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.Yeah, okay, sure, most Americans would recognize it as a line from the Declaration of Independence. And most of us have absorbed its ideas deeply, including Christians. After all, it says these rights are “endowed by their Creator” and are “unalienable,” which sounds comfortably close to Christian language. So many Christians instinctively accept that these rights include “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.” What fewer of us stop to ask is this: are those categories actually biblical? Not exactly.
Thomas Jefferson (a deist) wrote it, not with Scripture in mind, but with John Locke in mind. Locke argued for rights from a Creator and listed “life, liberty, or possessions” as divinely given, grounding that claim in humanity’s creation by God. But even there, the main concern was not “human rights” in the modern moral sense so much as limits on civil government. In other words, the argument was largely about what the state may not rightfully invade. That matters, because Christians can affirm political limits on government without confusing those limits with the Bible’s own primary way of speaking.
The truth is that the Bible does not ordinarily speak in the language of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” “unalienable rights,” or a government charged with securing them. Instead, it speaks in categories such as creation, covenant, duty, justice, obedience, stewardship, and God’s authority over all human life. Scripture presents us first not as autonomous individuals asserting claims, but as creatures accountable to our Creator and as neighbors bound by moral obligation. That does not mean human beings have no value or protections; it means the Bible grounds those realities in a different place. Human dignity rests in bearing God’s image (Gen 1:26-27; James 3:9), moral order rests in God’s law, and justice rests in God’s own character. So even when modern rights language overlaps with biblical concerns, it should not simply be equated with them. We do not control the boundaries of our lives, because our lives belong finally to God (Deut 32:39; Rom 14:7-8). We do not possess absolute liberty, because true freedom in Scripture is ordered toward obedience to Him (2 Cor 10:5). And “the pursuit of happiness” cannot function as a moral blank check, especially when what we desire conflicts with God’s commands (Gal 5:13-14).
What do we have, then? Biblically, we have the dignity of being made in the image of God, and, for believers, the added reality of being fellow heirs in Christ. That means human beings may not be treated as disposable (Gen 9:6), because they are not raw material for other people’s desires, the state’s convenience, or society’s calculations. Our worth is not self-created, socially assigned, or granted by the state; it is grounded in what God has made us to be. And our obligations toward one another do not arise merely from mutual consent, but from God’s command to do justice and to love our neighbor (Mic 6:8; Matt 22:39). Yet we are steadily eroding that truth in practice. We tolerate the destruction of life in the womb (Psa 139:13-16), and we increasingly measure the value of people by their “quality of life,” productivity, or usefulness. So if we are going to talk about rights, we should be careful at both ends of the argument. First, we should not claim that God has guaranteed what He has not actually promised. Second, we should not deny the dignity and protection owed to people whom God says bear His image. Both errors distort the biblical picture.
Today we're even giving up on the self-evident part. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are only feasible in a country that fundamentally holds to Christian, Biblical truths. Without that basis it becomes whatever one wants to define as life, liberty, and happiness without any regard for the source of those great things.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness” is subject to a great deal of interpretation--both personal and collective. The “pursuit of happiness,” for example, could easily justify abortion on demand (as Stan mentions in his last paragraph) and other terrible immoral and/or illegal behaviors. My “right” to liberty could also be problematic within an ordered society. God’s moral law is definitely needed to shape those “inalienable rights” and protect from the abuses of them.
DeleteI would agree that most Americans would believe that the line you quoted from the Declaration of Independence was practically from God, as it were, and in its context within the full document, it reads as such. The patriot leaders of that time believed that those particular “inalienable rights” were granted to them by the Creator, as well as the Crown, and it was worth committing treason to obtain and protect those “rights”--with the full blessing and support of Providence, it was assumed. On the other hand, not a small number of colonists believed that the “Revolution” being suggested was unwarranted rebellion--to both God and the Crown.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly (to my mind), I became a Christian (almost fifty years ago) at the very same time I began pursuing an interest in American history (particularly in Colonial America and the development of the various regions that formed our nation). In 1976, our nation was marking its 200th birthday, of course, so there was much patriotic discussion and celebration going on--just like this year. Over the past decades, I have needed to temper support for the American ideals typically espoused within “Christian nationalism” with the biblical teachings that I feel take precedence over any national loyalties. Therefore, I appreciate all the good thoughts you emphasized today and am mindful that I am a Christian first--a sojourner just passing through (1 Pet 2:11)--and a U.S. citizen farther down the line from that.
All three of those unalienable rights are indeed Biblical as indicated...endowed by our "Creator". We certainly have life because He gave it to us. We have liberty to choose good over evil, and John Adams insisted our form of government was, as David alluded, intended and only appropriate for a moral people. To Adams, that means the Biblical understanding of morality.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the "right" to pursue happiness is Biblical in the notion that living by God's Will does promote one's happiness. It's the only happiness which matters.
I would not question any of it on the basis of how badly corrupted it has been by those who would promote ANYTHING as within their "rights" to any of the three. The notion of liberty at the time of the founding was confused for license, and especially wasn't licentiousness. It was the ability to do good without interference by the government.
Also, the notion of deism at that time is not what most people today understand it to be. Jefferson was not averse to Christian principles, in any case, and I would say his attachment to them influenced his efforts in composing that declaration.