A Christian Defence Of Liberalism
Many Christian leaders in present times seem to be completely opposed to the ideology of classical liberalism. They either favour statist economics with a view to achieving economic equality or they favour conservative social policies with a view to preventing immoral behaviour. Frequently these views are combined, leading them to support a growth of state intervention in both the economy and society.
Why has the Church become so illiberal? I would suggest this is because it has become too interested in politics. Instead of trying to guide moral behaviour the Church now looks to the state to enforce moral conformity. The Church has also become more interested in obtaining Government money for social policies rather than encouraging people to be generous with what they earn.
You may still be asking yourself what is so unchristian about being illiberal. Well, this is because you, like the Church leadership, have forgotten one vital fact: God gave us free will. The implications of this fact are immense and cast a great deal of doubt over the legitimacy of any government action which infringes our freedom.
The state has a monopoly of force in the society it rules and it is right for this to be used in certain ways to restrict liberty. The way in which it is justifiable is primarily in the areas of our lives that concern others as it is as wrong for an individual to restrict somebody else’s freedom as it is for the state to restrict somebody’s freedom. Therefore, freedom does not include a right to harm others.
When our actions which are primarily self-concerning or in which the others affected are voluntarily so, our freedom of action should be preserved. It must be right for the state to allow sin, after all, God did. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but to ban homosexuality on these grounds is clearly wrong. Every individual is accountable to God for his sin, and it will be God who will judge, so why do we need the state to perform this role? Surely it cannot be virtuous to forcibly prevent sin. Prostitution is another sin in which both parties freely consent to do so. If they are prevented from sinning, forcibly, by the state, will this make them more acceptable to God? Will it make the law-makers and enforcers more acceptable?
In economic affairs there has developed the incredible belief that because every man is equal in God’s eyes they should all have equal wealth. This has always seemed a ridiculous notion to me for several very good reasons. Firstly, being wealthy is not as important as spiritual well-being; Communism and Socialism are the most materialistic ideologies. Secondly, liberal economics allow people the freedom to choose their vocation and give wealth the level of priority they choose. Thirdly, economic equality is impossible to achieve and normally leads to totalitarian governments and low living standards.
Charity is a virtue, and to gather enormous wealth whilst poverty still exists is a sin. However, to forcibly take the rich man’s wealth in taxes prevents him from being virtuous and giving money, and instead instills in him a hatred of the poor for whom his earnings have been forcibly taken. Corporate responsibility does not exist as far as God is concerned. When a rich man stands before God and is asked why he did not help the poor he will gain little favour for the reply, “I paid my taxes and the state spent the money like this …”. Equally, the poor man will get little favour when God asks why he did not work and he replies, “I was better off on benefits.”.
The state should not take responsibility from individuals for the conduct of their lives either in the sphere of personal morality or economics. If God had wanted the state to remove individual responsibility he would have denied us free will. God wants us to make the right choice between good and evil, but he does not want us to be forced into doing good by the state, and of course, unfortunately the state frequently forces us to do evil also.
Dictatorships are only too often run for the interests of the dictator which will always include doing self-interested things. Democracies allow groups of interests represented by parties to compete for power, but they still do many self-interested things. The only legitimate Government must be a minimal one, which limits itself to preventing any individuals using force to coerce others. There is also an argument for a minimal welfare provision so that everyone has necessities. Beyond that, the individuals in the society should be choose good or evil freely and be responsible for their own actions.
The Church should concentrate on guiding individuals towards sinlessness, and persuade the state to allow us to decide our own lives, exercising the free will God has given us. Then individuals will be responsible for their own actions, and not forced into a certain way of behaving by the state. The Church should concern itself with saving every individual soul and forget about corporate measure to make the whole of society more virtuous through the Government by force.
Only in a climate of liberalism and freedom can Christianity really flourish. That is why the growth of Western Government has been matched by the declinne of Christianity in the West and the most statist Governments both fascist and Communist have always supressed Christianity. Only in societies where Government is limited, has Christianity been strong. These facts churches and Christians alike should remember when they lobby for more government and less liberty.