Let me be clear. While I believe that Scripture teaches that Statecraft is a good, God-ordained thing (and not just a result of the Fall), my Kuyperian Worldview also suggests that government must be limited. As Paul Marshall writes in God and the Constitution: Christianity and American Politics (you really SHOULD buy this and read it!),

“Governments are to do justice, but it is not their job to try to correct and control every relationship; after all, everyone is also supposed to do justice. Hence, a key question is when governments should, and should not, use their authority and power. Governments do not have the authority to do anything that they might feel like. It is vital that they be kept in their proper place since, in the Scriptures as elsewhere, there is a repeated refrain concerning the dangers of over-powerful and overreaching government authority.” (p. 59)

“Responsibility and authority are not channeled through any single institution. Neither the Emperor, nor an apostle, nor a parent, nor a husband or wife can claim to be the only or the ultimate authority. Each and all have the responsibility, and therefore the authority that goes with it, to do a particular task within the world. This diversity of responsibility reemphasizes that we should not think of politics as everything, or even the most important thing. We must no make it the center of life. It has only a particular responsibility for particular things, and it should not go beyond those bounds. We can delineate part of government’s role simply by realizing that there are other authorities such as churches, parents, or individuals, that have an authority, a right, not derived from government, and are therefore not disposable at government fiat. The authority of government ends where the authorities of others begin.” (p. 60)

That “modicum” of grounding is not, it seems to me, difficult to provide. We believe, as Christians (and as conservatives), in basic human rights, basic human freedoms, a theme which seems to me (and to you, I’m sure) to be amply illustrated in Scripture. Unjust rulers are consistently excoriated in Scripture because they ill-treat people and subvert justice. Egyptian bondage is portrayed as a bad thing, something from which God went to great lengths to free His people. Speaking of Christians, it’s for freedom that Christ set us free, Paul says. Going back as far as creation, Adam was given freedom by God to do anything he darn well pleased, except for that pesky tree thing.

The point is that it seems clear to me Scripturally that freedom is the preferred/intended state of man. Yes, there is a role for civil government, as libertarians would all agree; Paul indicates that the government exists to punish evildoers (Romans 13), a position entirely consistent with libertarianism. But the Biblical underpinnings of a libertarian approach–which seeks to maximize freedom, of course–would be the very same as that of the conservative approach in this respect: the Bible would support a significant level of freedom for the individual. We have no argument on that point; we really are discussing the extent to which we take that Biblical viewpoint, that’s all.

And that’s where I think a good bit of pragmatism comes in. Contemporary conservatives tend to differ with liberals, on so many issues, only by a matter of degree. I illustrate:

It’s not whether Social Security is a good or bad thing; it’s how big a bite the government takes.

It’s not whether it’s the role of the government to educate children; it’s how much money we spend, how much freedom we give to parents who believe it’s their role instead of the government’s, etc.

It’s not the concept of eminent domain; it’s the “abuse” of eminent domain (whatever that means, and for what it’s worth, even saying this, I’m not entirely comfortable with the libertarian position).

It’s not welfare-type programs; it’s how they are administered.

It’s not the income tax and the IRS; it’s the chunk that’s taken.

I could go on, but the point for me is this: I first began to question a lot of my conservative approach 14 years ago, on the way to a PromiseKeepers conference, when one of the guys in the car (hint: he plays in our Armchair Football League) hit me with the libertarian approach, and after arguing several issues with him, I realized this: I was consistently, on every point, defending big government. That made me squirm, big-time, and helped me realize that on most issues, what I say now is true: the difference between today’s “conservatives” and today’s “liberals” is, for the most part though not in every way, a matter of degree.

Hash that one over for a bit, and maybe you’ll see what I mean…that’s what I did, and that’s what got me thinking.

And I suppose what I’m attempting to argue is that a Christian worldview ought to have at least a modicum of grounding in the wisdom of God. If libertarianism has that then I’d sure like to hear it.

Seriously, “I’m may be wrong but conservatives are more wrong” misstates my argument. I believe I’m right on this–but then again, doesn’t everybody? What I’m searching for is “compelling consistency”, the kind of Christian-worldview-derived ethic as applied to government whereby we can present a compelling case to others due to a consistent application of Biblical principle. Now…I do think that we’re in a state of “always seeking, never arriving” with regard to this area, in part because there are some policy initiatives/laws that are in opposition to each other, both trying to achieve the same end, and which we should choose between on the basis of pragmatics, for lack of a better term.

Case in point: the minimum wage. I believe that its very existence harms the poor, that the minimum wage ought to be $0.00. I believe that the economic facts bear out that belief. I don’t believe, though, that a person who believes it ought to be $5.75, or $7.00, or $38.00/hour, is wrong in that belief, but merely that those viewpoints are, to one degree or another, harmful. I believe that this is the case with a lot of things; frankly, the issue of the legalization of marijuana falls under this category (just like alcohol, cigarettes, and the most addicting and dangerous drug of them all, television–and by the way, I’m not kidding about that).

I suppose it could be argued…yep, I’ll argue it!…that what I’m trying to do is to get people who try to hold to a Christian worldview to do just what you suggested: think! Albeit, I’m doing it in a bit of a piecemeal kind of way, instead of going back to the basics, the start, but I’d be game for that, and yet, because as I’ve said above, when it comes to certain specifics, the argument will head toward pragmatics, I’m not sure we’ll ever achieve consensus. But at the very least, as iron sharpens iron, we ought to be willing to discuss these issues and learn from each other. You’ve learned some from me through the years, Don, and I from you, and from where I sit, that’s a good thing.

Now pass the bong.

Perhaps I have over stated my case. My point is that without sin there would be no need for rule of law, that negative role of government, as you put it, for restraining evil. No judges, no police, no armies, no navies, no regulatory agencies, no speed limits, no IRS…you get the picture. So the question still stands. Since the negative role of government does exist by the sovereign ordinance of God, what civil laws do you think would be in keeping with God’s holy standard of law and order?