Few misconceptions are as common or as deeply mistaken as portraying theonomy as synonymous with libertarianism. For those of us at Future of Christendom, the persistent need to correct the fallacious claim that the theonomic position is essentially libertarianism has become a defining characteristic of our discourse. This strawman, equating God’s comprehensive law with either individualistic chaos or modern liberalism, reveals a profound failure to grasp the basic principles of both positions. It is why a recent, incisive post on X by Rich Lusk – a pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and a prominent voice within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) – was such a welcome clarity amidst the noise.
Lusk’s intervention was a timely and accurate debunking of these pervasive mischaracterizations. He candidly acknowledged that “in terms of substance and rhetoric, there is something of a link between Theonomy and Libertarianism in that both value free markets…[and] private property (the 8th commandment) and are suspicious of ‘big government’ controlling our lives.” This is precisely the superficial overlap that often misleads casual observers.
However, Lusk emphatically stated, “But that’s where any similarities end.” He then laid bare the stark differences:
Anti-Liberalism: Theonomy is “actually anti-Liberal in terms of the way we use that category today.” Theonomists consistently “wanted the state to apply the principles of God’s law that are suited to political and social life, including the punishments Torah gives for various crimes.” This includes “blasphemy laws” and seeing “adultery and sodomy [as] civil crimes, worthy of capital punishment.” This stands in direct opposition to modern liberalism’s moral relativism and pluralistic embrace of sin.
Rejection of “Place at the Table” Pluralism: Lusk highlighted that theonomists “always rejected the ‘place at the table’ pluralism that drove contemporaneous movements, like the Religious Right and Moral Majority.” While adhering to sphere sovereignty and not advocating for an established church, they unequivocally desired “society as a whole to be shaped by Christian norms” and “formally brought under the lordship of Christ” as the outflow of the Church’s Great Commission.
Nationhood and Immigration: He noted that theonomists like Rushdoony and North were “careful students of American history” who “understood a nation is a people with a shared culture, language, history, and identity,” rejecting the notion of “propositional nationhood.” On immigration, Lusk emphasized the focus on Torah’s principles, such as immigrants being required to live by the same law as Israelites and not being allowed to proselytize. Indeed, as we at Future of Christendom have stressed repeatedly, biblical immigration control is a byproduct of faithfully applying God’s Law to those within the nation.
The Deeper Problem: Strawmanning from “Within”
What makes this persistent mischaracterization so frustrating is that it often comes from figures within circles that purport to be advancing a Christian vision for society, specifically elements of the Christian Nationalist movement. People like Joel Webbon (and I would add Stephen Wolfe) regularly fall prey to, and perpetuate, this very strawman.
Webbon, for example, once claimed on a podcast that Joel McDurmon “is a lib and he is still a theonomist. And so, theonomy does not make you immune to being a lib. And it certainly doesn’t make you immune – if anything it almost forces you to be a libertarian – which is just a lib.” This statement is demonstrative of the profound misunderstanding we encounter. Joel McDurmon, who has seemingly gone “liberal” in recent years, is no longer a theonomist in any meaningful sense. To claim that theonomy “forces” one to be a libertarian is not just inaccurate; it’s a fundamental misreading of its very essence.
Similarly, Wolfe, author of The Case for Christian Nationalism, hinted at the same conflation when he tweeted: “Postmil theonomic libertarianism has got to go.” The very phrase “theonomic libertarianism” is an oxymoron, born of this persistent mislabeling. These prominent voices, who should be allies in advancing God’s Law in the public square, often contribute to the confusion, and their followers fall for the strawman hook, line, and sinker.
The Foundational Chasm
The ongoing confusion stems from a critical blind spot concerning the foundational source of law and justice. Humanistic systems, whether statism or libertarianism, ultimately build on arbitrary, man-made foundations. Statism elevates the ever-changing will of the ruling power. Libertarianism, while valuing individual liberty, ultimately grounds justice in individual autonomy and the Non-Aggression Principle, failing to account for offenses against God or any objective moral standard beyond human consent. Both are deficient because they deny God as the ultimate Lawgiver.
Overlaps between God’s Law and libertarianism notwithstanding, a true libertarian, adhering strictly to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), would in fact look at theonomy’s prescribed civil penalties for offenses like sodomy, adultery, or blasphemy and denounce it as outright tyranny and “big government.” This inherent conflict reveals why the question must always be: what does God’s Law prescribe? To equate theonomy with a classic libertarian position, simply because there’s some common ground in economic views or a shared suspicion of state overreach, is fallacious. It is akin to claiming that Christianity is the same as Islam merely because both acknowledge the existence of God, or even more specifically, to suggest that because both God’s Law and Sharia Law condemn sodomy, theonomy is somehow synonymous with Islamic law. Such shared basic moral principles do not make entire, comprehensive legal and theological systems identical. Every social order outside God’s Law ultimately seeks the good things God gives, but without God Himself, leading to varied degrees of philosophical and practical incoherence. In fact, theonomy is the very standard by which all these other systems (libertarianism, Christian Nationalism, Sharia Law, et al.) are judged.
Theonomy, by contrast, provides the only non-arbitrary, absolute basis for civil order: God’s perfect, revealed law. His moral and civil laws are not suggestions but divine blueprints for human flourishing, reflecting His unchanging, righteous character. For those genuinely seeking to understand and build Christendom, it is imperative to move beyond simplistic caricatures and grasp the unique, God-centered foundation of theonomy. God’s Law is neither a chaotic libertarianism nor a watered-down liberalism (nor is it Sharia Law, for that matter). It is a comprehensive vision for a society ordered by the just and perfect law of God.
As Lancastrian theonomists, our core conviction is that God’s legislation is sufficient to establish justice in society. While we acknowledge there may be incidental areas of overlap with some libertarian views – perhaps on issues of limited government in specific contexts – it is equally true that there are overlaps with some Christian Nationalist views, such as the desire for a Christianized order or the importance of national identity. However, these points of convergence (with either libertarianism, Christian Nationalism, or even Sharia Law) are superficial at best and do not, in any way, define theonomy.
Equating theonomy with libertarianism is not merely shallow; it is a cop-out. It conveniently sidesteps the serious intellectual engagement required to grapple with the biblical arguments and the comprehensive claims we make about God’s perfect, applicable Law for all of life. To truly understand theonomy is to recognize it as a distinct, God-centered system that refuses to bend the knee to any humanistic alternative.
