Any who dare to question the legitimacy of the state must be ready to endure ridicule. Libertarian Christians, however, face what amounts to excommunication as well. Of course, to suggest anti-statist sentiments as a Christian will likely not literally result in one’s forcible expulsion from the church. But that is not to say that Christian libertarians are treated well. We are constantly confronted by our brothers and sisters, who tell us, “I just can’t see how you can support drugs and gay marriage as a Christian.” The implication, politely blunted by the indirect rhetoric, is that if you are a Christian, you must support the use of the state to prevent substance abuse and homosexuality – and if you don’t support the state in such a capacity, you’re not actually a believer.
The argument in fact goes the other way. If one is a Christian (and by Christian, I mean one who takes the Bible to be inerrant) then there is certainly room for debate about the ethics of many practices. There is no room for debate about the state punishing victimless crimes. It is explicitly, Biblically wrong to endorse the state’s enforcement of morality.
What did Jesus do?
Consider this excerpt from John 8:
Early in the morning [Jesus] came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” (John 8:2-11, ESV)
The woman has committed what might be described as a victimless crime. Both Old and New Testament condemn adultery in explicit language, the most notable instance of which is the Seventh Commandment. It is certainly a sin. It is, however, a sin that has no victim other than the perpetrators.
The Pharisees – those smug, condescending, holier-than-thou churchgoers of the first century – want to stone the adulteress. She has sinned; she must die. Jesus, instead of condemning the adulteress, condemns her persecutors. When the Pharisees ask what ought to be done to her, Jesus responds: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” The smugness of the Pharisees is gone. They leave, one by one. They are not without sin; therefore, they cannot throw a stone.
Judge not, lest you be judged
Jesus’ forgiveness is obviously not isolated to this singular instance. In the most cogent and explicit passage of Jesus’ teachings, the Sermon on the Mount, he commands his followers, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see 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,’ when there is the log 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.” (Matthew 7:1-5, ESV)
It is not the place of the Christian to judge the hearts and minds of others; such judgment is God’s prerogative alone. Given this, Jesus’ reaction to the adulterous woman should be entirely predictable to us. It is obviously immoral to use force and coercion to punish the sinful, when we are forbidden from classifying our fellow humans as sinful until we’ve “removed the log” from our own eyes.
And what if the log is removed? What if we see clearly to extract the specks from our neighbors’ eyes? Presumably, that is exactly what Jesus has modeled for us. There is no log in the eye of the Son of God, yet even he abstains from exacting retribution for the victimless crime. He protects the sinner – then tells her, “Go, and sin no more.”
But what about the victims of substance abuse?
I was in the midst of a discussion on this very subject when my fellow interlocutor pointed out that substance abuse was a serious problem in high schools; that we must think of the kids; and we must take steps to protect them. I entirely concur. We should try to save them from themselves so that they may go and sin no more. In what way will fining and imprisoning them accomplish this end? It seems far-fetched to suggest that the force of law will change behaviors that are inherently self-destructive, and that presently defy the law anyway. Instead, prison and fines impoverish people even more – the consequences for victimless crime simply make worse the lives of the perpetrators.
Another point often raised is that morality is entirely different for the government than the individual. I am perplexed that such an absurdity can be so often repeated. Let us first ask, “How does the government operate?” The answer of course, depends upon the governing system. If the system is largely autocratic, then when the government cracks down on drug crimes and the like, the dictator is not casting the first stone himself – he is simply paying other people to do thusly. It’s hard to see how hiring henchmen might absolve the ruler from moral responsibility.
Representative democracies just remove the sinful agent a step further from the sin itself. We vote on people who are put into office, then those people who are put into office hire policemen, who metaphorically stone adulteresses – arrest cocaine addicts, marijuana farmers, drunk teenagers, etc. The fact that we are shoving the direct causality of the sin into the hands of others does not absolve us from guilt – not so long as we give our support to representatives who will punish victimless crimes.
Legalize all victimless crimes
The last point I hear in response to my argument is that it is just too extreme: “That means all drugs should be legalized! Gay marriage! Prostitution! l!” Yes, yes, and yes. Legalize everything that is a voluntary action or a voluntary exchange of goods and services. Criminalizing these actions doesn’t condemn the action; it condemns the person and denies them a chance at repentance – denies them the opportunity to “go and sin no more.” We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is not loving to let someone go on living in sin; neither is it loving to exercise coercive force against them, to dissuade them from their sin.
Notice that I have made no comment on what is or is not sinful. Gay marriage and marijuana use are issues, for example, that the church today is undecided on. While I certainly have my opinions on these matters, this is neither the time nor place to share them. Instead, what I hope to have demonstrated is that the Christian can condemn those actions that he perceives as sinful, and argue cogently that, say, substance abuse, defies God’s law, without maintaining that violence should be exercised against the sinner.
Indeed, if we ought to coerce people into holiness, then why stop at drugs and prostitution? Why not, even if we don’t stone her, arrest the adulteress, or the homosexual, or the transgender? (Please note, again, that I am not at present taking a moral stance on any of these issues.) Why not imprison girls who are pregnant out of wedlock, or perhaps the illegitimate fathers? Why not detain people who smoke? Why not crack down on drunkenness, and revive prohibition? Why not fine people for swearing? Why not ban films that have violence or sexual innuendo?
The answer is more than, “The force of law just doesn’t work.” For the Christian, the force of law is unbiblical to use in circumstances of victimless crime. To arrest the sinner, just for sinning, is to take up and cast the first stone.