Good podcast, Mr. Engel. It makes me feel very uneasy when a smart man like Dr. Mohler praises the efforts of prohibitionists, as I’ve heard him do a couple of times. Nothing smacks of modern idolatry like the progressive/social-gospel crusade against alcohol.

Please add a download link. Sometimes I am unable to connect or wish to use my MP3 player.

Congratulations on the podcast. Sound quality was just fine.

You were very generous to Dr. Mohler.

I’ve got to admit that I was shocked when I first listened to Mohler’s comments.

When I heard him talking about libertarianism giving people “a way out of the cultural collision”, I wasn’t sure what he was talking about, but my suspicion was that he was attacking the ideas of Michael Horton, whose book “Beyond Culture Wars” argued that evangelicals needed to get away from fighting politico-cultural battles and concentrate on the gospel. (And on this, I’m completely with Horton.)

Then he moved on to saying that the ideological basis of libertarianism was Ayn Rand, and it was becoming clear that Mohler had read something about libertarianism, but probably knew little about it. Bastiat set out the ideological basis for libertarianism long before Rand was born – and it bears no resemblance to Randian objectivism. And Mohler must be aware that Machen was politically libertarian. Does Mohler seriously think that Machen was influenced by Rand?

But the question that bothered me was “If Mohler knows little about libertarianism, why is he pontificating so confidently and passionately on the subject?”

In defence of Mohler, the questioner referred to the Libertarian Party, and treated the Party as if it was the arbiter of what libertarianism was. He also loaded the question by saying ” it also includes abortion, it also includes sexual proclivity and gay marriage. Is that a place that a Christian should be lending (his) support?” – which sort of demands the answer “No!” The whole problem is that libertarianism is a pretty broad movement, and a lot of libertarians are strongly anti-abortion and completely reject same-sex marriage – but that was not mentioned.

But that doesn’t really excuse Mohler. He was the one who chose to mention Rand, and he had no qualms about making sweeping generalisations about libertarianism – even though Rand is controversial within libertarianism. He could have said “an ideological basis for a lot of libertarianism is idolatrous”, and gone one to speak about Rand. But he chose to say “the ideological base of libertarianism is idolatry”. Now, if Mohler believes that the same is true of the ideological bases of democracy, republicanism, monarchy, constitutionalism, etc., then I could accept what he said about the ideological base of libertarianism. But I certainly didn’t get the impression that he believed that. Indeed, if we are on the subject of idolatry, and Mohler really does reject Horton’s views, I wonder if he is in danger of moving towards idolatry.

Then Mohler said (of Randian individualism) “If you are a libertarian and you are buying into that, then you are denying the gospel by doing so.” He then added “not all libertarians do that, not all people who are tempted by libertarian ideology do that.” I think that is really slippery. When he says “If you are a libertarian and you are buying into that, then you are denying the gospel by doing so” – my response is “OK – fine – but I don’t think that is happening with any Christian libertarians I’ve encountered.” When he says “not all libertarians do that”, my response is “OK, you are admitting that, but you are implying that many Christian libertarians do. (It’s like saying “Not all Christians who supported George W Bush supported the use of torture”, or “Not all Christians who vote democrat support abortion”) And then when Mohler finishes the sentence “not all people who are tempted by libertarian ideology do that”, my response is “Why are you using the word ‘tempted’?” And what do you mean by ‘libertarian ideology’ – are you talking about Randianism or libertarianism? If you are talking about Randianism, I would have thought that they must do it. If you are talking about libertarianism, then why are you using the word ‘tempted’? You are implying that it is a sin.”

To be honest, listening to Mohler on the subject of libertarianism was like listening to a teenager who has read Dawkins talking loudly about Christianity and theology as if he’s an expert. As a Christian, I don’t like it when unbelievers misrepresent Christianity. Surely it is my Christian duty not to misrepresent beliefs that I do not hold to.

The fact is that Mohler misrepresented libertarianism. He could only have done so through ignorance or through dishonesty. If he did it through honest ignorance, he has had over a year to explain himself and apologise. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t done so. That raises questions in my mind about whether Mohler believes that the ninth commandment has any relevance to Christians.