Newsletter
#73
Certain Inalienable RightsÉ
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 they can go about freely pursuing life, liberty
and their own 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 GodÕs
minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear
the sword in vain; for he is GodÕs minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him
who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath
but also for conscienceÕ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they
are GodÕs 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,
ÒLet us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.Ó
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:
ÒYet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.Ó
ÒI
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 potterÕs
vessel.ÕÓ
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 youÉ.
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)
ÒFor 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 electÕs sake those days will be shortened." (Jesus, Matthew
24:21-22)
ÒGod, who made the world and everything in it,
since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with
hands. ÒNor is He worshiped with menÕs hands, as though He needed anything,
since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. ÒAnd 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, Òso 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; Òfor 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.Õ ÒTherefore, 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 manÕs devising. ÒTruly, these times of ignorance God overlooked,
but now commands all men everywhere to repent, Òbecause 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.Ó (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 Òthe most religious people on earth,Ó most Americans Òfeel
accepted by GodÓ (88%), see themselves as Òdeeply spiritualÓ (62%) and believe
they can be accurately described as Òa fulltime servant of GodÓ (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 Òcommitted ChristianÓ (60%). Within that framework, peopleÕs
self-identity includes 45% who call themselves a Òborn again Christian,Ó 42%
who claim to be an Òevangelical ChristianÓ and one out of four who adopt the
label Òcharismatic or Pentecostal ChristianÓ (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 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)
Contributions: Friends who want to help out with
my expenses may send contributions directly to me by means of the PayPal or
Amazon.com links on my web site. For those who'd like to contribute for tax
purposes, checks may be sent to Peninsula Bible Church, 3505 Middlefield Road, Palo
Alto, CA 94306. Please include a note designating your gift to my support
account. I am not an organization and not employed by any organization so I
depend very much on the support I receive from friends. I do not receive a list
of those who send in contributions to my church so I can't send thank you notes
in most cases. But thank you!
Lambert Dolphin
lambert@ldolphin.org
http://ldolphin.org/