Individual rights are not only a functional necessity for any free, flourishing society; they are a biblical mandate.
The notion of individual rights – that is, the concept that a person is entitled to certain liberties simply by merit of the fact that they are, as it were, a person – is a quintessential dogma of western civilization. Indeed, the argument could be made that it is the quintessential dogma of western civilization. As the Declaration of Independence boldly declares, “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."
It is no surprise, then, that it is often the subject of attack by the postmodernists. If you can crack the foundation, the house is sure to fall. It may be a slow fall, but it’s a guaranteed one.
What ever shall we do?
Thankfully, the foundation that is individual rights is a sturdy one. It’s hewn from tough stuff. Stuff that far predates its opponents. While western society as we know it is a relatively new construct, the principle of individual rights is millennia old. It should be no surprise that it was built under the auspices of Christianity: It’s found in Scripture.
As noted previously, the Declaration of Independence refers to the three fundamental human rights as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It also refers to these rights as “self-evident.” This means that the writers of the Declaration didn’t therein make the case for why these rights are, as they describe, “inalienable.” They didn’t have to. Somebody else did that for them. His name was John Locke.
Nearly a century before the U.S. declared independence from Britain, John Locke was declaring independence in Britain. It was his prolific prose that formed the basis of the U.S. Constitution. He was, in essence, the father of the Founding Fathers. If there’s a single individual to whom we owe credit for western civilization, it may just be Locke.
Why does this matter?
It matters because Locke’s arguments weren’t just practical and philosophical, but thoroughly biblical as well.
In his Two Treatises of Civil Government, Locke makes the case for why each person has the fundamental right to self-governance. The second treatise does this largely by appeal to natural law. These are the practical are philosophical arguments that give position merit in secular governance. But the first treatise, in what I can only describe as the best commentary on Genesis chapter 1 I’ve ever read (and I’ve read a fair share), makes the case from a scriptural perspective.
"In the 26th verse, where God declares his intention to give this dominion, it is plain he meant, that he would make a species of creatures that should have dominion over the other species of this terrestrial globe. The words are, 'And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish.' They then were to have dominion. Who? even those who were to have the image of God, the individuals of that species of man that he was going to make..." - John Locke, First Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 4, Section 30
As Locke repeatedly demonstrates throughout his Frist Treatise, imbedded in the creation account of Genesis 1 are the following claims:
We are each given authority to take dominion over the natural world. That authority is not innate, but is granted by God. It's an extension of his authority.
Because that authority is granted and not innate, we cannot exercise it over one another. All persons are equal and independent.
In other words, you have the right to private property because God has given you authority to accumulate and rule over his creation. But that right is given to every person, so you cannot accumulate and rule over other persons – we each possess our own life and liberty.
Locke’s arguments were made largely against the monarchical structures of his day. He endeavored to show that you cannot take seriously the biblical account of creation while also granting one person’s right to rule over another. It’s not in the book. In fact, it’s contrary to the book. And that same argument applies today.
While we are no longer contending with lords and ladies, we are contending with mobs. A democracy can vote away individual rights just the same as any king, but neither has the right to do so. Only God has the authority to grant rights, and only God has the authority to take them away. Anybody who says otherwise is sitting on a throne that’s too big for them. And as Christians, it is our duty to make sure they are properly dethroned.
Now, the clever exegete may argue otherwise. “Sure, but it’s 2018! New Testament times!” I’ve had professors make this claim by appealing to the conduct of the early church: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need,” (Acts 2:44-45). Granted, at first glance, this definitely has something of a hippy-utopia-commune vibe to it. “Maybe God gave us some individual rights originally, “the argument goes, “but Jesus clearly wants us to abandon our individualism, forego our right to private property, and live out the socialist dreams of brother-comrade Sanders.”
Sure. Maybe he does. That’s arguable, but let’s grant it.
That still doesn’t get you from point A to point Z.
Maybe Christians are called to give up our rights. But you can’t give something up if it’s not something you already possess. Maybe I am called to personally abandon my individual rights, but that’s not the same as abandoning the structure of individual rights. How can you sell your possessions if they aren’t yours to sell? You can’t. This can only be done within the context of individual rights.
All in all, what God did upon the outset of creation still stands today. I can give generously give because I have something to give. And I have something to give because God has given to each of us individual rights. This is not just a matter of civics, but a matter of biblical truth. And we should consider it appropriately.
“… being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one anothers Pleasure.” - John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 2, Section 6