Christendom, Classical Liberalism, and the Future
There is a lively debate within Reformed circles about the value of classical liberalism (CL). Not to be confused with modern liberalism (sometimes called progressivism, wokeism, leftism, etc.), CL falls on the conservative side of the current American political spectrum. In the face of our current societal issues, some are dissatisfied with CL and others even view it as unbiblical and problematic. These people are searching for an alternative political structure. To turn the tide of cultural rot, it is argued, we need to cast out CL and usher in some other form of political organization.
Ironically, such groups have unwittingly come alongside the ranks of critical theorists who also desire to replace CL. For critical theorists, they desire to establish a new form of communism. For the dissatisfied Reformed? I am not so sure exactly what they want. They assert a desire for the state to be “more Christianized,” just as I do. Can we expect to renew Christendom without CL? I don’t believe so.
What is classical liberalism? Is it biblical or is it merely the byproduct of the failed Enlightenment project? If Christians want to make the government more Christian (and we should), then what we will end up with will look an awful lot like CL.
The Origins of Classical Liberalism
I fear that much of the rejection of CL within the Reformed camp comes from two fundamental misunderstandings. First, some believe that our political problems originated from CL. What these individuals fail to recognize is our current problems come from the influence of cultural Marxism and its war on the West over the last 50-70 years. In short, what we have today is not CL but a perversion of it. Our system is a chimera of CL and cultural Marxism. The problem is not CL, but the corruption of it. For example, the leftist distortion of the separation of church and state does not adequately reflect the views of CL. Traditionally, Christendom did not seek to exile God from the state. Rather, CL sees the state and the church as two distinct spheres of authority that should work in mutually reinforcing ways. Importantly, for CL God is necessary to both spheres.
The second misunderstanding is that some mistakenly believe that CL is the result of the Enlightenment instead of the Protestant Reformation. Through revisionist history, the Christian roots of our political heritage have been erased. Many Americans, and many Christians, think our founding was more secular than Christian. This is a result of secularist retelling of history. For example, John Locke is considered a foundational thinker for both CL and America’s founding. Consider what secular historian Donald Lutz says of Locke, “In temporal terms, it makes more sense to call Locke an American than it does to call America Lockean.”[1] This is a crucial point. In history, the ideas that made Locke famous predated him and were found most prominently in America. Locke’s political thinking is fundamentally American. Yet, where did these Americans get their political views that could come to be known as CL? Lutz is helpful again:
The American constitutional tradition derives in much of its form and content from the Judeo-Christian tradition as interpreted by the radical Protestant sects to which belonged so many of the original European settlers in British North America.[2]
The American government, in its origins, comes from “radical Protestant sects” and their understanding of Scripture. American political thinking, and much of CL, is distinctly Protestant. Of course, as it did in general, the Enlightenment’s political thought borrowed from and perverted the Christianity of its time. The Enlightenment is a fundamentally “Christian” heresy. It assumes the Christian worldview and then seeks to replace it with a lesser worldview. Nonetheless, CL has been fundamentally shaped by a Christian, and Protestant understanding of reality, God, morality, and the state. To be a Protestant politically moves you inevitably toward the principles of CL.
What Is Classical Liberalism?
What are the defining beliefs of classical liberalism? Since some want to replace it with an alternative, we must understand exactly what CL is. Below are six foundational beliefs of CL. We must ask, “Which one of these principles should be replaced, and with what?”
First, CL is rooted in the idea of individual rights. It asserts that the rights of the individual are absolute and cannot be sacrificed for the supposed good of the community. Conversely, communism demands the sacrifice of the individual for the “common good.” The ironic thing is, that ignoring an individual’s rights is objectively terrible for the group. Yes, individual, inalienable rights are actually the best policy for everyone and society as a whole.
Second, for CL the chief political virtue is liberty from the state. CL does not view the state as a potential savior, but that it has the potential to become a tyrant. In short, CL seeks to spread out power and it trusts that individuals can generally make better for themselves than bureaucrats. In CL, the state’s main job is to secure the rights and liberties of its people.
Third, CL affirms the rule of law. Every individual is equal under the law whether he be a king, president, governor, or mayor. The law is the highest authority in the land. Thus, all citizens are equal in legal standing and all are equal in their rights. The rule of law led to the idea of modern constitutionalism, and it is why elected officials swear to uphold and defend the highest law in the land.
Fourth, CL believes in free markets based on the idea of personal property rights. Individuals, not the state, know financially what is best for them. Moreover, they have inalienable rights over their property. Everything does not belong to the state but to individuals. Of course, the state has the right to receive taxes to provide its just services.
Fifth, CL affirms the necessity of the consent of the governed in the formation and function of the state. CL views the state as instituted by men who covenant together for certain purposes. Rulers rule with a set of obligations to their people, and the people in turn owe a level of loyalty to their government. Thus, CL has led to various forms of representative governments. The government is formed by the people and they are to have a say in how it functions.
Sixth, at its core CL stresses a fundamentally limited view of the state. With its chief virtue being personal liberty and its belief in inalienable rights, the state is hemmed into a narrow sphere of authority. The state is not God and is not a savior. Rather it is a servant with a limited, specific role in a healthy society. That role is to secure the rights of its people by punishing evildoers.
Which of these core tenets should be cast out? What Christian in his right mind would want to exile individual rights, political liberty, the rule of law, free markets, consent of the governed, and limited government? What sane person would replace CL with monarchial absolutism, communism, or other forms of abject despotism? If you have problems with any of these tenets, then I believe you should be kept as far from the levers of power as possible.
The Christian Roots of Classical Liberalism
Classical liberalism makes practical sense, but is it biblical? Some Christians seem to want to be free of CL because they view it as an obstacle to Christianizing the state. I believe such thinking is shortsighted at best because CL reflects the best Christian political thought the world has seen. CL reflects a fundamentally biblical view of the state. Considers the biblical and theological roots of the six above principles.
First, as historian Tom Holland points out, the idea of individual rights comes from Genesis 1 and not the Enlightenment.[3] The notion of equal human rights was unthinkable in the ancient world, but Christianity asserts that God created all men equal in his image. For this reason, individual rights are a persistent theme in Christian political thought. Holland points to their development from medieval canon lawyers, which predate the Enlightenment by centuries. In short, one of Christianity’s greatest political contributions is the spread of the idea of universal human rights.[4]
Second, Christianity also affirms personal liberty as a great political virtue. Likewise, this idea stems from Genesis 1 and the idea of equal rights. No man possesses inherent authority over other men. We all equally bear his image. Man was created in a state of political liberty. All human authority, as Abraham Kuyper reminds us, is delegated and derived from God.[5] This limits all earthly authority. In short, no one has a right to dictate to others how they must live apart from God granting them that authority. Thus, man was created free.
Third, many today take the idea of the rule of law for granted. Yet, this is a distinctly Christian and even Protestant idea. Scottish and Presbyterian minister Samual Rutherford shook the world with his book Lex Rex which asserts the Law is King instead of the King being the law. In short, the King is under the law. The law is the highest authority in the state. This law comes from God through nature and Scripture. Rutherford uses texts like Deuteronomy 17 to make this fundamental point—the law is higher than rulers. Being a “nation of laws” and the idea that “no one is above the law” is yet another Christian contribution to political thought.
Fourth, contrary to communism, the Bible asserts the right of individuals to their own property. Again, Genesis 1–2 is pivotal to this idea. God creates Adam and places him in the Garden to work. Adam is to eat the fruit of his own labor because, on a human level, it is his. Moreover, by forbidding theft in places like the Ten Commandments, God establishes the right to private property. Your neighbor has no right over what is yours. Again, CL affirms a biblical ideal.
Fifth, the Bible also teaches the consent of the governed in the forming of a state. In the Bible, when God chooses a king, or the people replace a king, these kings do not assume authority until they covenant together with the people. (1 Sam. 8–11; 2 Sam. 5; 2 Chron. 23). The people offer a level of consent. Like with all things, God sovereignly causes a King to rise to power, yet in the outworking of history it comes through earthly means. The state is a human institution (1 Pet. 2:13), and at its formation, the governed are to grant a level of consent. The idea of political covenanting is seen through things like the Mayflower Compact to modern-day constitutionalism. In essence, a constitution is a political covenant between the state and the people. Here CL displays inspiration from the example of Scripture.
Sixth, the idea of limited government springs forth from denying the state the role of God. He alone is sovereign over all of life. The state is not divine, but is rather God’s servant (Rom. 13:4). Thus, the state has a right to some things and not other things. Jesus makes this clear when answering the question about paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:15–22).
If we want to make the state more biblical, then it will end up looking a lot like CL. To Christianize the state would mean returning to these foundations. Of course, this does not mean that CL got everything right. Semper reformanda applies even to the state. Nonetheless, those calling for an end to CL are dangerously ignorant and naïve.
Rebuild Christendom
I understand the angst many of my Reformed brothers feel about the political realities of our nation. Leftism has done untold damage to our republic over these last decades. They want the problems fixed overnight. I get it. Yet, it is these very obstacles and checks and balances of a representative republic that prevented worse damage from being done to our nation during this period. Other forms of government lend themselves to worse swings of policies. As Winston Churchill quipped:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
CL is not perfect, but it reflects the realities of life in a fallen world. What is needed is a return to first principles and a political renewal and Reformation. This will come when we apply the principles of Scripture to the state, and thus, we will “Christianize” the state once again. Such a process will lead to more human flourishing for Christians and non-Christians alike. I am all for rebuilding Christendom, and to do so will require the very principles found at the heart of classical liberalism.
Pastor Levi Secord
Christ Bible Church
[1] Donald S. Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1988), 11.
[2] Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, 7 (emphasis added).
[3] Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019), 400.
[4] Ibid., 401–402.
[5] Abraham Kuyper, “Calvinism: Source and Stronghold of Our Constitutional Liberties,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans:, 1998), 279–322.
