Chalcedon has always stood against humanism and thus has repeatedly denounced its inevitable political manifestation —statism. Our position has been the advocacy of liberty not because the individual is sovereign (libertarianism) but because God’s sovereignty precludes man’s sovereignty and any attempt on his part to play god over others.
Strangely enough, we are often wrongly seen as advocating a very repressive form of statism because our moral standards are based on an admittedly strict Biblical law. It is presumed we would, given the opportunity, enforce everything we believe by civil authority.
All God’s laws are morally binding, but not all His laws even carried a civil penalty. Capital crimes required a strict threshold of two witnesses. Think about that next time someone accuses Christian Reconstructionism of advocating a repressive civil authority. Take for instance, the acts of adultery or of homosexuality. How could there be two witnesses to those acts which occur in private? The fact is, most such acts could not be prosecuted unless they were done so openly and flagrantly as to constitute an act of civil defiance. Most sexual crimes would be very difficult to prosecute in a Biblical legal system.
A number of years back, a woman in Florida was found not guilty of murdering or even harming her daughter. The fact was, the prosecution had no evidence that linked her to the death. Yet, some have expressed outrage at the verdict, ignoring the implications had a conviction been made on the basis of the state prosecutor’s conjectures.
Biblical law made provision for public atonement for murders that were unsolved. God’s justice, we must remember, provided not only for a moral standard, but also for a legal standard for both prosecutors and defendant. Man is only allowed to execute judgment where that legal standard has been met. God’s laws provide balance and protection for all men.