test.

I find the choice in CA to be intriguing. Vote for a bad guy who is a baby killer. Vote for OUR "star" who is a baby killer. Or vote for OUR loser who is a baby saver and theonomically sound in other areas.

Conservatives are told to ignore McClintock in favor of Arnold. Many of them are going that route. To date, I've not heard a single conservative principle espoused by Arnie.