The Tyranny of Equality

Part 6: A Libertarian Christian's Perspective

When I started this series of essays I wondered if I should identify myself as a Christian Libertarian or as a Libertarian Christian.  I obviously choose the later.  I did so because as I understand grammar (which is more intuitively than by its rules) having the “Libertarian” precede “Christian” it acts as a modifier placing a specific context to my Christianity. Christianity transcends all contexts; yet because the Christian is in the world there is always a context in which he finds himself.  I am blessed to have lived my life in the context of American religious freedom.  I have always been a Christian, but I have not always been a libertarian.  My libertarianism is more the product of philosophical reflection and pragmatism, and not the Christian idealism of my youth.

There is a place in our lives for laws, rules, and regulations.  But man was not made for the Law.  Laws are made for man—to guide and direct him towards that which is Good, True, and Beautiful, and to instruct him in the path of Discipline, Virtue, and ultimately Freedom.  This pedagogy of the Law works best in the context of Liberty.  In Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II wrote, “There can be no morality without Freedom.”  Slavish commitment to the Law is not morality.  Thus, the Law, as much as possible, should leave room for the person to choose the Good and in so doing become a moral being.  For the philosophers of Athens, the moral life is man’s raison d'etre, and the goal and source of happiness.  This “room” for this moral activity is the sphere of Personal Liberty and Responsibility. Hence, I would add to the Pope's axiom, "There can be no morality without Freedom and no growth and development of virtue outside the crucible of Liberty."

When the Law is no longer directed towards freedom and the moral life of the individual, but for the establishment of a collective “end” then the Common Good has lost it authenticity and authority because it no longer recognizes the dignity of the individual person. 

Let’s face it.  Christians and Progressive both want the same thing:  a morally righteous society.  Christians want one centered on Judeo-Christian values and Progressives want a righteous society centered on the Progressive values of particular equality.  Both have used the levers of government and social “shaming” to achieve their goals.  In the past sixty years the Progressives have enforced their moral code (as evidence by the growth of the Federal Register and political correctness) with a fervor and efficiency that traditionalist could have only dreamed of.  In the end, neither will achieve their goal. 

Christians should not employ the power of government believing that they are building the Kingdom of God.  The New Jerusalem comes down from above.  It is the work of God.  Our work is, as John the Apostle wrote, to be Him in this earth: “As He is so are we in this world.”  We are to be Christ in the world, shouldering our own pack so that we can carry the burdens of others.  In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.  Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,  I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?  And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’  And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’  Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’” 

Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, didn’t we support governmental institutions through our voting and taxes, and these institutions provided social services that fed the hungry and gave drink to the thirsty, they clothed the naked, and provided health services to the sick, and visited prisoners….

Okay, I re-wrote that last bit.  My point is that compassion to which Christians, indeed all people are called, cannot be mediated through vast impersonal bureaucracies. The word “compassion” means “to suffer with” and that can only happen through a direct communication of persons.  It is the mutual humbling of both the giver and the receiver in an equal exchange of respect, love, and gratitude.  This exchange produces an opportunity for transfiguration of both parties.  This is one of the most efficacious means by which we become as He is in this world and for fulfilling the mystery of completing what is lacking in the suffering of Christ (Col 1:24).

It should not be construed from the above that I oppose social safety nets.  I do not.  I do believe that private charities have a better record of lifting people out of poverty and freeing people of destructive lifestyles than the programs administered by governmental agencies.  Private charities promote filial connections between those providing goods and services and those who receive them and thereby promote and strengthens communities.  Might not the resentment and distrust that we see in our communities be at least in part due to the intervention of a “vast and impersonal bureaucracies” because they do the work that private citizens should do?  Are these bureaucracies denying opportunities for the citizen to grow and develop in the virtue of compassion?  Have they not made us complacent since it is so easy to rely on the state to do the work of citizens: “I pay my taxes, let the government deal with those in need.”

The above is not the only way in which an expansive Progressive government can hinder the moral development of its citizenry.  Since skepticism and relativism have abolished the Good (in the universal sense) then the only “good” that is left is the Particular Good which is defined by positive (in the sense that they exist by convention) laws, rules, and regulation.  The Particular Good then, is the only Good that we must follow. When the laws, rules, and regulations become synonymous with the Good, then that which is not illegal must not be wrong.  For those who subscribe to the view, Personal Liberty becomes the sphere of moral relativism where one might hear, “Well, I wouldn’t do it myself, but it’s not my place to tell others what to do,” or “Who are you to judge me?”  But this sphere of Personal Liberty is also shared with those who hold to the Judeo-Christian tradition with its normative moral codes.  It is in the sphere of Personal Liberty that most of the conflict now arises between the two competing worldviews of Progressivism and Judeo-Christian values.  The weapons employed in this conflict are Political Correctness and Righteous Indignation, respectively.  Progressive see no legitimate bases for the complaints of their opponents other than intolerance and hate.  Traditionalists fear the advance of the “godless” that will lead to another codification of material and social equality into the Common Good concomitantly limiting of Personal Liberty, specifically in the domain of Religious Freedom.