Have Personal Rights Become Too Important?
April 23, 2005
Over the past week, I have been in Washington, DC, traveling through our nation's Capitol with a group of 8th, 9th, and 10th graders, and contemplating the role that Christianity played in the founding and formative years of the United States.
As we entered the rotunda of the National Archives, and filed past the original "Bill of Rights", I started wondering... have personal rights become too important in our culture? Have the rights of the individual been stressed too much -- even to dangerous and/or destructive levels?
I fear they have.
.
In part, it was probably the timing of my visit to the National Archives and how it coincided with news surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks concerning what ails today's society (e.g. relativism, radical individualism). As I caught the news coverage each night concerning former Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger, I was struck by how many interviewees opposed or were disappointed by the selection of this Pope because he did not espouse their own personal opinions on issues of morality, theology, or ecclesiology. A host of various opinions have also begun to appear around the blogosphere concerning what the Pope's top agenda matter should be.
While not unique to this particular topic or subject; personal opinion always seems to rule supreme these days. We commonly defend OUR RIGHTS, and our right to have rights... unless, of course, it's the right to hold conservatve, religioethical convictions -- especially if one is being considered for judicial positions within our nation!
The Problem: we defend another person's individual rights until they infringe upon our own. Our own sovereign realm of comfort and self-justification must come first. We're bound to look out for "number One".
And so, ours is an out-of-control culture that rarely values self-sacrifice over personal preference and gratification. The value of the individual is, however, important. In part, this belief helps to identify and guard against the marginalization and victimization of fellow human beings. But where's the counter-balance? Where's the flip-side of the coin? Where's the mediating and essential pursuit of humility, of self-sacrifice -- of dying to one's rights?
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, 'If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.' (Mark 9:35, NIV)
"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you." (1 Peter 5:6, ESV)
In light of scripture's many, many exhortations along these lines, I'm wondering: why are individual rights so vehemently defended with so very little being said about humility and voluntary self-sacrifice? Can we somehow begin to talk about a person's "rights" at the same time we emphasize the importance of laying down one's rights for a higher cause? Can we find a way to embrace this paradox surrounding rights and sacrifice? Can we admit that the new Pope may be right about radical individualism being an enemy of our faith? Can we accept the notion that here -- in the 'land of liberty' -- personal rights have become too important?
May I push the envelop which you have opened, a little further?
I would like to raise the issue that in exactly the same way that personal rights have become paramount in our cultures, so have they in the church. As we study Scripture, we see in the Hebrew Scriptures a specific emphasis on the nation as God's medium of blessing. Yes, within that context there are individual responsibilities so that the national culture remains true to God.
In contemporary evangelical culture we see that the emphasis has shifted almost exclusively to personal salvation, personal growth, personal evangelism, personal … Has the church been replaced with the individual or have we followed the culture, once again, and reflect it rather than God's will. I believe that it is the functioning of the church which becomes the witness to the unbelieving world.
Perhaps if we returned to this emphsis, we would hear less criticism from the non-believing world about the problems with Christian faith.
Posted by: David Sloss | April 24, 2005 at 05:47 AM
DP,
It strikes me that the framers of the constituion realized the personal liberty always requires corporate responsiblility.
However, we have left behind the concept of corporate responsibility in our desire to ensure that we each have that special relationship with God. Evidence is not much further than the delegation of all accountability for congregational behaviour, congregational growth, congregational activity to a set number of "leaders" who have been called to do these for us. All of the other spiritual gifts are focused on our individual activity - usually focusingon what we want to do anyhow.
I think that this idea of corporate responsibility led Isaiah to exclaim "Woe is me! For I am a man with unclean lips, from a people with unclean lips...". For him, it wasn't enough to recognize his own culpabiity. Instead, he included his corporate responsiblity.
Rambling, but there you are...
john
Posted by: john | April 25, 2005 at 07:48 PM
Well Stated. Right is right and wrong is wrong... regardless of how loudly society may scream otherwise, some things are just absolute. No amount of political or moral or religious debating can change that. It merely is.
Posted by: Tess | April 25, 2005 at 07:53 PM
If God is at work in the Hegelian-dialectic that pits radical individualism over and against fascism, I'll hope (and pray) for a synthesis that produces an ideal thesis far closer to "individualism" than its antithesis. History bares witness to the magnitude of oppression, malevolence, cruelty, and suffering perpetrated by groupthink. Sacrifice and service can be offered under any circumstances by God-loving people, but individual freedoms (religious, political, social, emotional, etc.) offer the promise of genuine opportunity and choice to do so. I cherish the freedom (I believe God desires us to have) above nearly all the gifts potentially available to us. I don't believe Christ wants us to deny individual rights, but to deny our selfish/sinful abuse of our freedom to act. Though many will abuse their individual freedoms, such waste is far less tragic than the waste produced by bondage and subjugation. I believe the new pope has mislabeled the enemy of faith. Faith and freedom are compatible counterparts. Absolutism makes a mockery of faith.
Posted by: Lauren | April 26, 2005 at 05:01 AM
I think the mistake that is made is that while God does grant men rights, He is ultimately the holder of those rights and they reside solely in Him. For this reason, He can rescind them as He alone wills.
If it is by God's will that I live and move and have my being, then it is also by God's will that I not have that. In short, I have no right to my next breath.
The person who demands his rights ultimately fails to understand that not only does he not own the rights he claims, he does not supercede God Himself or God's will. For the Christian, this is even more stark. For the Christian is not his own, He has been bought with a price and should recognize the truth that whatever rights he may have thought he had, he gave those up at the foot of the cross.
Posted by: DLE | April 26, 2005 at 09:26 PM
I think the problem is not just individualism in rights, but also individualism in proposed solutions.
For example:
I have a friend who has had a very hard go of it. For a while she was homeless, and individuals in our church put their individual efforts together and helped her and her kids mightily. This became a turning point for her in many ways, and the accountability structures and support of the church were crucial.
But she will be the first to tell you that the church (and its individuals) alone can't do it. We would have been hard-pressed, for example, to cover just her child care needs (not to mention those of all the other single moms struggling to hold down jobs while raising their families!), but fortunately a government subsidy paid a good bit of the day care bill until she earned enough to cover it herself. A housing management company run by some members of the church offers below-market rent to her and other residents of her building, but they'll have a hard time keeping rents down as the gentrification so enthusiastically embraced by the city drives property taxes rapidly upward.
And so on.
As citizens of a democracy, how can we love our neighbors in the realm of public policies about which we collectively have a say?
Meg
Posted by: Meg | May 10, 2005 at 09:21 PM
"As citizens of a democracy, how can we love our neighbors in the realm of public policies about which we collectively have a say?"
Meg -- thanks for posting on this topic, and thanks for asking the question; it's an important one. The answer? Well, one thing that come to mind would be to encourage people to enter the vocations of law and local politics. Let's be salt and light within our social institutions, committed to bringing about a greater sense of kingdom justice, mercy and compassion.
Agree?
Posted by: Chris | May 10, 2005 at 09:43 PM
Agree.
But these days Christians entering law and politics in larger numbers means firmer support for preemptive war and for policies that aid the rich, harm the poor, and ruin the environment.
"Compassionate conservativism" too often means providing dribs and drabs of money for politically sympatico community-based organizations while decimating other government supports for the residents of those same communities.
Another quick story: I used to be the volunteer coordinator at a major faith-based organization. As I would give the agency tour, someone would always say, "See what the church can do? We don't need government to fix poverty." And then I would tell them that Medicaid and Medicare provided a large part of the agency's doctors' pay, city grants funded much of the emergency food and housing program, and the community college system and state literacy office paid for the staff in the GED and adult literacy program.
Insofar as personal immorality on the part of the poor person contributes to her poverty, the church has a role to play that government generally cannot. If we believe solving poverty is mainly a matter of providing some supports until someone can turn around their morality and gain some skills, then the church might be able to handle that.
But loving our neighbors requires learning something about the many millions of people who are doing all the right things in terms of personal morality, but still are poor--and figuring out why.
Meg
Posted by: Meg | May 10, 2005 at 10:31 PM
Meg -- really enjoying the conversation. Glad you're here!
"But these days Christians entering law and politics in larger numbers means firmer support for preemptive war and for policies that aid the rich, harm the poor, and ruin the environment."
Although I cannot deny that the above will be A result, it in no way will be the ONLY result. A new day is dawning in our post-enlightenment, post-Protestant world. Followers of Jesus are becoming passionately concerned about the plight of the poor and disenfranchised, and are taking seriously their responsibility for the Earth and the environment. This is not only visible within the so-called 'Emerging Church', but within traditional churches and denominations as well. Case-in-point: my superintendant (over the Free Methodist churches in Southern California) is currently pursuing his doctorate in "environmental spirituality" -- pretty exciting, I'd say -- especially for a spirit-filled evangelical! But then again, like I've said, things are changing.
On a different note, all the hoopla here in the U.S. over the 'separation of Church and State' is definitely a powerful, inhihibiting factor when it comes to the cooperation of faith-based organizations working in concert with government agencies (local as well as national) to care for people and empower them into healthier lives ('healthy' and 'poor' are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms).
Your thoughts?
Posted by: Chris | May 11, 2005 at 11:54 AM
Chris you were in Washington D.C.? Just a few hours from me and I find out about it after the fact?
Sigh.
Let me know next time you plan to be on the East Coast.
LYB
Posted by: Seraphim | May 12, 2005 at 04:10 AM