OK, that is another direction we can proceed with. If it is a question of just how much a believer should stand up for his or her rights, that is another issue, and a complex one. For example, we are told to offer the other cheek when struck. There we seem to forego our rights. Yet when Paul is challenged in Acts he appeals to Caesar, that is, he makes use of his rights as a Roman citizen, and seeks justice.

There a millions of cases when a believer must ask, ‘should I stand up and demand my rights, or should I allow God to work on my behalf?’ For example if a believer is falsely accused (I was just told a story today of a believer fired from his job, and perhaps somewhat unjustly), should he stand up for his rights, or trust God to work good out of it? In the case of this person, he felt he should not argue the case, and believe God to come up with something better.

But I think both responses can be appropriate. We do not have to be doormats, and let people walk all over us. There is a place for standing up for ourselves and speaking up. But sometimes God may lead us to endure our troubles and wrongs, and not have us seek to defend ourselves. He will defend us, in one way or another. I guess in many ways it depends on the situation, and what God is calling one to do.

But these are all examples of personal ethics. Social ethics is another matter. This involves third parties. Romans 13 gives us the duties of the state to punish wrongdoing and to work for justice. Governments should deal with wrong doing and injustices, while individual believers may be willing to forgive instead of pressing charges, eg. It is when a third innocent party comes into play that we can and should talk about protecting them from injustice and wrong. So the responsibilities of the state may at times differ from those of the individual believer when it comes to questions of justice and dealing with wrongdoing.

But as I say, it is a big topic, and a very complicated one. Worth another article I suppose.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

“We believe all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable obligations”!!! Awesome!!…and scriptural.

Regards

Robert Phillips

I think I pretty much said the same thing. I said we are citizens of two kingdoms, and have obligations to each. I said we mainly have responsibilities more than rights as believers, etc. The “tad different” bit was basically to say that as followers of Jesus we are called “bondservants of Christ” and other terms in Scripture which might not make much sense to a non-believer. I did not imply that a nonbeliever has no obligations toward God. I meant to say that the believer is willing to waive his rights in the interests of serving God and others, that’s all. We are servants of Christ, and do not trumpet our own rights.

What you might be getting at perhaps (and I am still not fully clear what you are driving at) is that we are all guilty before God, and all have obligations before God. Paul in Romans 1 and 2 makes this case. We all have the moral law written in our hearts, and we all stand guilty because we transgress that law.

As to the phrase “unalienable rights,” that of course comes not from the Bible but the US Constitution. So the only rights we have are those which God gives to us. And these rights always have corresponding obligations.

And I of course agree with you about things like same-sex marriage. And I believe that God’s moral law applies to us all. How that is expressed in secular judiciaries and legislatures is another matter.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

You said: “So notions of human rights derive in large measure from the biblical understanding of who we are as made in God’s image.”
However, I would have thought from a straight forward reading, that a “Biblical understanding” as an individual, does not so much, confer intrinsic “rights” on me as it imposes responsibilities toward God and our fellow man. This is the case whether you are a believer or an unbeliever. ie Because we are Gods image bearers we are to act like him. How did he act? He did not demand his rights when he went to the cross. Just because an unbeliever may be ignorant of these facts does not thereby relieve him/her of accountability to God for how they have borne His image.

For example, you say for a believer things are a “tad different” where: “Talk instead centres on our duties, responsibilities, obligations and service to our Lord”. This could be summed up as the 2 great commandments, 1. Love God and 2. Love your neighbour as yourself, could it not?
My question is: In what way is an unbeliever relieved of these 2 onerous responsibilities? ie how is it a “tad different”?
Now, I know that we wont be making laws for people to “repent and believe” any time soon, but I hope you see my point, as it does relate to public policy.
And it relates to public policy in this way: Gay marriage does not show love towards ones neighbour as it disfigures man made in the image of God. It does not show love toward God, as it disobeys what he has commanded.
This gay marriage law is not just bad for believers but also for unbelievers.
Finally you said: “You see, the Bible talks very little about rights, when it comes to being a follower of God.”
My response in light of what I have said above is that the Bible talks very little about rights, when it comes to being a…Man or Woman, period. I think this type of thinking is a false dichotomy, that is between believer and unbeliever, when it comes to the subject of “rights”.
So….getting back to my original question where in the Biblical account do we find, the concept of “unalienable rights”? I think you have yet to answer my question…..?

God Bless
Robert Phillips

I would say that the right to life is implied by Genesis 9:6 and also in the commandment “Thou shall not murder”. The right to private property is implied in commandments like “Thou shall not steal”, etc. Clearly certain rights are presupposed by many biblical passages.

Ewan McDonald.

It seems that there are two parts in answering your questions. One is the general idea that the Judeo-Christian worldview gave rise to modern ideas of human rights, freedom and democracy. Ancient Greece and Rome were really very limited in these ideas, with widespread slavery, infanticide and chauvinism. Christianity, based on the idea that we are all made in God’s image, and therefore are all equal, was able to elevate the status of women, put an end to practices such as infanticide and slavery, and give a solid basis for such things as democracy and freedom. So notions of human rights derive in large measure from the biblical understanding of who we are as made in God’s image.

Having said that, things are a tad different for the believer. While we celebrate the freedoms and human rights which our faith has enabled in the West, we realise that we are in fact servants to Christ. You see, the Bible talks very little about rights, when it comes to being a follower of God. Talk instead centres on our duties, responsibilities, obligations and service to our Lord. Thus we should be willing to forgo our rights, and instead be willing to serve God and others.

So in terms of public policy, the Judeo-Christian worldview really helped to make human rights and freedom possible, but in terms of our role as Christians, we are to follow the example of Jesus and be a servant to all, instead of demanding our own rights.

Yet we have obligations as both earthly citizens and heavenly citizens. Thus we can fight for human rights for others (and ourselves) as in the Christian battle against slavery, but as individual followers of Jesus, we may waive our rights in the interests of serving God and winning others to the faith.

This is just a brief intro to such issues. I hope that it starts to answer some of your questions. Let me know if it has not.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Sometimes the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots.

Michael Mifsud