Orchestrated or not, disparate voices have been increasingly insinuating the spectre of a potential civil war into chat rooms, around the current stand-in for the office water cooler, and in some kitchen table discussions. There have even been podcasts dedicated to war gaming out the relative advantages of each side and offering their carefully considered critique of who would exact the greatest carnage and defeat their foe based on what each side brings to the table.

The level of detachment with which these armchair pundits spitball over such a scenario is troubling. They either don’t take seriously what they claim to believe, or hold to a bloodthirstiness and scorched earth mentality that is dangerous the more it garners mainstream acceptance. It also threatens to grease the skids toward the creation of a societal hive mind that will not brook dissent – heaven forbid such an eventuality comes to fruition.

It behooves us to be honest about the motivations driving these competing sides of the debate because the players are not guided by the same motivations. As history has revealed, the church has done an excellent job of breaking off into amoebic-level subdivisions based on minutia. The matter I want to address is whether the schisms in the freedom movement are similarly much ado about nothing.

For a period of time, I would attend some of the freedom marches through Toronto that became a mainstay since the federal and provincial restrictions on our liberties under the pretext of Covid. Prior to the actual march, there would be one or two speakers, some music and prayer to rally the troops. Increasingly, signs of division became evident. Many were calling for a purge of the praying and invocation of God, insisting this was not a religious gathering. In the group chat, I attempted to argue that this should not be an either/or and trying to mute the Christian motivations would be to gut the greatest inspiration in the pursuit of true freedom. In response, the dissident voices became even more resolute and disdainful; determined to press even harder to expunge such elements. I knew it was time for me to move on.

I bring all this up because I stumbled across a debate between two gentlemen with one arguing in favour of the classical liberal (aka: libertarian) position as a path to societal freedom while his opponent made the case for a Christian theonomous system (referenced as Christian conservatism). Since the meanings of these labels can be very elastic in application, I will give greater context based on their own arguments.

Bruce Pardy took up the defense of what he referred to as “freedom people” whereby he argued against governments injecting themselves in affairs of men. Given his defined position in contrast with the prevailing leftist reality and his aversion to his opponents’ theonomous defense, I will offer up what I believe to be the crux of his position. The details are tough to assess due to a decided lack of specificity on his part. My best approximation is found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which defines libertarianism as: “…a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state.” On matters of morality, it posits that as moral agents, we are responsible to ourselves for or conduct and our right to acquire and keep property.

It should be noted that Pardy and his opponent, David Haskell, are friends and Pardy deeply respects him; referring to his competitor as representing “virtue people” in a non-ironic and non-derisive manner. Assumedly, the argument is that people should have the freedom to behave with virtue, but not enact these standards on the broader society through government imposition.

The one commonality expressed by both parties was that our current system of leftism is toxic to social thriving and smothers any semblance of individual or collective freedoms. We are to view these as alternative visions for how to arrange society without demanding obeisance to the ever-shifting ground of moral relativism where all are required to affirm the latest affront on reality. Therefore, to draw a meaningful contrast, we need to be reminded of what our leftist reality has engendered and how this compares with the alternative visions being presented.

• Collectivism vs individualism. Both of the debaters would diverge from the leftist’s persistent efforts to corral us all into a society directed by mass compliance and where the desires of the collective matter more than the individual. To be clear, this is not the sentiment encapsulated in Spock’s declaration in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few – or the one.” In fact, such a sentiment reflects the kind of Christian sacrifice seen as the highest good – that of laying down one’s life for his friend(s) – volitionally. To the modern leftist, our duty is to prostrate ourselves before their god of conformity.
• Will to Power vs free will. The Will to Power was a philosophy originated by atheist thinker, Fredrich Nietzsche whereby he affirms and even defends man’s natural proclivity to seek to dominate over others. This perfectly defines the motivations of the hard left and is denounced in Christian parlance as greed and covetousness. The left always had a hate-hate relationship with choice (and, by extension, freedom). They apparently have an innate sense that identifying as “pro-choice” is a virtue; even when exclusively applied as a smokescreen for the avoidance of personal responsibility by taking the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable. Thus, the speciousness of the argument rather than the objective was exposed when this same demographic denied anyone medical choice over the Covid jabs as they thought this would protect them. They will defend to our deaths their right to suspend our rights in order to make us vassals of ruling state and global authorities. Both gentlemen would doubtless take umbrage with this policy of compelled choice.
• The replacement of Christian virtues with Marxist ideals. What the left has pushed for in real terms is not simply a reduction in Christian influence, but a purging and tacit criminalization of any seeking to hold fast to biblical standards. Presumably, Pardy’s argument is not that Christian ethics are undesirable, but are anathema to a society where there is no acknowledgment of God as supreme authority. While much blame for our moral slide was blamed, by Christians, on the removal of prayer and scripture reading from schools, these were merely outward manifestations of denying the source and thus objective virtues. The premise that one could be “good without God,” morphed to subjective morality, then the proof of one’s ethical bona fides being tied to the embrace of gender theory, unquestioned belief in climate change, and commitment to social justice ideology. Both parties agree that Christianity should be granted free expression and not replaced with a revised set of imposed secular dogmas.
• The subjectification of truth vs acknowledging reality. Under leftism, truth and reality have become not just subjectivized, but reconstituted into an incoherent and inverted take on what is self-evident. Much in the fashion of Orwell’s 1984, one must not simply regurgitate that 2+2=5 – or biology is a social construct – but must believe it. Those living under the spell of the spirit of the age rely on “experts” to tell them what is true and real sans any demand that they prove their case based on evidence. The crime is not in debunking misguided or false teachings, but failing to robustly join or challenge the preordained conclusions of the philosopher kings and their minions. It is not that they eradicated blasphemy laws that applied when the nation held to Christian values, but they invented secular blasphemy laws such as “misgendering” and leaving skid marks on rainbow-coloured crosswalks. Pardy would necessarily grant the validity of such subjective moral claims as legitimate, but not through compulsion or allowing for others to hold to “their truth.” The theonomous position would reject any effort to subjectivize truth or deny reality – no matter how coercive the enforcement mechanisms.
• Compelled secularism vs institutional integrity. Antonio Gramsci was a cultural Marxist who envisioned a transformation of the west by a coordinated infiltration by his fellow travelers for the purposes of taking over our institutions. Once they could control the levers of power, a nation could then be compelled to tack incrementally to the left and by allowing radicals to dictate the norms for the population. After gutting the Christian heartbeat that gave us meaning, purpose, direction, and the freedoms to challenge the prevailing beliefs and ideals; they replaced them with an entirely new narrative based on a redefining of what is required to be considered a moral and tolerant society. This made freedoms conditional on how well one’s views aligned with the prevailing zeitgeist. A theonomous approach would reject both the corruption of virtue and inherent compulsion behind this scheme while the libertarian view could take umbrage only with the use of force. Pardy may personally oppose many of the sacraments invented by the godless left, but his obeisance to unrestricted freedom would not allow him to remonstrate against delusional ideologies.
• Lawfare vs rule of law. Expressly because of the leftist takeover of our institutions, the legal system is used as a cudgel to keep any potential opposition at bay. Currently, whatever is not mandatory is forbidden and the greatest crimes are contingent on how strictly one embraces the truth and ethics of scripture over the pagan replacements. Case in point is the arresting of peaceful protestors outside abortion clinics or at the freedom convoy while standing by and endorsing any who participated in BLM and antifa riots.
• Hyper-regulation of speech and conduct vs freedom of speech. The senior Trudeau once famously remarked that: “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” Just like the convenient misapplication of “pro-choice”, these words were a cynical effort to facilitate access to abortion, contraceptives, and de-stigmatize sexual deviancy. The Trudeaus serve as bookends whereby Pierre dealt a death blow to the social underpinnings of Judeo-Christian values and Justin rounding up dissidents who failed to strictly abide by the pagan mores imposed as a replacement. Never before have governments had greater authority over our bedrooms, boardrooms, classrooms, and any other private or public sphere. We are essentially engaged in a westernized version of the struggle sessions that took place under Chairman Mao; using intense social pressures and psychological warfare to shame citizens into conformity. Theoretically, Pardy would again certainly denounce such draconian attempts at social control and a theonomy would summarily reject this replacement me-ology.
• Surveillance state vs personal privacy. While policies offer the roadmap for the abuses of our rights and freedoms, the use of tracking and surveillance tools fuel the nudge units and facilitate the means to select targets to apply political pressure. The singular practice of Google and big tech manipulation of algorithms, curating, and censoring of content we can see heavily drives conformity of thought. The fact that these private entities are working in concert with the state is profoundly dangerous and explains the success in manufacturing the appearance of consent in contravention of biblical and truth standards. Governments that are supposed to be accountable to the citizenry demand the right to oversee and dictate all we do while claiming the right to keep their machinations and claims to secret knowledge to themselves. Neither of these gentlemen would be sanguine with such abuses.

This is incomplete, but gives an overview of some of the more dangerous out-workings of radical leftism and how they stack up with the worldviews presented in this debate. At this point, many may conclude that the divide between the libertarian and theonomous systems are largely compatible and distinct from the prevailing oligarchy under leftism that currently drives the direction of our nation. Quite the contrary, I will argue that libertarianism and radical leftism are not at odds, but are essentially the same Kool-Aid served up in different glasses. While Mr. Pardy may be sincere in his “good intentions,’ his path to freedom is pure folly.

I expect that critics will be quick to write off my assertions; insisting that calls for liberty are, by definition, non-oppressive – especially when weighed against the state establishing standards for moral conduct. If you conclude that the veneration of freedom absent the imposition of objective moral duties best accommodates the diverse beliefs in a non or post-Christian world, please stick with me.

To highlight the contrasting aspects espoused by each debater, I want to share some data points shared by Haskell regarding the characteristics of a country that promotes Christian virtue. For instance, statistics show that Christian nations offered:

• The highest standards of living
• The greatest personal security and protection of property
• The most personal freedom
• Maximal tolerance and equality regardless of identity group
• The highest charitable giving. In Canada, Christians give 3 times more charitable in giving and volunteer twice as much for 40% more time than any other demographic.
• Christian groups give aid regardless of one’s affiliation and without discrimination
• We have the highest satisfaction and stability in marriage
• Have the most involved fathers
• The greatest levels of pro-social (least anti-social) behaviour and the lowest addiction rates
• Domestic and child abuse are lowest in Christian families
• Believers are 70% less likely to abuse female partner
• Christian universities have the least sexual assault
• Conservatives are the most forgiving and far more supportive of forgiveness than Muslims and atheist societies
• We have the highest rates of happiness and life satisfaction
• Christians have the best rates of mental health while progressives are the least mentally well
• Believers in Christ are the least likely to commit crimes
• Christian-based rehabilitation programs are the most effective
• The more someone identifies as a liberal, the higher likelihood of criminal activity
• Christian activism was greatest factor in eradicating slavery
• Christian countries ensure the greatest support for freedom of expression
• Political activism in developing nations by Christians had the greatest influence on providing for religious liberty, mass education, mass printing which are essential conditions for a stable democracy

Who, in looking over this list, would argue that these are not positive outcomes. Some may balk at overarching concepts like unrestricted freedom of speech or religion as potentially problematic, note that the sources of such criticisms tend to grant deferential treatment based on ideology. Note also that Pardy’s defense of “freedom people” should not consider such freedoms to be problematic. Based on his vehement point of departure, his issue would be with any state policy that would impose such ethical standards or penalize any violators. Here is where the wheels fall off the bus of classical liberalism.

You see, the stance from theonomy is not that freedom must (should, or could) be imposed by force. Unlike Islam or dogmatic leftism, Christianity is not a faith of compulsion. The fact that we hold to immutable objective standards that are not determined by the “evolving” standards of secularism does not equate to being oppressive.

Before I deal more specifically practical rather than merely theoretical in evaluating the libertarian position, I need to clarify that insists he is not arguing for anarchy. He sees that government does have a role and that this role is to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals to make their own choices and be protected from efforts to deny those liberties. We must then address the real contrast between a political theory where the freedoms of individuals are protected by government vs sphere sovereignty whereby Caesar acts as God’s representatives without usurping his authority.

I sensed a smugness from Pardy in his effort to weaponize one of Christendom’s greatest voices of reason against us. His presumed fatal blow came from C.S. Lewis who sagely remarked that: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than to live under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep. His cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Haskell effectively put Pardy on the spot as he evaded answering the challenge to name any country that has successfully operated under the libertarian vision set out by Pardy. From my vantage point (admittedly well out of the limelight of the scrutiny of debate), I believe I can present a perfect model that has enacted each of the three government systems being referenced; and all can be found at different stages in a devolution of a single country’s history – that of the United States of America.

The founding of America was based on a Judeo-Christian worldview and these sentiments run throughout the Declaration of Independence. Curiously, many like to argue that, since so many of the founders did not overtly identify as Christian and were instead made up of deists, theists, and even potential atheists, that claims that the U.S. was established on Christian principles is baseless. While their critique of the ideological diversity among the founding fathers has merit, they miss the larger point. We will never fully understand the intricacies of the faith positions of the founders, but we have their words. If those seeking to project religious nuance onto these men were well-intentioned, they should ask themselves: Why did this disparate group take such pains to invoke God so clearly in their founding documents? What compelled a man like Jefferson to show such deference to the authority of a God he did not fully embrace and why did everyone sign their John Hancock on an unabashedly Christocentric statement of principles?

We needn’t do a deep dive into the specifics, but here are what I consider the key salient aspects laid out in the Declaration of Independence:

• Rights come from God rather than men, thus, no earthly authority can disregard or claim jurisdiction over unalienable human rights endowed by the one who created them.
• All people have inherent value as God’s creation and therefore deserve to be treated with equal dignity. Consequently, allowing for the scourge of slavery to remain was in direct contravention of the assertion that “all men are created equal.” Thus, the fault lies not in the Christian ethics or the words of the Declaration, but was a concession granted to unite states that did not hold a common respect for the innate worth of the individual as an image-bearer of their creator.
• The system of checks and balances, limited powers, and enumerated rights granted to the state assumes that governments cannot usurp what belongs to God and recognises man’s sin nature by guarding against the abuse of power.
• Establishing the state as a guarantor of rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness respects individual freedoms – just as we have the free gift of grace if we submit to Christ, but also can freely choose to reject him. This, however, means that there is a cost or benefit associated with that decision.
• John Adam’s quote that: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” makes clear that there can be abuses when living under a biblical standard precisely because it maximizes the freedom to act immorally and irresponsibly without justifying or rewarding such conduct.

Conversely, we are living under the radical left’s reimagining of society as it becomes increasingly radical and oppressive by the day. They did so by scrubbing all the guarantees set out in the constitution and the foundations laid out in the Declaration. They have so perverted the original intent that they now insist that all citizens have the right to freedom from, not of, religion. As such, living out one’s Christian convictions can lead to job loss, social ostracism, legal sanctions, and any number of charges and consequences.

As for the libertarian example, I give you the sexual revolution, second wave feminism, and the anti-war/civil rights movements that gained momentum in the 1960s with substantial groundwork laid in the late 1940s. The music, which incidentally I embraced with fervour, was rife with anthems of rebellion, and the arts and music lurched to the profane and nihilistic. This was a war against our Judeo-Christian ethics and standards. Church and family which were the civilizational cornerstones were deconstructed and aberrant conduct formerly spoken of in condemnatory whispers gained mainstream acceptance.

This was the cultural war that led to our post-Christian culture. Once the walls and roadblocks were torn down, it was just one great leap backward from, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch/listen/do/participate in it” to “You will be made to care/watch/listen/do/participate.” Libertarianism is the bulldozer that clears the path for the Marxist takeover of a culture.

Possibly, the most striking omission behind Pardy’s libertarian premise was a failure to address the implications when faced with competing rights. This sentiment is aptly captured in the sentiment that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The perspective is highly significant since once we move outside one’s freedom to engage in matters that aren’t controversial, chances are they don’t impose a duty on others. What happens when guaranteeing the liberty of an individual or group exacts a cost or complimentary obligation on others to facilitate or even sacrifice their freedoms to that end?

Consider the issue of abortion, for instance. This is demanded as a right and a freedom and is done so based on the ignoring or devaluing of the life of the pre-born child. The right to an abortion places an obligation on the “doctor” or nursing staff to carry out or participate in the “procedure.” It subjugates the right of the father and/or family to the mother whereby the mother’s right to abort overrides the right to have a child (grandchild, niece, nephew, etc.). It currently obliges taxpayers to pay for the killing of an innocent child and, of course, most significant of all, it obliges the child to die based on feelings. In our sin-sick culture, there are even parents suing doctors for “wrongful birth” because that doctor failed to avail them of their right to not have to give birth to and/or care for the child that was not successfully killed in the womb. Wouldn’t you love to be the child of these parents?

Take away the standards of biblical morality, as Pardy argues in favour of, and you have gutted any presumption to moral obligations and rights. Freedoms can be exercised by individuals against others and, short of laws that are based on the zeitgeist, everyone’s rights are potentially forfeit if the state acts solely as a protector of freedoms rather than a God-ordained tool for punishing evil and upholding the moral. Everything morphs into a “choose your own adventure” where what is defensible is decided by those with the greatest cultural influence. In fact, those who are imposing the sanctions that Pardy dislikes are doing so under the premise of protecting the freedoms and rights of special interests – costing not only Christians, but non-radicals like Pardy to lose his freedoms. The state need not be the enforcer, but merely facilitator or bystander while freedoms are stripped.

Is rape a crime or a right? Prove it! With no moral framework or a perverted one (i.e. under Islam), who’s to say? How about theft? Don’t people have a right to live and thrive? Why is it wrong to murder someone who is an obstacle to one’s freedom and happiness? The possibilities are endless and are outlined in the profoundly libertarian sentiment expressed in the concluding words of the book of Judges where, we are told, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

I don’t dispute the inherent wisdom of Lewis’ remarks, however, Pardy’s application is extremely shortsighted and completely misses the point. It is the hard left who act as moral busybodies. Those who insisted that everyone needed to mask up and get injected for their presumed safety placed that burden on us and, for the most parts, beyond all the propaganda, those rules were imposed by private organizations and agencies. The moral busybodies telling people they must submit unquestioningly to ruling authorities were the libertarians. Those who held to God as ultimate authority were the one’s advocating for freedom and bodily autonomy. This is the dilemma for the Toronto marchers who wanted Christian influence taken out.

In response, I present a rebuttal by way of a rejoinder from a similarly erudite Christian thinker – G.K. Chesterton – who argued, “When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” Libertarianism is the battering ram breaking apart the necessary big laws that pave the way and ultimately segue into our current small laws.

There is a lure of libertarianism much like the lure of the fruit from the forbidden tree in the garden of evil. The flavour of the Kool-Aid may be zestier, but it is simply a slower acting poison.