Should Christians vote for Ron Paul?

by Steve C. Halbrook

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is a popular candidate among many Christians, including some theonomists. But is he someone Christians should vote for? Here we provide some food for thought.

To begin, we'll analyze the following "Freedom Principles" on Ron Paul's website:

• Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
• Property should be owned by people, not government.
• All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
• The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
• Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
• The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.[1]

As a theonomist we find some here to agree with. Much of this is a rightful rejection of the unbiblical notion  of socialism. But there are also serious defects that should trouble any Christian. Consider, for example, the following statements: “All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social," and "The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's."

While to a certain degree these statements are in accord with biblical law, they also have much out of accord with biblical law. Regarding the latter, these statements advocate the libertarian philosophy (Paul is a professing libertarian) that allows for sexual immorality and the open practice of non-Christian religions—both of which biblical civil law opposes (cf. Leviticus 20:13;  Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-15). According to the Bible, there are indeed "voluntary associations" and "actions" that are the state's responsibility. 

And in fact, regarding sexual immorality, Ron Paul is clearly compromised. Once in an interview with John Lofton he was asked whether he considers homosexuality a sin. Paul replied:

 “[I’m] not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”[2]  

Now, it is true that later in the interview Ron Paul seems to refer to homosexual acts as sins. Perhaps a way to reconcile these statements is to hold that Ron Paul believes homosexual “orientation” is not sinful, but that homosexual acts are sinful. This is of course partially incorrect; both sinful acts and sinful thoughts are wrong. While we are glad that Ron Paul seems to see the acts as wrong, his view of homosexual “orientation” is a distortion of the nature of sin, and displays a serious problem of discernment. [This paragraph is an update from the original article.]

And when it comes to the political sphere, Ron Paul’s compromise on sexual immorality is very disturbing. In an interview with John Stossel, Stossel asked Paul, "Should gays be allowed to marry?" Paul answered:  

Sure. They can do whatever they want, and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but gay couples can do what they want.[3]

True to his libertarian philosophy, Paul also condones political polytheism (the open practice of non-Christian religions), as we see in his comments from last May's South Carolina Republican Debate. When asked why social conservatives in South Carolina should vote for him, Paul said, 

My defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if, if you do not protect liberty across the board--it's a First Amendment-type issue. We don't have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, "yes, we have our religious beliefs protected," but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion, "you can't do this." If you have the inconsistency, then you are really not defending liberty. ... You have a right to do things that are very controversial.[4]

Regarding political polytheism, we must note that the Bible does not praise civil rulers for allowing for this, but it does praise civil rulers for opposing it. Consider the godly kings of Judah, who staunchly opposed the libertarian polytheism of their day. To tolerate false gods is to advocate "deity egalitarianism" and thus to deny God's superiority to false gods--and with it deny God's justice in the civil realm.

Keeping this mind, note that one of Paul's freedom principles states: “Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.”

While there is truth in this, conspicuously absent from this statement is God. Contrary to libertarianism, and all other forms of humanism, civil government exists to answer to God—as an avenger of His wrath, to terrorize and kill evildoers (naturally, evildoers guilty of crimes against biblical civil law):

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13: 3, 4)

Civil platforms, then, should be theocentric (God-centered), not anthropomorphic (man centered), such as libertarianism, which is premised on man's autonomy. Truly qualified candidates acknowledge the fact that Christ is the highest political authority in the universe, and as such base their platform on His law.

They affirm that Christ is “the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15b; cf. Eph. 1:20-22); that all authority (including civil) in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18).  Unlike Herod—whom God struck down for not giving Him the glory (Acts 12:21-23)—qualified candidates affirm with the psalmist:

^“Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:10-12).

                  For us to take Ron Paul more seriously as a candidate, his platform
                        would have to be more biblical, and less libertarian; more like Moses,
                         and less like Mises. (Mises photo credit: Ludwig von Mises Institute/CC BY -SA 3.0)

The libertarian advocacy of political polytheism is hostile to Christ's political office. In allowing the open worship of false gods (which allows for anti-Christian allegiances), libertarianism  works to subvert the recognition of Christ's political authority and to elevate the authority of Christ's political rivals. 

Back to Ron Paul. While pro-life, Paul’s stance against abortion is somewhat weak. While in biblical law murder (such as abortion) is always a capital offense (Numbers 35:31), Paul said in his interview with John Lofton that he didn’t have the wisdom to discern how abortionists should be punished.[5] 

Ron Paul does rightfully say in the interview that “Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.”[6] But the question must be asked: is much of his own civil platform in defiance of God's law? If so,  then we would be wise to avoid voting for him, as his very platform could contribute to havoc being brought on our society. 

In fairness, Paul's statement of faith makes the following admirable statements:

We must pass on our heritage of liberty to the next generation – not tens of trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities.

We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures – not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.

... Once war is declared, it must be waged according to Just War principles.  We should only fight when it’s in our national security interest, and we should no longer do the corrupt United Nation’s bidding by policing the world.

Ron Paul unapologetically stands against the socialist state and the warfare state. Moreover, Paul unashamedly parts from atheist libertarians (and thereby risks alienating potential voters) by opposing abortion and basing the need for honest weights and measures on the Bible. But his overall libertarian philosophy works to undermine his biblical positions.

Personally, we like Ron Paul much better than the typical presidential candidate. And we do not question his Christianity. (Although his waffling on whether sodomy is a sin is very disturbing.) However, this is not just about likability and being a Christian (as important as these things are). This is about how much Paul's views align with biblical law. 

Again, let's be fair: some of his views are biblical, especially in economics, certain matters of small government, and, to a certain extent, abortion. But Paul's condoning of polytheism and sexual immorality, and softness on punishing abortionists, are not attributes of a competent civil ruler.

Now, if Paul begins emphasizing the Lordship of Christ and cleans up his platform to become more consistently biblical (although we don't expect perfection)--then we might start taking him more seriously as a candidate. (Although we would also like to know if he qualifies as a ruler in other areas, e.g., does he have an orthodox view of the Gospel?)

While he is pretty solid on small government and economics, these issues are not enough. Paul needs to look more like Moses, and less like Mises; more like Hezekiah, and less like Hayek. As we see from the godly kings of Judah, biblical reform begins not with individual rights, but God's rights. 

Libertarianism's man-centeredness, then, by the nature of the case, is hostile to a God-centered social order. This, by the way, speaks to the irony of Ron Paul supporters who claim to be theonomists: theonomists acknowledge that when it comes to law, it is either theonomy (God's law) or autonomy (man's law, or really, man's lawlesness). And yet, libertarianism is about as autonomous as it gets. 

If they justify supporting Paul on the basis that some of his platform is theonomic (e.g., his economics), then one can justify supporting just about any candidate with a partially theonomic platform. One could even justify supporting big-government neo-cons, who may be even stronger against sodomy and abortion than Paul is. 

Of course, what politicians don't conform some of their platform to theonomy? All non-Christian philosophies wind up borrowing from the Christian worldview to some extent or another. But that doesn't make their philosophy Christian.

(Granted, there are those who pragmatically advocate Paul on the basis that he is the best candidate, and he at least has a shot at winning. But as we have already noted elsewhere, political pragmatism doesn't work ...)

---

    

     [1] Who is Ron Paul? (Congressman Ron Paul). Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009&Itemid=50

     [2] John Lofton, Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview (The American View, 2003-2010). Retrieved April 25, 2011, from http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916   
     [3] John Stossel, Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate (Townhall.com, January 9, 2008). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2008/01/09/live_and_let_live,_says_one_candidate.
     [4] RonPaulSource, Ron Paul on legalizing drugs and gay marriage - SC Republican debate 5/5/2011 (YouTube, uploaded May 5, 2011). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE.
     [5] Lofton, Excerpts From Our Exclusive Ron Paul Interview
     [6] Ibid.