You Don't Have Rights

I'd like to start a small series about the intersection of the American Constitution and a Biblical worldview. This isn't quite 'what does the Bible say about politics' (that's a book, at least). Rather, let's discuss how we, as Christians, should understand and interact with the United States of America. I should disclaim right off the bat that I'm writing to and for Christians here; the entire point of this exercise is to approach this subject from (my own) Christian worldview. If you're reading this as a non-Christian, I hope you find it interesting, but don't expect to agree with everything I say.

With that being said, let's get to work. In short, this post will show that the concept of rights, as we typically understand it, is a man-made concept, not a Biblical one. If that seems bold or counterintuitive, walk with me.

What do we mean by "rights"? Let's define our terms before we get into the weeds. The rights I'm talking about are the rights in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights; rights that (ostensibly) are included with your humanity. Rights that, if or when violated, justify the seeking of reparations or retribution.

Let's dwell on the Declaration of Independence (hereafter, "DoI"), for it's fairly crucial to the discussion at hand. The DoI lists the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as "inalienable", endowed to all men by their "Creator". If a government violates these rights, the DoI argues that it is not only the privilege of those such governed to "alter or abolish" that government, but their duty.

That "right to revolution" is crucial to the discussion here. I'd agree that it's good when these conditions exist (when men have life, liberty, and the ability to pursue their own happiness), i.e. if we were drawing up a perfect world, men would have those abilities. That's not the point at discussion. Instead, we're asking if the Bible gives all men those rights and, when they're violated, the right, nay, responsibility to rebel against such a tyrannical government.  

And the answer is clearly "No." You may think that the Declaration's wording proves that America is a Christian nation. Many have made that exact argument. The only problem is that the DoI's claim -- God endows us with inalienable rights -- isn't a Christian worldview. It's not a Christian argument. It's simply not Biblical; it's a misinformed belief Christians should avoid.

This issue is criminally underdiscussed and widely misunderstood. The crux of this argument, in fact, the crux of this problem, is the failure to grasp the fact that individual rights aren't something God-given. Again, this may seem counterintuitive. Perhaps you've never stopped to question it: "Does the Bible support an inherent right to life? Does our creation in God's image necessitate a right to liberty? Or a pursuit of happiness?" The concept we have of rights is intensely individualistic (I'd chalk that up to our national American persona, but that's just gratuitous). Rights in the DoI context give each person their own meaning, their own individualistic value. Value that's housed in themselves, rather than in their relationship with God. "But wait," you object, "it literally reads 'endowed by their Creator'." Are they? Let's discuss.

Easiest to begin with is the "pursuit of happiness". The DoI, with its focus on individual rights and freedoms, claims that this right is among those endowed to each man by his Creator. In other words, every man and woman is free to determine for themselves what happiness means to them. This aligns, of course, with the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. As long as it doesn't interfere with the equal rights of your countrymen, you're free to pursue and believe whatever you like. This is a fundamental piece of the American founding and the freedoms we enjoy today, but it's nowhere close to a Biblical doctrine.

For the Bible is not libertarian. Believers are not free to act however they like. Their happiness is not their final goal. Instead, we are commanded-- commanded to trust in Christ for salvation (Acts 16:31). He is the only way; there is no other option (John 14:6). Believers are commanded to walk in love by the Spirit (Gal 5:16-26), being imitators of God (Eph 5), and to teach the Gospel through all the world (Matt 28:16-20). Happiness in a truly Biblical sense isn't some sense of personal fulfillment. It's not a determination each individual gets to find for themselves. Instead, believers find true happiness in following and living for God (Psalm 37:4). 

We're obligated to approach this discussion with some nuance. Carefully understand what I'm saying here. It's not unBiblical that the DoI and Constitution grant us this right. It doesn't contradict any tenet of the Christian faith. At the same time, neither is it Biblical. It is extra-Biblical; it is neutral. In clearer words, the right to pursue personal happiness is not some transcendental human right. It is not some prerogative bestowed upon you through your status as an image-bearer of God. And if someone violates that right, they have not (necessarily) sinned against you. 

I hope you see where this is leading. You are not endowed with your right to pursue personal happiness by your Creator, you receive it from our man-made government. You are not entitled to moral reparations if someone violates this right. You may be entitled to legal recourse under the American legal system, but (shocker!) the American legal system is not inspired by God. 

The right to liberty illustrates this even more clearly. Reason with me for a moment. The DoI claims that liberty is an "inalienable right" that "all men" are endowed with "by their Creator". If this were true, slavery (the deprivation of liberty) would be always, inherently wrong. However, Paul's letters indicate otherwise. In Ephesians, Paul is writing to Christian slaves and Christian masters. If slavery was such a clear human rights violation, you'd expect him to instruct the believing masters to release their slaves, giving them back the liberty with which they were endowed by their Creator. But does he? Quite the opposite! Instead, he instructs the slaves to obey their masters all the more, for "whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free" (Eph 6:5-9). Not only that; Paul makes the exact same point a second time in a second letter (1 Tim 6:1-2). 

I hope that's enough to demonstrate the point. Other instances (Lev 25:44, for example) illustrate that while slavery certainly isn't good, it's not the inherently wrong violation of "inalienable rights" the DoI would seem to indicate. So does Paul's entire letter to Philemon. (Slavery is bad, especially racially motivated, pejorative slavery and the abuses that accompany it. Please don't presume anything I'm saying suggests otherwise). 

But that's not the only basis of this argument. The Scriptural prescriptions for a Christian's relationship with government are several, but nowhere do we find a mandated responsibility (or even the permission to) overthrow a right-infringing government. Take the most famous example of all in Paul's letter to the Romans. Writing to believers in Rome soon after Nero became emperor, Paul writes, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). Nero's mistreatment of Christians is well known, and he might be the one eventually responsible for Paul's martyrdom. Nero was constantly violating Roman Christians' lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. Yet Paul instructs believers to respect their government, not overthrow it. This is almost exactly opposed to what the DoI claims to be our God-given responsibility. 

These aren't the only examples. It's difficult to provide a holistic NT theology of individual rights in these few paragraphs, but I hope that's enough to illustrate the point. It's time to bring this towards a conclusion. So what? How does any of this matter? 

This is a crucial foundation to the Christian Nationalism conversation we're about to embark on. Your Constitutional rights are not God-given. Frankly, that should be obvious, but it's something we don't often take the time to consider. Instead, your rights are given to you by the American government (specifically, the Constitution). Again, I'll stress the distinction between extra-Biblical and anti-Biblical. These rights are not anti-Biblical; they do not contradict Biblical teaching. In fact, I believe it's good that our government provides and protects these rights. But your Constitutional rights are extra-Biblical (i.e. not found in the Bible). We must view them less as some tenet of the Christian tradition (because they're not) and more as ... merely the way in which our government is set up. Effective? Clearly. Good? I believe so. But inspired by God? Endowed by the Creator? Definitely not.