Subscribe now

It is true that the Israelites had kings, but do not forget that God brought them out of Egypt so that he alone could be their king. Their request for a human king as recorded in 1 Samuel 8 is granted, but not without a stern and prescient warning for what the government they asked for would ultimately do to them:

“These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots… He will take your daughters… He will take the best of your fields and vineyards… and you shall be his slaves. And on that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you on that day” (1 Sam 8:11–18).

This is an incredible statement! God says that because they are choosing a human king rather than God as their king, they will be set upon by the human government they have chosen. Their sons will be sent to war (conscription), the human king will take their land and possessions (taxation), and they will literally be made to be his slaves.

So much for the supposed virtue of the democratic process! Though God worked through Israelite kings to accomplish his ultimate plan, that was never God’s preference from the beginning.

Subscribe now

Amazingly enough, it all begins in the book of Genesis. The Tower of Babel narrative (Gen 11) is the “origin story” of the state. In the passage, we learn that the people of Babel aspire to build for themselves a tower that would “reach the heavens” so that they could “make for themselves a name.” They do this as they “journey eastward,” which parallels the language of separation from God being “east of Eden.”

Many commentators as far back as the first-century Jewish historian Josephus have noted that these things together mean they are either literally or symbolically rebelling against God by trying to take over heaven itself. They are responding to their separation not by turning to God in repentance but by turning against God entirely.

In Jewish antiquities writing, it was Nimrod, the “mighty rebel” before the Lord (some versions read “hunter,” but this is not the best translation) and the first king of Babel/Babylon, who incited them to do so. God disrupts their plan and scatters them about both in their location and in their languages. We can see this story as the theological beginning of all states, which are ultimately founded in rebellion against God and trying to take the place of God on the earth.

Subscribe now

Paul does tell the church in Rome that the authorities that exist are “established by God” (Rom 13:1, NIV), but Romans 13 is definitely not a prooftext for justifying state power.

True, Paul proceeds to caution against rebellion and to encourage doing “what is right” in the eyes of the ruler to protect oneself. But these words were written to Christians in Rome who were constantly at risk of persecution, even unto death, from the Roman Empire. Paul’s encouragement to them, and likewise to us, is that our interactions with state power are on a prudential basis. Our greater priorities are to live out the gospel and support our family and community, and we should not put ourselves into a compromising position against the state unless it is specifically for the cause of Christ and his message.

Therefore, we pay our taxes not because the government has a divine right to tax us, but rather because if we don’t, we might end up in prison and unable to fulfill our true calling to protect our families and spread the gospel. Ultimately, we should also turn to other scriptures to get a full view of what the Bible has to say about the state instead of only reading Romans 13 and thinking that we fully understand God’s intention for government.

Some libertarian Christians take different interpretive approaches to Romans 13 (provided in Additional Resources below), but the common thread is that the passage does not give special permission to governments to commit aggression against others.

Subscribe now

God does speak about governance in scripture, and there has been much debate about the implications of what he says. Often, the question raised is whether a particular political philosophy is prescribed by God. In other words, would Jesus have been a socialist? A Republican? Alternatively, there is a popular view that Christians must submit to the government regardless of the lawlessness of its edicts. We disagree.

Scripture speaks to the fact of civil governance and its necessity (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14; Titus 3:1), but it does not explicate a precise way of administering civil governance. In other words, God doesn’t give us an operations manual for providing the service of civil justice. What God provides are norms of civil justice that are evident in creation and are therefore comprehensible by all human beings. However, the systems by which humanity has administered (or attempted to administer) civil justice are human inventions known as political philosophies.

Political philosophies are attempts to articulate the best way of achieving a just system of governance. Libertarianism is one such philosophy, and we believe it’s the best expression of Christian political thought because it most aligns with God-given norms expressed in scripture and evidenced in nature.

One important distinction we make is between “the state” and “civil governance,” and in our view the state is inherently bad and tends to corrupt good civil governance. As Christians, we can take our cue from historic Christian orthodoxy and the historic confessions of faith. These only oblige Christian submission to civil authorities on matters that are lawful ordinances of God. But they don’t obligate abject submission to all edicts and don’t oppose resistance to unlawful or unrestrained sword power. Because of this, we hold the distinction between “the state” and “civil governance” to be legitimate and necessary.

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

When a person gives their life to Jesus Christ, they are also giving their allegiance to a new king. Today this often does not amount to defying the current political regimes, but it does mean a new way of thinking, practicing, and evangelizing. Instead of allegiance to mammon, we preach allegiance to God. Instead of pursuit of pleasure for its own sake, we seek to enjoy all things to the glory of God. We honor the one true king when we promote the good news that Jesus is the messiah and through him we can have eternal life (which, by definition, begins before death).

To repent and believe the good news entails far more than what happens to us personally. It is not simply for us to have a private religious experience. Jesus inaugurated a Kingdom over which his rule would be established through what would become his followers: the body of Christ, or the Church. Kingdom people are his royal subjects, working to bring the whole creation to bear witness to the good news that Jesus is Lord, and Caesar is not.

To be engaged in spreading the gospel is to announce the arrival of God’s Kingdom, followed by an invitation to repent and participate in this Kingdom. Participation happens in a variety of ways, some of which look more “political” than others. But every one of our efforts are political in the sense that we are engaging the world around us in ways that bring about more flourishing, even if these efforts are not directly engaged in electoral politics.

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

As Jesus announced the coming of God’s Kingdom, throughout the Gospels we see that his Kingdom did not operate upon the principles of worldly kingdoms (“not of this world”). This doesn’t mean that the Kingdom of God is not for this world. The very word “kingdom” is inherently political, meaning “the king’s domain.”

Modern Christians often miss the explicitly political language of the New Testament. The phrases “Jesus is Lord” and “Son of God” were, in Jesus’ day, an affront to Caesar. It was Caesar who rode into cities on a war horse demanding people’s allegiance, promising an age of peace won by violence, and demanding submission. In contrast, Jesus came promising the life of the age to come (“eternal life”) through faith in him, a peace that was not won through violence, but through the forgiveness of sins and allegiance to him.

To give allegiance to Jesus Christ is to declare the power and authority of Rome is illegitimate. This is how the gospel is a direct challenge to the state and to its power. In part, when Christians invite others to believe the gospel, they are inviting them to declare allegiance to God, not the state.

Subscribe now

Most people think of politics as electoral politics: elections, politicians, and voting. A more robust understanding is that politics is more like a subset of the ways in which human beings choose to relate, specifically with regard to the appropriate use of physical force and power.

“Culture” is another means of how we relate to each other, and while part of that is political, much of it is not. In this sense, the saying “politics is life” is true. When we advocate anything that affects the lives of others, we are doing politics in this very broad sense. Most Christians believe that the gospel has implications for the real world, which makes the gospel relevant to politics. This also means that Christians are political, whether they realize it or not.

Libertarian Christians care about how people in the world relate to one another in ways that align with the ethic and message of the Kingdom of God. We do not say that all Christians should vote for a particular type of candidate, or even vote at all. Not only do we want Christians to be aware of the human relationships that are part of what it means to be human, but also at the forefront of pushing human relationships toward mutual benefit and interacting peacefully (see Chapters 4-5).