I’m curious to see what AP says against your post. If your idea is that the Church and the UN are competing like capitalists in the “market” of humanitarian aid etc. (and this is what I gathered), then you can hardly say that the Government has no business in the market. Certainly, however, we should strain so hard that we effectively have a monopoly on the field. I’m not sure if the two fields can actually be lumped together, but definitely in peace-keeping, I don’t see how you can say it’s none of the government’s business. Isn’t the government the representative of the people? Surely you don’t want the Church signing peace treaties (this is why I leapt to the accusation of theonomy). Making something obsolete isn’t the same as forbidding it.
Garbled. Hope it made sense.

N. E. Embrey – yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, although I’m not saying, “If you’re a Christian, you’re a libertarian” at all. I’m more emphasizing that the Church has abdicated from its historical and (I think) Biblical role, and we should seek to replace the U. N. and provide, in your example, true humanitarian aid (any humanitarian aid without the gospel is false, insofar as it doesn’t have part of the truth, right?).

A. P. Ahern – I wait with bated breath. Baited. Whatever.

V. K. Blake – What is a theonomist?

J.R. Ahern – this post is clever, academic, well-pondered, interesting, and dangerously wrong. Due to the limited space in comments, expect that I will post a rebuttal in short order.

You seem to be saying that two things need to happen:

1. The Church needs to start working on peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance because that’s its business.

2. Governments need to stop working on peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance because it’s none of their business.

Is that really what you’re saying?