One of the biggest prizes in the game of politics is the Evangelical vote. It was a big factor in the 2016 Presidential race that helped get Trump into the White House. Biden and the Democrats are, somewhat reluctantly, clawing out some support therein
David, while I appreciate the point you are trying to make, and I agree with several of your assertions, I disagree strongly with some of what you have written here, the primary of which is your premise: “There is a prevalent, unwritten notion among His people that a major purpose of government is to be God’s agent here on Earth: to punish sin, to promote His will, and to guide us all into Heaven.” I know of no Evangelicals (save the fringe, unscriptural NAR adherents) who believe any such thing. While many do preach submission to government based on Romans 13 (which you cite *in part*), Evangelicals do not seek a Theocracy nor do they expect government to lead us to heaven.
Side note: Romans 13 *does* actually promote the idea that government is God’s agent to punish evil and “praise” good - “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God...Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing” (Rom. 1-6, abridged).
That said, I have never heard *anyone* insist or even insinuate that “every Biblical sin must have a parallel law.”
As for judging, please don’t be one of those people who so mangles Mt. 7:1. In context, Jesus is telling the crowd to not judge *hypocritically*. Look at that verse with the rest of what follows: ““Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Mt. 7:1-5). This is also confirmed by Jesus in John 7, where He tells the crowds, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). We are to judge, but to judge rightly and righteously avoiding hypocrisy.
Regarding faith and trust in only Jesus, you are spot on there brother!
Help the poor:
Again, I don’t know of any Evangelicals (at least, actual believers) who believe government should be the one providing for the poor, nor do I know anyone who uses such as an excuse to not do so themselves. I rant quite frequently about how individuals, religious organizations, and charities are responsible for these things - *not* government. Government has *no* business performing charitable works.
Abortion:
In this, I agree, too many Christians are one-issue voters. The problem is, too many people in general are *uninformed* voters. Media does nothing to help this, nor do most political campaigns which tend to be little more than “vote for me or you’ll be stuck with that other evil moron.” Since you do, however, as I do, believe government is there to protect our rights, which includes our right to life, and government is there to punish murder (which you admit abortion is), then it should be government’s business. Seeing how pro-abortionists are usually also pro-gun control, because “guns kill children” (cognitive dissonance much? - actually, there are multiple times more abortions each year than child deaths related to guns), it ranks up there for me. It is a matter of, again, the purpose of government - protecting our rights. We have a right to life. We have a right to keep and bear arms. These are explicitly delineated in our founding documents. Those who are pro-infanticide typically are actually pro-big government, because they prefer government *trample* certain rights while manufacturing others out of whole cloth. So, while we shouldn’t be one-issue voters, I believe abortion is more important than you propose.
And you’re right - God warned the Israelites what would happen if they had a king, and it came to pass.
Trump:
Let me state that I did not, in 2016, vote for Trump (I wrote in Darrell Castle, candidate for the Constitution Party). You are right - he is bombastic and boorish, but he promised something his opponent and a long line of his predecessors had not - to put America first. Did he succeed? In some things, and in others not. Many, however, voted for him simply because he wasn’t the murderous, disgusting, lying communist hag against whom he was running. You’re right - being a good Christian does not make one good for government. Again, there are too many who are completely ignorant of what our founding documents actually say. With regard to “societal problems,” many you named in the list of “pressing issues that are really important” are not the business of government, especially not the federal government.
Government is not God:
“Other than defending their right to worship without government interference, religious groups need to stay out of politics.” Again, with this, I disagree, as I believe would the founding fathers. No, they didn’t want the church running the country, but they wholly expected the people, and those elected, to be religious. I have written about this on more than one occasion - here are just two examples: https://curetsky.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-jefferson , https://curetsky.substack.com/p/can-religion-truly-be-kept-out-of . The founding fathers were influenced by their faith, and they expected those who followed would be as well. Regardless, yYour title for this section is wholly accurate. It is not God, it is not intended to be God, and it should not be viewed as God. I do not know Evangelicals, however, who make government their God. I know a great number on the left do, but I don’t equate the left with Evangelicals, and those who claim to be Evangelical *and* leftist, I question their Christianity. Not saying either that Christian = Right nor that Right = Christian - in many ways, Christians should lean more libertarian (as you assert). The problem, and I think what led you astray with this article, is when government starts to protect, and even give preferential treatment to, that which is evil (or “sin”). When government protects the alleged right to kill a baby instead of protecting it, government is failing its duty. When government elevates homosexuality as a protected class, it is, in a sense, endorsing a religion, encouraging sin, and violating others’ first amendment right to exercise their religion freely.
I apologize for the length of this response. I love The Roots of Liberty and most of what you guys write, but I think (aside from your conclusion that we should lean libertarian - I would say “conservative libertarian” - or, perhaps simply “constitutional originalist/conservative”) you ran down the wrong track on this one. My $0.02 - take it for what it’s worth. Thank you David.
David, while I appreciate the point you are trying to make, and I agree with several of your assertions, I disagree strongly with some of what you have written here, the primary of which is your premise: “There is a prevalent, unwritten notion among His people that a major purpose of government is to be God’s agent here on Earth: to punish sin, to promote His will, and to guide us all into Heaven.” I know of no Evangelicals (save the fringe, unscriptural NAR adherents) who believe any such thing. While many do preach submission to government based on Romans 13 (which you cite *in part*), Evangelicals do not seek a Theocracy nor do they expect government to lead us to heaven.
Side note: Romans 13 *does* actually promote the idea that government is God’s agent to punish evil and “praise” good - “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God...Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing” (Rom. 1-6, abridged).
That said, I have never heard *anyone* insist or even insinuate that “every Biblical sin must have a parallel law.”
As for judging, please don’t be one of those people who so mangles Mt. 7:1. In context, Jesus is telling the crowd to not judge *hypocritically*. Look at that verse with the rest of what follows: ““Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Mt. 7:1-5). This is also confirmed by Jesus in John 7, where He tells the crowds, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn. 7:24). We are to judge, but to judge rightly and righteously avoiding hypocrisy.
Regarding faith and trust in only Jesus, you are spot on there brother!
Help the poor:
Again, I don’t know of any Evangelicals (at least, actual believers) who believe government should be the one providing for the poor, nor do I know anyone who uses such as an excuse to not do so themselves. I rant quite frequently about how individuals, religious organizations, and charities are responsible for these things - *not* government. Government has *no* business performing charitable works.
Abortion:
In this, I agree, too many Christians are one-issue voters. The problem is, too many people in general are *uninformed* voters. Media does nothing to help this, nor do most political campaigns which tend to be little more than “vote for me or you’ll be stuck with that other evil moron.” Since you do, however, as I do, believe government is there to protect our rights, which includes our right to life, and government is there to punish murder (which you admit abortion is), then it should be government’s business. Seeing how pro-abortionists are usually also pro-gun control, because “guns kill children” (cognitive dissonance much? - actually, there are multiple times more abortions each year than child deaths related to guns), it ranks up there for me. It is a matter of, again, the purpose of government - protecting our rights. We have a right to life. We have a right to keep and bear arms. These are explicitly delineated in our founding documents. Those who are pro-infanticide typically are actually pro-big government, because they prefer government *trample* certain rights while manufacturing others out of whole cloth. So, while we shouldn’t be one-issue voters, I believe abortion is more important than you propose.
And you’re right - God warned the Israelites what would happen if they had a king, and it came to pass.
Trump:
Let me state that I did not, in 2016, vote for Trump (I wrote in Darrell Castle, candidate for the Constitution Party). You are right - he is bombastic and boorish, but he promised something his opponent and a long line of his predecessors had not - to put America first. Did he succeed? In some things, and in others not. Many, however, voted for him simply because he wasn’t the murderous, disgusting, lying communist hag against whom he was running. You’re right - being a good Christian does not make one good for government. Again, there are too many who are completely ignorant of what our founding documents actually say. With regard to “societal problems,” many you named in the list of “pressing issues that are really important” are not the business of government, especially not the federal government.
Government is not God:
“Other than defending their right to worship without government interference, religious groups need to stay out of politics.” Again, with this, I disagree, as I believe would the founding fathers. No, they didn’t want the church running the country, but they wholly expected the people, and those elected, to be religious. I have written about this on more than one occasion - here are just two examples: https://curetsky.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-jefferson , https://curetsky.substack.com/p/can-religion-truly-be-kept-out-of . The founding fathers were influenced by their faith, and they expected those who followed would be as well. Regardless, yYour title for this section is wholly accurate. It is not God, it is not intended to be God, and it should not be viewed as God. I do not know Evangelicals, however, who make government their God. I know a great number on the left do, but I don’t equate the left with Evangelicals, and those who claim to be Evangelical *and* leftist, I question their Christianity. Not saying either that Christian = Right nor that Right = Christian - in many ways, Christians should lean more libertarian (as you assert). The problem, and I think what led you astray with this article, is when government starts to protect, and even give preferential treatment to, that which is evil (or “sin”). When government protects the alleged right to kill a baby instead of protecting it, government is failing its duty. When government elevates homosexuality as a protected class, it is, in a sense, endorsing a religion, encouraging sin, and violating others’ first amendment right to exercise their religion freely.
I apologize for the length of this response. I love The Roots of Liberty and most of what you guys write, but I think (aside from your conclusion that we should lean libertarian - I would say “conservative libertarian” - or, perhaps simply “constitutional originalist/conservative”) you ran down the wrong track on this one. My $0.02 - take it for what it’s worth. Thank you David.