Am I Missing Something?

I was going to use this blog post to spew my typical libertarian ideas such as being in favor of civil unions. I'll explain my position briefly so you don't damn me as a heretic. 
 I posted this comment on White Horse Inn's blog. I think this explains my position well.


"I feel that there is a concept here that hasn’t been touched on here. There are two aspects to marriage in this world. There is the spiritual aspect (covenantal) and then there is a legal aspect (government.) Where did this legal aspect come from? The government made it up! The government has got its hand into something that it really doesn’t have authority in. Yes, they may be able to give out marriage license and legal benefits, but what does that do? Just as two individuals may legally divorce, so too, I think, we should let homosexuals get “married.” The key here is that even though those divorcees may be legally divorced, God has not absolved them of their covenant. The same goes for the homosexuals. They may live together and have done a ceremony, but they can never partake in the spiritual benefits of marriage. Isn’t the spiritual dimension really the fullness of marriage? Marriage is a relationship sanctioned, preserved, and loved by God. Homosexuals can never partake in those benefits. So really, what they think they want is simply counterfeit marriage. I say we let them have it. If they want to live together and have joint tax accounts, they can do that. They will answer to God someday for it. It’s our job as Christians to minister to them and love them. Not use the government to force them into conformity with God’s law. Change does not come from the outside in. It comes from the inside out. They are unregenerate, so how can we expect them to live any other way?"


Originally, that was going to be the point of this article. But I've been reading about Theonomy lately. I also have a good friend of mine who provided a solid defense of it to me. Admittedly, theonomy simply means God's Law, but the "radical" ideas attached to the term are widely varied. The names that come to mind when I think of this school of thought are Rushdoony and Gary North. 
Now, I have never been one to shy away from a radical idea. In fact, I prefer "radical" ideas because that generally means that the idea is taking a stand on something. "Moderate" philosophies are often an amalgam of different ideas and are generally full of inconsistencies. I've come to realize that radical means black or white and moderate means something like grey because I don't want black and white to fight.
My point is this, I've been noticing inconsistencies with the foundation for my libertarian views. Obviously it's founded on total depravity which leads us to have a natural distrust of giving men power. This is healthy. However, what I've been having a problem with is my treatment of the Old Testament civil laws. No matter how hard I try, I can never satisfactorily explain them away. God is the king of the Universe, so shouldn't His good laws apply? Shouldn't the government being enforcing His righteousness? However, I shudder at what this would look like. The repercussions seem horrible. Where would the government end and church begin? Who makes the decisions? Who can question the decisions? In the name of God's Law, sinful men would seize power and bind their opponents. How can you object to God's law? The government simply cannot have that kind of authority. Those who support this view would say that I have taken their view too far in one direction. I would disagree. They are being too optimistic about the nature of man and how truly "Christian" a population would ever realistically became (barring an intervention by God Himself.) History has shown us this time and time again in things like The Catholic Church and the oppressive regimes of  Islamic countries.


In short, I cannot fully rid my mind of the sneaking suspicion that I am missing something. Yet, the conclusions I have reached seem correct. The opposite seems horrific. What is it?
Our church has been studying a fantastic book called "Living in God's Two Kingdoms" by Dr. David Van Drunen. Van Drunen is an adherent of the Two Kingdom's doctrine. The book is exceedingly interesting and actually provides, what I believe, a solid basis for a Christian libertarian. I want to study it further because I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm probably about 98% of the way there. Consider reading it. I urge you.


God Bless,
Stanley