Inalienable rights

 

In declaring their independence, our founding fathers made the statement, "that they (all men) are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that are among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This statement attempts to answer the question, "who grants rights?" For if someone has a right, someone had to give it to them. But whom?

This act of men and women at this point in history established the best form of government in the history of the world. The establishment of a government that was ruled by the people as a rule over the people was an enormous departure from what had existed in Western Civilization, although the Greeks created the notion of democracy or "people rule" a thousand years earlier. The notion that "all men are created equal" was to reject that kings and queens were no different than the peasant absent their circumstances. 

"Inalienable rights" has commonly and without question been considered a Biblical concept since God is invoked as the grantor. BUT is it? Is He? Can it be a spiritual head fake? Now questioning whether "inalienable rights" is actually God's view of truth about His Kingdom does not challenge or diminish the amazing experiment in government of our founding fathers. However, Christians, and especially American Christians, should reconcile "inalienable rights" with what Scripture, especially the New Testament, actually claims about God's Kingdom and rights in this world.

First, the declaration says "these truths are self evident". How so and if so, do we find God's truths often "self evident"? What is wise to men is foolishness to God. What seems to be the emphasis for this worldview is the Aristotelian notion that there are natural laws or rights that informs and exist beyond government's laws, therefore not subject to any government's control. Basically, the founding fathers were debunking the prevailing idea of "the divine right of Kings." The source and motivation for this declaration is more about rejecting government as the ultimate authority and source of "rights granting." In a way, this declaration is placing the Sovereignty of God above the institution of government, which is a reasonable conclusion.

But, in doing so, are they declaring "truth" as God has revealed in His word?

I have found nowhere in the New Testament that God has bestowed on us "rights" to anything in this world. In fact, Jesus says the really fortunate are those who are destitute in self-reliance and rejected by this world because of their allegiance to Him. He contrasts the Kingdom of heaven with this world by pointing us to His unmerited provision for us, not our rights we can demand for our benefit. In fact, if we seek everything this world has to offer, our soul loses, not wins. We are told we are pilgrims and sojourners in this world and must "hate" this world's system. This doesn't seem like He is reminding us of our rights. We hear that we are not immune from affliction, but actually we are called to have our deepest emotions align with how Jesus felt as he journeyed to the cross. 

Before you want to "tar and feather" me for patriotic heresy, let me say I love the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I do believe society works better when government belongs to the people, not vice versa. BUT, if we confuse this with God's truths, we operate well beneath His best for us. When we claim our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we miss all of God's wishes for us in His Kingdom. His plan for us is not rights and rewards in this world, but provisions and privileges in the Heavenlies. 

I am afraid "self evident" is a human nature core assumption that truth is determined by what we conclude through observing our situations. It probably is evident from what people witnessed that human kings were not Sovereign. But, if we assume truth is revealed to us by the Creator (the witness of the Holy Spirit) not our observations, we would not assume we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing revealed in His word other than life, liberty and joy is all given to us by Him consistent with his Sovereign will.

Core assumptions are powerful forces in how we think, feel, and act. This is why the b4worldview team developed a transformational learning experience to better understand the core assumptions of Jesus.

Give it a try ..... www.b4worldview.com 

Economics and Christianity: Strange Bedfellows?

One of the most common discussions in training Christian youth is how capitalism associates with the Christian worldview of economics. Generally, this focus on economics is how capitalism is a "better" economic system than socialism or communism. Capitalism is more aligned with the Judeo/Christian work ethic.


The notion "better" uses both principles of economics and experience to demonstrate that free market societies are more materially prosperous than these other economic approaches. Inherent in capitalism is greater personal liberties. Therefore, capitalistic countries have a higher GDP, are freer and thus, considered "better off."

If the results of an economic system is a higher standard of living and more people are lifted out of poverty, then we can arguably say that is a "good" thing. It may even be considered a more moral system because of the overall impact on people's living conditions and liberties. BUT, is capitalism consistent with the basic precepts of God's Kingdom as established by the Cross? If not, what is the Christian worldview of economics? Is it socialism because of the "greed factor" in capitalism and a "perceived fairness" in socialism?
OR
  is the Kingdom economy very different than socialism?
  does the Kingdom economy produce a "better" outcome than capitalism?   
Let's start with a clarity on what an economy is. The Webster's 1828 dictionary, the first dictionary in America, defines an economy in terms of how a family orders itself, especially how it distributes its resources. The word economics does not appear. Economics has evolved in the last 100 years as a study of the transfer of wealth through systems of producing and distributing goods and services within society as a whole. A recent movement of thought, called behavioral economics, seeks to understand behavioral influences associated with how humans are motivated and naturally view risks and rewards.

For example, economies use influences of power to govern the amount and movement of products and services. So, understanding forms of power and the associated incentive systems for people's behavior can be a helpful way to evaluate performance of an economic system and what you might expect its outcomes to be.

Let's look at three different systems of power and the kinds of economies each would produce. In doing so, we can look at the motivation factors associated with each to understand its potential outcomes.

First, there is the power/greed model. In this case the one with power uses an economy that maximizes their own outcomes on the backs of those without power. However, the ones with power must satisfy the ones without power sufficiently for them to continue work at all for them. Motivation is only the effort needed to relieve fear in the workers and therefore total output is limited.

Second, power can be distributed to the people and everyone is free to produce goods and services as they choose. They are only limited by how others respond to their production. The power is placed in pricing mechanisms relative to the value the good or service brings to the purchaser. Supply and demand equilibrium, known as justice or reciprocity, governs the system. Rewards are contingent on what people do. People are less constrained than in the first example but they are still somewhat limited in their motivation to what they believe others will buy. This creates some concern for the welfare of those who cannot generate resources on their own to obtain what they need. The system must decide how to produce some goods and services that do not return economic value to the producer in order to support this greater need for goods and services. This is a taxation on the economy and reduces the potential return of the system to producers.

The third view of power is actually the Biblical view. Here all power is in a Sovereign will of one who both owns everything and chooses to share it with His subjects out of love. This is an unmerited favor where the distribution decisions belong to the one in power and the subjects participate solely out of thanksgiving. Subjects are willing to produce, innovate, and share from a heart sold out to the one with power. In generosity there is no coercion, no incentives, no quid pro quo, nothing that constrains the subjects' motivation to produce and share with each other.

When we teach our young people about economics, must we neglect the economic model of the Kingdom? Can we equip them to understand that Grace is not socialism, communism, or capitalism?
Can we trust that Grace is God's way and the best way?

About 50% of Christian students view their family's economic system as a power/greed or fair exchange system. The other half seem to believe their parents establish a grace based economy by how they handle allowances and other sources for their personal use.

In economics, must we settle for beings agents of justice when we can be agents of grace?

Certainly worth pondering ......

What difference does it make what you THINK?

Most everyone would "think" that "thinking" is a good thing, a helpful activity for us. But in my experience, people don't really like to "think" much. Often I hear, "that's too deep." I "think" to myself, "but if it changes your life, isn't thinking differently something you should want to do?"

Part of the problem is that there are two kinds of "thinking." Most of the time we "think" about cliches or conclusions others have already reached. We "think" about beliefs like doctrine and accept the arguments others make for us. We really don't "think" about the arguments too much, that takes effort. We mainly "think" about the person who espouses the conclusion and accept what is said based on how we feel about that person. Further, because of confirmation bias, we restrict where we get our "thinking" to sources we already accept and admire. Even more, we don't often "think" about the source of the message but accept it as credible because others we want acceptance from accept that source.

There are so many ways we actually say with our actions - "what difference does it make what I think?"

I mentioned there are two kinds of thinking. The first described above - we "think" about things others have concluded for us and accept them without much "thinking" in order to belong. The second kind of "thinking" is about the core assumptions that all conclusions are based on. This is really hard work, but that's not why we rarely 'think" about them. They are out of sight. The messengers of our "thinking" don't often go there. The reason assumptions are out of sight for most of us is that they are built in to our nature. They are normal ways of "thinking" given our nature. This kind of "thinking" does not change until and unless our nature changes. I should stop here because that's way too deep to "think" about. What difference does it make what my nature is and how it "thinks"?

Here is an example:

Suppose someone gave you a gift that you enjoy very much. It makes you feel important and happy. There are two ways to "think" about that gift to conclude it is a good gift. You can see how well it fits you, how it looks and feels on you, what others may think because you now have one. This way of "thinking" is called "the consequence of things." Another way to "think" about the gift is by focusing on the one who gave you the gift. You can "think" about that person's love for you, their generosity and acceptance of you no matter what you do. The gift is meaningful because the giver is amazing. This way of "thinking" is call "the source of things."

The Bible calls the first way of "thinking" - walking in the flesh, the carnal mind - and this way of "thinking" flows from our fallen human nature.

The Bible calls the second way of "thinking" - walking in the Spirit, the mind of Christ - and this way of "thinking" flows from a regenerated Spiritual nature.

What difference does our nature make? It determines our core assumptions which then influences how we think, feel and act in all of our life's situations. Every doctrine or belief from arguments of smart people are what they are because of one of two "ways of thinking" that they start with. So it is with you.

What difference does it make how we THINK? None at all if we do not aspire to the abundant and virtuous life. Otherwise ......