THIS POST was written by Jason Ruzek, soon to be Pastoral Intern for Worship at GCF.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This phrase from the Declaration of Independence gets a lot of use. It is cited when anyone wants to do anything, regardless of what it is. It is cited to defend the right of the unborn. It is cited in defending the right to an abortion. It is cited to defend the right to less government intrusion. It is cited to defend the necessity of more government intrusion. Can all these be correct?
I will be writing several blog posts on the notion of “rights” and how the Christian should understand the concept, how the world uses the concept, and how we should relate to the world in light of this.
Firstly, how should we understand the concept?
If I were to say that I have a right to eat your cheeseburger, would I actually have that right? Should or shouldn’t you feel required to hand over your fabulous dinner to me?
If I were to say that I have a right to cough in your face, how could we possibly know that I don’t actually have that right? After all, I said so!
If we have a right to something that means that we are talking about how we relate to other people. Talking about “rights” doesn’t make any sense if there’s no one else around. For instance, if I’m on an island by myself and I say that I have a right to free speech, who is there to enforce that right? Who will try to stop me from exercising that right? If, while on that island, I also declare that I have a right to due process (a proper pre-trial and trial process with a jury), who is there to convict me of anything? Who is there to assure that I get a trial at all? “Rights” talk only makes sense when I’m talking about how I must relate to other people. There is more to say about the “Desert Island” hypothetical in just a bit.
But this has a serious side effect. It is commonly said that, “My rights end where yours begin.” But are we to understand that notion based on the limits on us? Or, would it make much more sense to understand this based on our responsibility to others?
Talking about “rights” only means something when there are others around, right? As it only makes sense to talk about “rights” with respect to other people, then the better way to understand the phrase “my rights end where yours begin” is to understand how people are supposed to relate to each other. That means that I am responsible for these rights for others. That means that we are responsible to each other. If “rights” talk only make sense if it includes how I relate to other people, then rights are never something “I” have, it’s something “we” have. If I have a “right”, then you are responsible to uphold that right, if you have a “right” then I am responsible to you to uphold that right. Rights MUST come with responsibility, because rights can only be exercised by the one when they are protected by others.
But as Christians, we understand this to be incomplete, don’t we? Thomas Jefferson, hardly an orthodox Christian, understood that if there is not something or someone outside of us asserting how were are responsible to and for each other, if there is no God commanding that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, then a “right” is only as good as one person’s or one group’s ability to defend that right. Without God, the only thing that determines whether or not a “right” exists at all is entirely dependent on how powerful a person or group is, that is, how able a person or group is to force others to buy into a “right”.
We see this in places where the terrible is normal. We see this in endless civil wars in central Africa. We see this in the tribal and religious abuses in Central Asia. We see this in how Protestants treated Catholics and how Catholics treated Protestants for hundreds of years after the Reformation. Throughout history, the disregard and abuse of the things we call “rights” are much more common than the honoring and upholding of them.
So though we understand the secular view of rights to be incomplete because it assumes or denies God, how are we as the children of God to understand “rights” as we walk through this world, a world that assumes, neglects, and denies God?
After having been caught in the acts of murder and adultery, King David wrote, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. (Psa 51:4 ESV)”
Does this sound right to you? David sinned against Uriah when he assured that he would be killed in battle. David sinned against Bathsheba, utilizing his position of power and authority to seduce her. David sinned against his own children, bringing shame upon his household and served as a miserable moral example. David sinned against his military leaders making them complicit in murder. David sinned against his entire kingdom in committing two grave injustices while being the arbiter of justice as their king. As Don Carson has said, “One is hard pressed to think of anyone that David hasn’t sinned against.”
So how does David say that he has sinned only against God? How can this make any sense in light of David’s offense against so many people?
Without getting too deep, it will be enough in this forum to say that God has commanded that his creation be a certain way and do certain things because that way and those things are representative of who he is and what he does.
We are God’s image bearers, so our image should be representative of Him. It’s not. We are God’s vice regents, that is, we are people sent by the King to do the stuff the King wants them to do. We don’t. We are not who we should be, and we don’t do what we should do.
When creation isn’t the way God has commanded and isn’t doing those things God has specified, then not only are the individuals doing the wrong thing (viewing things from the point of view of the individual), God’s right to his creation being representative of Him is thwarted. Our responsibility to God to uphold his “right” as creator is rejected by us. He will still assure that His “rights” are satisfied, but it will not be as it should be, that is, by our properly upholding God’s right as creator to see His creation do what it is designed to do.
Now, this begins to show what Jefferson understood when he wrote those famous words. God is the primary right holder, and all other rights flow from God’s character and his demands upon His creation. This makes sense because, as we have already seen, talking about “rights” when there is no one else around doesn’t make any sense at all. There is nothing we can be prevented from doing if there is no one else around, so there is no need to say that we have the “right” to do something. There is no need to protect us from exercising a right if there is no one else around.
So let’s return, once again, to our desert island, except now we understand that we have been made by God for God’s purposes. We no longer think it is just us on this island, we know that God is there, as well. Now we have another with whom we can interact. Can we now assert our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Not if we are sinners before a holy God. We have lost all our rights because we have first refused God His right. David understood this when he wrote, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” He understood what we have shown on our desert island, all sin is, first and with the greatest force, sin against God. If there is no one else around, we still are sinning against God.
As we understand that all rights have to do with how we interact with others, and there are not primarily about “me”, and as we understand that God is the primary and authoritative holder of all rights, in the next post, we will explore more about what that means for our relationship with God, with other people, and how the blood of Jesus Christ changes every last bit of it.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
This phrase from the Declaration of Independence gets a lot of use. It is cited when anyone wants to do anything, regardless of what it is. It is cited to defend the right of the unborn. It is cited in defending the right to an abortion. It is cited to defend the right to less government intrusion. It is cited to defend the necessity of more government intrusion. Can all these be correct?
I will be writing several blog posts on the notion of “rights” and how the Christian should understand the concept, how the world uses the concept, and how we should relate to the world in light of this.
Firstly, how should we understand the concept?
If I were to say that I have a right to eat your cheeseburger, would I actually have that right? Should or shouldn’t you feel required to hand over your fabulous dinner to me?
If I were to say that I have a right to cough in your face, how could we possibly know that I don’t actually have that right? After all, I said so!
If we have a right to something that means that we are talking about how we relate to other people. Talking about “rights” doesn’t make any sense if there’s no one else around. For instance, if I’m on an island by myself and I say that I have a right to free speech, who is there to enforce that right? Who will try to stop me from exercising that right? If, while on that island, I also declare that I have a right to due process (a proper pre-trial and trial process with a jury), who is there to convict me of anything? Who is there to assure that I get a trial at all? “Rights” talk only makes sense when I’m talking about how I must relate to other people. There is more to say about the “Desert Island” hypothetical in just a bit.
But this has a serious side effect. It is commonly said that, “My rights end where yours begin.” But are we to understand that notion based on the limits on us? Or, would it make much more sense to understand this based on our responsibility to others?
Talking about “rights” only means something when there are others around, right? As it only makes sense to talk about “rights” with respect to other people, then the better way to understand the phrase “my rights end where yours begin” is to understand how people are supposed to relate to each other. That means that I am responsible for these rights for others. That means that we are responsible to each other. If “rights” talk only make sense if it includes how I relate to other people, then rights are never something “I” have, it’s something “we” have. If I have a “right”, then you are responsible to uphold that right, if you have a “right” then I am responsible to you to uphold that right. Rights MUST come with responsibility, because rights can only be exercised by the one when they are protected by others.
But as Christians, we understand this to be incomplete, don’t we? Thomas Jefferson, hardly an orthodox Christian, understood that if there is not something or someone outside of us asserting how were are responsible to and for each other, if there is no God commanding that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, then a “right” is only as good as one person’s or one group’s ability to defend that right. Without God, the only thing that determines whether or not a “right” exists at all is entirely dependent on how powerful a person or group is, that is, how able a person or group is to force others to buy into a “right”.
We see this in places where the terrible is normal. We see this in endless civil wars in central Africa. We see this in the tribal and religious abuses in Central Asia. We see this in how Protestants treated Catholics and how Catholics treated Protestants for hundreds of years after the Reformation. Throughout history, the disregard and abuse of the things we call “rights” are much more common than the honoring and upholding of them.
So though we understand the secular view of rights to be incomplete because it assumes or denies God, how are we as the children of God to understand “rights” as we walk through this world, a world that assumes, neglects, and denies God?
After having been caught in the acts of murder and adultery, King David wrote, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. (Psa 51:4 ESV)”
Does this sound right to you? David sinned against Uriah when he assured that he would be killed in battle. David sinned against Bathsheba, utilizing his position of power and authority to seduce her. David sinned against his own children, bringing shame upon his household and served as a miserable moral example. David sinned against his military leaders making them complicit in murder. David sinned against his entire kingdom in committing two grave injustices while being the arbiter of justice as their king. As Don Carson has said, “One is hard pressed to think of anyone that David hasn’t sinned against.”
So how does David say that he has sinned only against God? How can this make any sense in light of David’s offense against so many people?
Without getting too deep, it will be enough in this forum to say that God has commanded that his creation be a certain way and do certain things because that way and those things are representative of who he is and what he does.
We are God’s image bearers, so our image should be representative of Him. It’s not. We are God’s vice regents, that is, we are people sent by the King to do the stuff the King wants them to do. We don’t. We are not who we should be, and we don’t do what we should do.
When creation isn’t the way God has commanded and isn’t doing those things God has specified, then not only are the individuals doing the wrong thing (viewing things from the point of view of the individual), God’s right to his creation being representative of Him is thwarted. Our responsibility to God to uphold his “right” as creator is rejected by us. He will still assure that His “rights” are satisfied, but it will not be as it should be, that is, by our properly upholding God’s right as creator to see His creation do what it is designed to do.
Now, this begins to show what Jefferson understood when he wrote those famous words. God is the primary right holder, and all other rights flow from God’s character and his demands upon His creation. This makes sense because, as we have already seen, talking about “rights” when there is no one else around doesn’t make any sense at all. There is nothing we can be prevented from doing if there is no one else around, so there is no need to say that we have the “right” to do something. There is no need to protect us from exercising a right if there is no one else around.
So let’s return, once again, to our desert island, except now we understand that we have been made by God for God’s purposes. We no longer think it is just us on this island, we know that God is there, as well. Now we have another with whom we can interact. Can we now assert our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Not if we are sinners before a holy God. We have lost all our rights because we have first refused God His right. David understood this when he wrote, “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.” He understood what we have shown on our desert island, all sin is, first and with the greatest force, sin against God. If there is no one else around, we still are sinning against God.
As we understand that all rights have to do with how we interact with others, and there are not primarily about “me”, and as we understand that God is the primary and authoritative holder of all rights, in the next post, we will explore more about what that means for our relationship with God, with other people, and how the blood of Jesus Christ changes every last bit of it.
Comments
Post a Comment