Certain Inalienable Rights...
The 1776 United States
Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, famously
asserts:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
On this topic, that
popular and fast growing Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, says,
"The concept of
inalienable rights originates from the concept of natural rights formulated
during the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Classical
Liberal thinkers reasoned that each man is endowed with (God-given) rights,
most importantly, the right to life and the right to liberty. However, they
reasoned that the natural state
of absolute freedom causes anarchy. Eventually each individual forms an
implicit social
contract, ceding his or her right to the authority to protect his or
her right from being abused. For this reason, almost all classical liberal
thinkers, for example, accepted the death penalty and incarceration as
necessary elements of government. However, some argued against slavery because
there is no way a person can consent to being enslaved in exchange for
protection. Consequently, the classical liberals reasoned that people have the right to rebel
against tyrants who arbitrarily abuse natural rights.
Criticism: The concept of natural rights played important roles in the
justifications for both the French and American Revolutions.
17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural
rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and
estate (or property)".
Derivation of
inalienable rights from Natural Law
can also be criticized on solely philosophical grounds. The naturalistic
fallacy of David Hume,
which is discussed at length in G. E. Moore's Principia
Ethica, is the derivation of an "ought" statement from
"is" statements with no "ought" premise. Jonathan Wallace
claims in his paper "Natural Rights Don't Exist," that the phrase
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" is simply a "more
elegant version of 'Because we said so.'"
In "The Social Contract,"
Jean-Jacques
Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is
unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of
laws and rights. This idea of a social contract –
that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between
the government and the people – is the most widely recognized
alternative. However, this has likewise come under the criticism that 1) it
identifies the state as an abstract being without limits or accountability,
rather than an actual person or persons, and 2) it denies persons born under
this "social contract" the right to give or deny their consent to its
dictates, but instead may subordinate rights which are held to be otherwise
"inalienable" such as life and liberty (as in the case of
conscription). Samuel P.
Huntington, an American political scientist,
wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of
Independence was necessary because "The British were white, English, and
Protestant, just as we were. They had to have some other basis on which to
justify independence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights).
Lurking behind the
Bill of Rights is the assumption that anarchy prevails when there is no
government at all, that ordinary
men will often take advantage of their neighbors when they can, putting their
own "rights" above the rights of others, above the good of
society--and most importantly ignoring the clear standards of God much of the
time.
Anyone who knows the
Bible at all will immediately recognize that God does not give all men equal
rights--especially so that they can go about freely pursuing their own selfish lives,
their own liberty at the expense of others, and the pursuit of their own "devil
may care" personal happiness!
Half a century ago
the term "rights" meant mostly "civil-rights" and the
needed reforms which followed were surely a good thing. These days most
Americans live these days as if they had a right to do anything they please
with few constraints. Ignoring what God might think about lifestyles, we now
have the right to abort unwanted children, which follows closely on the heels
of the supposed right of "consenting adults" to have sex with anyone
they please. (Marriage is out of date and archaic and doesn't work anyway).
Insistence upon gay rights has been followed by the supposed right to gay
"marriage." What is next? God only knows!
The founding fathers
certainly recognized that an orderly society can not exist when citizens live
autonomously, ignoring the common good with everyone being his or her own god.
Furthermore, our forefathers took for granted that there existed an underlying
moral natural law in the universe.
That is, there were moral absolutes operating in the world which we disregarded
only at our peril. (Natural law is a vast subject of philosophy, for starters
see: http://www.jim.com/rights.html,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm).
The subject of human
rights is not directly discussed in the Bible. We are house guests in Someone
else's universe and our "right" to live even another day is
completely dependent upon God's mercy, grace and kindness. God's kindness is
meant to lead us to repentance, says Paul in Romans.
Historically the
nations one sees in the Old Testament usually reflected the values of their
original family chieftain. Edom was like Esau, The Canaanites became like their
forefather Canaan, grandson of Ham, and so on. After the Flood of Noah tribal
rule by heads of families was replaced by God-given governments and national
boundaries "instituted among men".
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For
there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are
appointed by God. Therefore
whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who
resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good
works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is
good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you
for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in
vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who
practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but
also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are
God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to
all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to
whom fear, honor to whom honor." (Romans 13:1-7)
The
purposes of governments in the world are not redemptive. Moral reforms are
supposed to be the work of the church of Jesus Christ. Government restrains and
punishes evil, making everyday life bearable.
Our
default to "civil religion" leads us to expect new laws and better
government to correct things that are wrong in society. But as God sees it, the church of Jesus Christ is intended to be the "secret government"
of planet earth. (See The Most Powerful
Force on Earth, http://raystedman.org/bodylife/body01.html).
Governments have been placed in the world to bring law and order, to reflect
the just character of God, and to reward good citizenship and meritorious
behavior. But only one group of people in the world has the power and resources
to alter the status quo. The church alone has been given an understanding of
the root problems of mankind, and God's powerful solutions to these problems.
The world remains completely in the dark about these matters! Schools can not
transform human nature. Medical science can not cure original sin which is the
reason people grow sick and die. World religions do not impart eternal life nor
can they forgive sin nor heal the inner man. Improving the economic situation
of the poor, reducing unemployment, or raising health standards does not change
the human heart. Only the true church can do this! In addition to all this
responsibility here and now, God expects the church to judge angels (1
Corinthians 6:3) and ultimately the world as well (1 Corinthians 6:2)! (see God's Strange
Servants, http://raystedman.org/romans2/3532.html).
Israel alone was chosen
to be God's model nation under God by special covenant. While God's purposes
for Israel are not yet fulfilled, we live these days in "the times of the
gentiles" when the nations of world jostle and joust on the world
stage--generally in opposition to God.
Psalm 2 gives us
God's long term point of view on the constant strife between nations in Psalm
2--and how it will end:
Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a
vain thing?
The kings of the
earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
"Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us."
He who sits in the
heavens shall laugh;
The LORD shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak
to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
"Yet I have set My
King On My holy hill of Zion."
"I will declare the
decree: The LORD has said to Me,
ÔYou are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will
give You The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.'"
Now therefore, be
wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with
fear, And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who
put their trust in Him.
In Daniel
Chapters 2, and 7, the Lord gives us very clear pictures of the succession of
world powers from 586 BC-- down to the time Christ will return to set up His
kingdom on the planet. Christ's plan will not be one of moral reform, talking
the best from every nation, but a compete replacement of all aspects of human
government with the theocracy of heaven. Furthermore, democracy is not the best
form of government for mankind--it is the weakest and least efficient, as
Daniel makes clear.
In a very timely new
book, The Myth of a Christian Nation,
(Zondervan 2005), Gregory A. Boyd argues for clear distinctions between the
kingdoms of this world and the coming Kingdom of God on earth. Regardless of
where we live in the world, regardless of the form of government over us, we
Christians are called to live by the standards of the Kingdom of God which
Jesus taught us. Boyd says,
IS AMERICA, OR WAS IT EVER, A THEOCRACY?
The
first conceptual problem is that there is no reason to believe America ever was
a theocracy. Unlike Israel, we have no biblical or empirical reason to believe
God ever intended to be king over America in any unique sense. True, some of
those who were part of the original European conquest of this continent claimed
this, but why believe they were right?
Undoubtedly,
part of the reason evangelicals accept this claim is the fact that fallen
humans have always tended to fuse religious and nationalistic and tribal
interests. We want to believe that God is on our side, supports our causes,
protects our interests, and ensures our victories--which, in one form or
another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So
it has been for most people throughout history.
Related
to this, fallen humans have a strong tendency to divinize our own values,
especially those most dear to us...If something is important to us, we reason,
then it must be important to God. Hence, we must in some sense be special to
God for agreeing with him Since political freedom is dear to American
evangelicals, it seems obvious to them that it must also be dear to God.
Indeed, it seems clear to many that God uniquely established America and leads
America for the express purpose of promoting this supreme value around the
globe.
Now,
we may (or may not) grant that it's "self-evident" that political freedom
is the most precious thing a government can give its people. We may (or may
not) think it would he good if every version of the kingdom of the world
espoused this value. But on what basis can a follower of Jesus claim this is
obviously a supreme value for God? Political freedom certainly wasn't a value
emphasized by Jesus, for he never addressed the topic. He and various New
Testament authors speak about freedom from sin, fear, and the Devil, but show
no interest in political freedom.
In
fact, until very recently, political freedom wasn't a value ever espoused by
the church. To the contrary, most branches of the church resisted the idea that
people can govern themselves when it first began to be espoused in the
Enlightenment period. Yet now, quite suddenly, it's supposedly a preeminent
Christian value--to the point of justifying the view that America is uniquely
established and led by God because it emphasizes this value! And this many
contemporary evangelicals regard as obvious!
This
is an amazing and significant new twist on the Christian religion. Indeed, it
arguably constitutes a new nationalistic religion--what we might call 'the
religion of American democracy." Like all religions, this religion has its
own distinctive, theologized, revisionist history (for instance, the
"manifest destiny" doctrine whereby God destined Europeans to conquer
the land). It has its own distinctive message of salvation (political freedom),
its own "set apart" people group (America and its allies), its own
creed ("we hold these truths to be self-evident"), its own
distinctive enemies (all who resist freedom and who are against America), its
own distinctive symbol (the flag), and its own distinctive god (the national
deity we are "under," who favoring our causes and helps us win our
battles). This nationalistic religion co-opts Christian rhetoric, but it in
fact has nothing to do with real Christianity, for it has nothing to do with
the kingdom of God.
Not only is the supreme value of this new nationalistic religion (political freedom) not espoused in Scripture, as we've said, but the Calvary-quality love that is the supreme value espoused by the New Testament is impossible to live out consistently if one is also aligned with this nationalistic religion. Among other things, the nationalistic religion is founded on individual self-interest--the "right" to political freedom--whereas the kingdom of God is centered on self-sacrifice, replicating Calvary to all people at all times. Moreover, because it is a nationalistic religion, the religion of political freedom must use "power over" to protect and advance itself As we have seen, however, the kingdom of God planted by and modeled by Jesus uses only "power under" to advance itself, and it does not protect itself by force. It is impossible to imitate Jesus, dying on the cross for those who crucified him, while at the same time killing people on the grounds that they are against political freedom. It is impossible to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you, while at the same time defending your right to political freedom by killing those who threaten you...
The
danger of kingdom people taking the slogan "one nation under God" too
seriously is that we set ourselves up for idolatrous compromise. We may judge that
God wants all people to be politically free. We may believe that to this extent
God approves of America. But we have no grounds for thinking that America is
for this reason a nation that is more "under God" than any other
nation. As in all nations, God is working in America to further law and order
as much as possible, and, as with all nations, America is under the strong
corrupting influence of demonic powers. So while we may agree that the
"one nation under God" slogan serves a useful civil function, as
kingdom people we must never take it too seriously. The only people who can he
meaningfully said to he "under God" in a kingdom-of-God way are those
who are in fact manifesting the reign of God by mimicking Jesus' love expressed
on Calvary (Ephesians 5:1-2).
Boyd calls attention
to the enormous influence a handful of Christians had in the Roman Empire up
until the union of church and state under Constantine in 313 AD. He notes that
Augustine, and many other church leaders who followed, failed to bring the
church back to her original calling to be a collection of simple pilgrims
living as temporary exiles in enemy-held territory.
Today Christianity in
America has been largely absorbed by the world--and almost completely
marginalized as well. But the world and its kingdoms are ruled over by
Satan--the "god of this world." And, the world-system is in fierce
opposition to the kingdom of God. The coming in of the Kingdom of Jesus on
earth will involve horrific violence and a terrible time of trouble.
"Enemy-occupied
territory -- that is what the world is. Christianity is the story of how the
rightful King has landed in disguise, and is calling us to take part in a great
campaign of sabotage." (C.S. Lewis)
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been
since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And
unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's
sake those days will be shortened." (Jesus, Matthew 24:21-22)
"God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of
heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. "Nor is He
worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all
life, breath, and all things. "And He has made from one blood every nation of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, "so that they should
seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though
He is not far from each one of us; "for in Him we live and move and have our
being, as also some of your own poets have said, ÔFor we are also His
offspring.' "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to
think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped
by art and man's devising. "Truly, these
times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to
repent, "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in
righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of
this to all by raising Him from the dead."(Acts 17:24-31, Paul to the
Athenians on Mars Hill).
George Barna's
surveys of life in America today are most revealing:
Often
described as "the most religious people on earth,"most Americans "feel
accepted by God"(88%), see themselves as "deeply spiritual"(62%) and believe
they can be accurately described as "a fulltime servant of God"(59%).
Americans
describe their personal faith in various ways. While more than eight out of ten
(84%) view themselves as Christian, a lesser but significant majority label
themselves as a "committed Christian"(60%). Within that framework, people's
self-identity includes 45% who call themselves a "born again Christian,"42%
who claim to be an "evangelical Christian"and one out of four who adopt the
label "charismatic or Pentecostal Christian"(26%).
The
survey also highlighted the fact that people who are in the born again
constituency (based upon their beliefs, rather than their self-identification)
are less likely than atheists to be social activists (42% of atheists claimed
that label, compared to just 29% of born again adults and only 20% of
evangelicals). Despite their activism, though, atheists emerged as being less
clear about their purpose in life and less likely to feel at peace. Not
surprisingly, they were also considerably less concerned about the moral
condition of the country. (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=243).
The Myth of a Christian Nation does not address all the complex issues of our calling as
Christians to be separate from the world living kingdom life-styles. But
Gregory Boyd's book is surely a much needed wake-up call for all of us who wish
to follow Jesus, leaving behind the many deceptions and false promises of the
kingdoms of this world.
Boyd concludes,
What if We Did
Get the Kingdom?
What
if the energy and resources used to preserve and tweak the civil religion was
rather spent feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, befriending the drug
addict, and visiting the prisoner? What if our focus was on sacrificing our
resources to help inner city schools and safety houses for battered women? What
if our concern was to bridge the ungodly racial gap in our country by
developing friendships and collaborating in endeavors with people whose
ethnicity is different than our own? What if instead of trying to defend our
religious rights, Christians concerned themselves with siding with others whose
rights are routinely trampled? What if instead of trying to legally make life
more difficult for gays, we worried only about how we could affirm their
unsurpassable worth in service to them?
In
other words, what if we individually and collectively committed ourselves to
the one thing that is needful--to replicating the loving sacrifice of Calvary
to all people, at all times, in all places, regardless of their circumstances
or merit? What if we just did the kingdom?
This
is far more difficult than merely protecting the civil religion, which perhaps
partly explains why so many prefer focusing on the civil religion. Doing the
kingdom always requires that we bleed for others, and for just this reason, doing
the kingdom accomplishes something kingdom-of-the-world activity can never
accomplish. It may not immediately adjust people's behavior, but this is not
what it seeks to accomplish. Rather, it transforms people's hearts and
therefore transforms society.
The
Apostle Paul urges us,
Brothers, join in following my example, and note those who so
walk, as you have us for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you
often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of
Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is
in their shame--who set their mind on earthly things. For our citizenship is in
heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious
body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to
Himself." (Philippians 3:17-21)
9/03/06
Periodic newsletters
are on my web site: http://ldolphin.org/news/.
My main web site library is http://ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml,
with newer articles posted at the top.
