This article is part of our special print debate issue. Below, you’ll find the case in favor of the resolution, followed by the case against the motion, and a rebuttal from each side. Dr. Norman Horn also published a lengthier version of his rebuttal piece on the Libertarian Christian Institute’s website.

Libertarians should be Christians

Dr. Norman Horn is the founder and President of the Libertarian Christian Institute. Norman holds a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and an M.A. in Theological Studies from Lipscomb University. Norman has authored multiple peer-reviewed publications in science, economics, and political theory. He is one of the four co-authors of Faith Seeking Freedom, published by LCI, and was a leader in SFL’s early years at the University of Texas.

Libertarians champion the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, voluntary association, and free markets. We prefer order, conflict avoidance, and civilization rather than chaotic behavior, warring between groups, and atomism. We recognize these principles as sound by natural law and evident reason, but also find they are concordant with Christian commitments. Christians clearly don’t always reflect these principles, just as libertarians are far from perfect either. However, we contend that the most consistent disposition of a Christian should be libertarian, and the natural inclination of the non-Christian libertarian should be to move toward the Christian worldview and, hopefully, to accept the Christian faith in full.

Christianity and libertarianism ultimately agree regarding a fundamental understanding of human nature. The Bible teaches that all humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), granting them inherent worth and dignity. A major theme of the Old Testament is God liberating the Israelites from slavery in the book of Exodus. These teachings support the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Libertarians argue that no individual or institution has the right to initiate force against another, codifying this as the non-aggression principle. In analogous form, Jesus commands believers to do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matthew 7:12) and to love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). Christianity clearly teaches that all humans are sinful and fall short of the perfection of God (Romans 3:23), and thus none are fit to rule. Every human is held to the same moral standard; no one gets a free pass to enact aggression against others because of a birthright or position of power.

Additionally, Scripture repeatedly warns against centralized power and is demonstrably anti-empire. In 1 Samuel 8, for instance, God warns the Israelites against desiring a human king, proclaiming that human rulers will inevitably oppress their subjects. This aligns with the libertarian skepticism of the state as an institution that expands its power at the expense of individual liberty. Governments throughout history have been the greatest perpetrators of violence, oppression, and economic destruction, a reality reflected throughout the Bible as well.

The Book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible, calls “Babylon” an oppressive and corrupt system destined for destruction (Revelation 18:4), and this symbol should be understood as statism itself. Early Christians knew that their allegiance was to Christ, not to earthly rulers, and they were willing to die for that belief. From beginning to end, the Bible is critiquing the state as founded in rebellion against God himself.

Libertarians should also recognize that Christianity presents a vision of social order that is fundamentally at odds with statism. Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), emphasizing that God’s rule is not enforced through coercion but through voluntary obedience and love. Christianity promotes peace, persuasion, and service rather than domination and control. Governments demand submission through threats of violence, while Christ calls us toward voluntarism.

Many political ideologies look to the state as a means to achieve social progress, but libertarians recognize that government intervention often creates more harm than good. Christianity reinforces this perspective by emphasizing personal charity over coerced redistribution. The early church practiced voluntary sharing (Acts 2), but this was never intended to mandate socialism. True compassion comes not from government programs, but from individuals giving of themselves and their justly earned property. To the Christian, forced charity is not charity at all.

Christianity teaches virtues such as honesty, humility, and self-control, which are essential for a flourishing free society. Markets, contracts, and voluntary interactions all rely on trust and ethical behavior. Libertarianism can provide parts of this moral foundation, but it cannot provide a complete model. While some secular philosophies attempt to justify morality on purely rational grounds, Christianity offers an additional compelling reason to live virtuously: we are accountable to God. 

For libertarians looking to build on their philosophical foundation, Christianity is the worldview most consistent with how libertarians already think. Christianity upholds human dignity, limits the power of the state, promotes voluntary interactions, and provides the moral framework necessary for a free society. Likewise, Christians should recognize that libertarianism is the political philosophy most aligned with the biblical understanding of human nature, personal responsibility, peace, and resistance to tyranny.

Libertarians shouldn’t be Christians

Ian Golan is a policy expert on the topic of conscription & military economics and author of the novel “Flugjagd,” which explores the war in Ukraine. He serves as the national coordinator for Students for Liberty in Finland and is the executive publisher of SpeakFreely Magazine. He is also part of the editorial board of Atheists for Liberty.

The atheist was always the anarchist. For the darkest centuries, the one who questioned the will of the absolute faced not only the wrath of the gods and their ministers but also that of the state. The king was a god-ordained ruler. Coronated in the most sacred ritual by a high priest to rule the human race in a particular territory. One had to question the dogma to say non serviam to the earthly rulers. One had to reject religion to overcome the tyrant.

Religion, after all, began as an extension of government. Michael Shermer writes that: “government and religion co-evolved as social institutions to codify moral behaviors into ethical principles and legal rules, and God became the ultimate enforcer of the rules.  (…) This is one vital role that religion plays, such that even if violators think that they got away with a violation, believing that there is an invisible intentional agent who sees all and knows all and judges all can be a powerful deterrent of sin.”

God is then at his genesis one more policeman.  He was the comforting answer to who watches the watchers? and yet one where the watchers could be certain that no consequences awaited. It is no coincidence that the advent of classical liberalism occurred once skepticism of religion gained sufficient ground.  As Ayn Rand wrote: “Faith and force are corollaries: every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny.”

The Confusion lies in Contradictions

Jesus was not a libertarian.

The gospel writer remarks in Mark 5 that Christ granted demons their wish to ruin a herd of swine, destroying another man’s property without a flicker of concern for the starving peasants left behind. Two thousand pigs drown, a village’s livelihood is destroyed—and all for a spectacle that ends with the locals begging him to leave them alone. Jesus certainly doesn’t believe in the Non-Aggression Principle.

The Bible, however, also has some libertarian moments. Most remarkably in 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites demand a king to rule over them, and Samuel, under God’s guidance, warns them of the tyranny that centralized authority will bring. If only God had been slightly more persistent, we might have been living today in a stateless society. Instead, he decided to prioritize the enforcement of his ban on bacon and shellfish rather than the state violence.

Make no mistake, however, there is no consistent libertarian message to be found on the pages of the holy book. Apostle Peter tells slaves to accept the authority of their master, and Paul chimes in with “Servants, obey in all things your masters.”. Jesus himself is silent on slavery as if the ownership of human beings didn’t even warrant a moral glance—an omission I consider damming.

Concerning taxes Jesus himself says “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” implying that the money taken away in taxes is rightfully belonging to the state.  One moment, the Bible denounces kings as tyrants; the next, it demands obedience to rulers as agents of divine will. This is not the message libertarians should expect from God.

Jesus at His Best

I think Jesus is the most admirable in his opposition to the Roman Empire. When he was fermenting dissent and undermining the legitimacy of earthly powers.  And when he was starting beef with the Jewish religious authorities, who collaborated with Rome to maintain their power.

Yet one would be mistaken to think that he was about to bring the flame of liberty to the Jews. As Bart Ehrman writes: “Jesus must be understood as a first-century apocalyptic prophet who proclaimed that God was soon to intervene in history to overthrow the forces of evil and establish His divine kingdom on Earth.” Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, destined to rule over the coming kingdom. No wonder then that he wasn’t fond of the status quo. Yet libertarianism isn’t about toppling one faction to install another, it is about scrapping the whole rotten system. As HL Mencken wrote: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Libertarians should be wary of all self-proclaimed saviours of humanity.

Rebuttal by Dr. Norman Horn

I’m grateful to participate in this debate with Ian, whose thoughtful critiques deserve serious engagement. While space is limited here, I’ll offer fuller commentary on the Libertarian Christian Institute website.

Ian argues that religion, including Christianity, has often supported state power. Historically, that’s true in some cases. But a closer look shows that Christianity has also been a powerful force against tyranny. Early Christians refused to worship Caesar, insisting their highest allegiance was to God (Acts 5:29). The warning in 1 Samuel 8 against kingship is profoundly libertarian, and Jesus himself rejected political power, even when offered it directly (Matthew 4:8-10). He taught that true leadership is about service, not coercion (Matthew 20:25-28).

In response to Ian’s three critiques: First, the Mark 5 incident with the pigs is better understood in light of Jewish law and cultural context—it’s not a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. In fact, some scholars suggest that Jesus’ actions were, in effect, rendering an act of security (Leeson et al., Rationality and Society 2024). Second, while slavery existed in the biblical world, Christianity laid the groundwork for its abolition. Paul’s letter to Philemon redefined the master-slave relationship, and generations of abolitionists were inspired by their Christian faith. Jesus’ teachings on loving one’s neighbor undermined the very logic of slavery. Third, Jesus’ statement “Render unto Caesar” is not a defense of taxation but a subversive challenge to Caesar’s authority. If coins bear Caesar’s image, humans bear God’s—so who really owns what?

Ian cites Bart Ehrman to argue that Jesus sought a political kingdom. But Jesus explicitly said his kingdom is not of this world. To follow Christ is to reject earthly statism in favor of God’s rule.

Libertarians seek to end tyranny, not swap one for another. Christianity offers a moral vision that aligns with that pursuit. Both traditions benefit when we recognize their shared commitment to human dignity and freedom.

Rebuttal by Ian Golan

While freeing Israel from the slavery in Egypt may sound libertarian, it is a tale, which quickly devolves into severely anti-libertarian territory. Israelites led by Moses into desert spend there 40 years, until they go on to conquer the promised land. Why would they have to conquer a land that should be theirs? Because it is a rightful property of Canaanite tribes residing there for many centuries. Led by divine command Israel decapitates the inhabitants, ransacks the villages, stains the fields with blood, and uses God’s intervention to break down the walls of the city of Jericho, the only protection of the innocent civilians from brutal invaders. Scripture time after time shows the Lord, or rather the Warlord, instructing that non-Israeli men shall be decimated, and their daughters taken into sexual slavery.

Do I even need to explain why slaying people to take over their land might not be acceptable for libertarians who fiercely oppose US military interventions with far lower kill rates than that of the Chosen Nation?

Any apologetics around the topic only works with a notion of a powerless henotheistic god, who lacks either imagination or capabilities. An omniscient God does not promise land, which happens to belong to other humans. An omnipotent God creates a place for the life of his chosen nation without killing thousands of previous landowners in the process. A creator of the entire universe can conjure up an appropriate island in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea to make a home for the Israelites. The one who sets in motion celestial bodies can provide his beloved tribe a safe haven in some desolate place in the Sahara Desert, after he creates a functioning ecosystem with some of the water left over after the global flood. Yahweh has enough power to kill all first-born children in Egypt, but cannot shift a few tectonic plates. One can only thank God, that the entire Exodus story is in fact fiction.