There’s a debate raging among Christians about the proper role of government in enforcing biblical morality. You’ve likely encountered this debate in one of its various forms. Sometimes it’s framed in terms of “Christian nationalism.” Other times you might hear a reference to “common good” conservatism. David French defends the “liberal democratic order,” while others are “post-liberal.” There’s Roman Catholic “Integralism” and its cousin, “magisterial Protestantism.” All these terms and phrases are circling the same question: To what extent should the government use its coercive power to enforce Christian ethics?

The argument for a more aggressive governmental role in regulating morality is seemingly straightforward. In its most simplistic form, the syllogism goes something like this: Scripture tells us certain conduct is evil; the government’s role is to restrain evil (Romans 13); thus the government should prohibit some evil conduct. In recent months, I’ve encountered highly educated and undoubtedly sincere Christians arguing for the criminalization of blasphemy, profanity, and speech promoting an unbiblical sexual ethic.

As a Christian, I understand the alarm that my fellow believers feel as we find ourselves increasingly out-of-step with a culture that seems ever more hostile toward us. We are pilgrims, not pioneers. I also understand the critique of the claim that the government can be truly neutral on matters of morality. As my good friend Jonathan Leeman has said, “Behind every [law] . . . is someone’s basic worldview of how things ought to be. And behind that worldview is a god.”

At the same time, I think this faith in a more muscular government, particularly when it comes to punishing and restraining speech, is misguided for at least three related reasons.

Firstly, the more expansive vision of government being advocated by some Christians today fails sufficiently to account for universal fallenness. Because, as a Christian, I believe that all men and women are corrupted by sin, any theory of government must include a mechanism to restrain and punish government actors when they act unjustly. Irenaeus of Lyons made this point in Against Heresies where he argued that justice requires that, when government magistrates act “to the subversion of justice,” then “they shall also perish.”

This universal fallenness makes me exceedingly concerned when, for example, Christians call for restraints on speech they find repugnant. Short of violent revolt, speech is the citizen’s last line of defense against corrupt public officials. A theory of government that grants to government the power to punish speech is a theory of government that unjustifiably assumes the nobility of those who hold government office and a-historically assumes that fallen men and women, given the power to punish speech, will not wield that power to suppress criticism of them. In a fallen world, it is critical that the principle of free speech be maintained, and not because of an optimism that fallen citizens will always use that freedom in an honorable way. Rather, free speech is critical to protect against the reality that fallen government actors will use the power to punish speech to quell critique of their dishonor.

Read More