"How so?" you might ask. His answer is interesting and worthy of ponder.
He replied, rights of religious freedom is beneficial for "institution building." Persecution, or constraints on the civil right to religion, results in "Spiritual growth." He never said which path is right. So, what is implied in his response? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say that we the people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." The Bill of Rights goes on to include the right to freedom of religion. Does Keller have a problem about what is right about rights?
A little history might help. Going back to around 6th century BC, the Greeks introduced the civil governance idea of democracy. This was likely the beginning of the notion of people rule. However, most of history is marked by kings and dictators and Popes. In many cases the authority over the people was some of mix of religion and state, especially by the 13th century European advances in society. Kings/Queens and the Pope conspired to rule the people. This led to Luther's actions and the Reformation. While Luther was viewing this personal choice from a spiritual point of view, this started a civil return to the power of the people originated by the Greeks. Yet, for Luther the Reformation was more of a return to the Sovereignty of God than a rejection of civil authority.
Oddly, the idea of personal freedom and rights to one's own choices seemed to take over the main narrative and seeped back into the religious push of groups like the Quakers. religious dissent from the Monarchy in England resulted in beheading. Various sects of Christianity that broke from the Catholic hierarchy fought desperately with sovereign Kings/Queens for religious liberty.
This was the genesis of the American experiment. Monarchs aren't sovereign. Governments of any kind are not sovereign. Only God is sovereign. "Inalienable rights" became the mantra of a people desiring to be free from any sovereign rule over humans. This declaration meant that human rights are not granted by any human institution. Here's where the subtle but profound question comes in. If human civil rights are not bestowed by some human based sovereign, then who does grant people rights to live as they choose? Must be God, was the Founders' answer. But, was this answer the right answer? Were they right about rights? Keller's response seems to imply some kick back on the Founder's choice of words, "bestowed by their Creator." Keller didn't elaborate, so
you can ponder now, and I'll get back to you in a minute ....
When confused, just go see what Jesus said about rights, especially civil rights and most especially religious rights.
Jesus said, Kingdom dwellers are fortunate when they are disgraced and persecuted by others and have to hear lies told about them by others because they have been made righteous by Him. Oh my, that doesn't sound right about my rights. "Persecuted" literally means hunted down and run out of town. Most likely if the world is rejecting me, my rights are probably violated, and for what reason? Not because I did anything wrong except identify with Jesus and all that He is. Seems like Jesus is OK with this. He doesn't seem to mind that the world not giving me the right to worship as I desire. In fact, Jesus says I am blessed (fortunate) that I don't demand my rights in this world to worship Him. Why would that be?
Later Jesus says I don't have the right to retaliate when I have been wronged. When people demand of me things they have a right from me, like go one mile or take my tunic, go ahead and go a second mile and give them your tunic. They have no right to these, but do it anyway to show them you do not operate on rights. This feels so wrong about rights. Why would He want me to respond to people when they have no right of that from me?
You need more from Jesus about His view of what is right about my civic rights?
you can stop again and ponder, and I'll get back to you in a minute ....
Jesus is preparing you and me for the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is our home, not this world. He tells us that we should not fear (losing our rights in this world) because our Father in Heaven has freely chosen to give us His Kingdom. We don't live by or for our civil rights. We can't serve two masters. The Kingdom is foremost on our mind. We live with the provisions and privileges of Heaven. So, as the Founding Fathers claimed, has our Creator bestowed on us rights in this world? No. How sad! No. How wonderful that we live not with worldly rights but Heavenly privileges, guaranteed, indestructible and imperishable. Maybe this is what Keller meant by winning when religious liberties are taken from us? Maybe living beyond a demand for rights is spiritual growth? I'm so glad Keller gave me cover to blog on rights the way I have been wanting to!
What is right about rights? We have none. We don't need them. We are so blessed because God loves us, warts and all. He has adopted us into His family. He is our all in all.
This is what our Creator has bestowed on us. Not a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So where do civil rights come from? Who gives them to humans? I agree that no one is sovereign but God. If no one is sovereign, and God doesn't bestow on us civil rights, who does? The founding fathers decided it was not the government. They assumed God. I have no idea, do you? Human rights are what man wishes to give himself, I guess, and there is where the trouble with rights starts.
I think its best for Christians just to "ride on by" when the world starts demanding rights. Maybe that is one way the world will see a people who are quite different from the world. Maybe that is what is right about rights? Maybe that is how God is glorified?
Ponder that please ....
No comments:
Post a Comment