skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Preamble: My wife and I love to watch Law & Order. It's a highly predictable crime drama that wraps itself up neatly at the end of every episode. While it uses many current events and values debates as a backdrop for episode plots, the show allows us to put our minds on autopilot for an hour. Very rarely does it provide any kind of intellectual stimulation for either of us. But it's good entertainment. A lot of times I wish the world could be as simple as a network TV drama - especially when it comes to our justice system. Bad guys are bad guys, good guys are good guys, the world always comes back together in the end, everyone goes home happy and gets what's fair. That's the Law & Order way (more or less) but it is not, at all, a fair representation of reality.
When I look at the commonly shared concept of justice in western culture, what I see is a system that it has become so focused on crime and punishment (and law and order) that any real presence of justice is hidden by layers of vengeance and retribution. I once said that not all ideologies are words that end in "ism", and the American system of "justice" is one of them. As an ideology, it stands as another obstacle on the path to finding objective reality.
The Case: It was once said that "there is a way that seems right to mankind, but in the end that path only leads to death."* There should be no doubt that this much could be said of our entire social fabric and especially of our concept of "justice". The foundation of our entire society is completely incompatible with a real environment of justice. From start to finish the American system is overrun by the protection of self-interests, even at the expense and exploitation of others. And in a social environment where self-interests are the penultimate reality to be chased, we encourage people to get the best that they can, even if it means doing their worst. The evolution of this kind of a society - which is seen in every corner of the world, but celebrated so much in America - has created two opposing groups: the "haves" and the "have-nots", with anyone still in-between slowly being pushed into one of the two camps. By elevating the protection of the privacy of person, private ownership of property, and personal rights to the level of "sacred", we've ultimately forced the "have-nots" to fend for themselves by way of some kind of merciless experiment in "Social Darwinism". So many of us have no substantial qualms with the reality that there are those in our own cities and neighborhoods that have become so weighed down by this system that they are a mere step or two away from choosing between crime and utter poverty and improvision. And this is nothing new to us either - it's as old as life itself. Yet in all of our advancement, all of our sophistication, all of our technology, all of our collective global wealth, we - all of us - prefer to spend our time and resources terminating on our selves.
So I hear you say to me: "Hey! Thanks for proving you're a clone of Karl Marx, but what does this have to do with the injustice of human justice?" You'll be surprised to know that in all of my historical studies, all of my reading, all of my free time I've never read anything written by Marx - not even the Communist Manifesto. But what I'm talking about has everything do with human justice. William Boothe, founder of the Salvation Army, wrote a brilliant work called In Darkest England and the Way Out that detailed the horrible living conditions of the poor in London and the connection between poverty and crime. Booth's main argument is that a man's soul (and his "eternal salvation") is completely unattainable in the midst of extreme poverty and squalor. In order to attain the salvation of the soul the missionary must also provide for the "salvation of the body."** But, of course, proselytizing and "salvation" is not the aim of this current discussion. Where Booth's argument and my own converge is when Booth acknowledges that many of the rich London residents were not willing to give up their money to fund the Salvation Army in order to achieve something as practically worthless as salvation of the soul. He presents a case that suits their needs when makes the claim that as the rich are able to help the poor meet their own needs and as they begin to help the "inner man as well as the outer man", the amount of crime in London would be sure to decrease. To Booth the choice was a very clear one: those Englishmen with resources (i.e. money and time) could use them to improve the condition of the impoverished and, in the long run, help prevent crime against all Englishmen (especially the wealthy and middle-class) or they could continue to horde their money, live in luxury, and ignore the plight of the poor - and then pay the government in tax money to execute a robust and expensive "criminal justice" and prison system to house those same people after they've violated someone.
It should be said that not all crime is derived from being oppressed and desperation. Even crime for those reasons is not based, ultimately, on just that. Crime happens whenever anyone elevates the self interest above or ahead of the good of those affected by one's circle of influence. But that is only criminality. Let's move on to justice. Let me say first that there are two different ideas about justice in our world: social justice and criminal justice. What Booth was trying to encourage his audience and neighbors was that there was a very ancient belief that the more generously a society invested in social justice, the more insulation that society is providing for itself against the need for a robust and expensive criminal justice system. What should also be mentioned is that the ancient world considered - in large part - the practice of elevating the private (or "self") interests before the public good as a complete lack of virtue.*** What's more is that even the definition of "justice" seems to have very little (if anything at all) to do with the concepts of crime and punishment. In nearly 84% of the passages in the Bible where the word "justice" is given a contextual meaning there is a very explicit definition: to tend to the needs of the poor the orphan and the widow, to be fair to the foreigner ("alien"), and to restore those that have been victimized (by man or by nature).****
And that is the truth of justice. Justice is not punishing the "violator of rights", it is reclaiming our responsibility to the poor, the foreigner in our land, and the victim of loss. In fairness to the reality we live in - financial poverty isn't the only criteria for a "victim of loss". A wealthy woman that is violated feels the same pain as the homeless women suffering the same violation. The reason I make such an argument for the poor is because too often they lack the resources to bring about the restoration necessary to completely heal. And that is the business of justice: healing and restoration. Anything less than this is simply reaction, revenge, and retribution. And this, of course, presents a problem for all of us. If any of us come to embrace this reality and reclaim this ancient axiom of justice, how can we ever hope to convert the substantial investment we've made over the millennia of emotion, money, laws, careers, and infrastructure in "crime and punishment" to a new system of justice? Do we stand up and fight a government that is legitimized by this current system? Do we overthrow it? No. Do we ignore the laws? No. Do we quit our jobs as police, corrections officers, wardens and judges? Not until they are made unnecessary, no. In the wise counsel of Dallas Willard: no need to fight it, just don't feed it.+
But how, then, do we create a new system? The answer is both comforting and terrifying at the same time: there is no need for any of us to build it, rather what is required of us is simply to be it. Like all movements that generate a lasting legacy, it starts with one or a few and spreads - like a virus - from one to the next until it grows so vast and powerful that it replaces and suffocates the original organism, rendering a new manifestation of the body. All that is required to create the change we desperately need is simply to be the change, and let that change influence (just like the influenza virus) everyone you come into contact with. There is no need to dominate with new laws or systems. There is no need to force a new way of thinking on those who aren't ready to see it - or those that have built a brick wall of dogmatic immunity to it.
If we, together as a community, can begin to sacrifice our self-centered needs for luxury in order to give to the poor, to sacrifice our selfish alienation of "foreigners" (as if any of us live in the exact place of our own births?) in order to practice generosity and hospitality to the immigrant, and to sacrifice our self-righteous need for retribution against the "offender" and the "criminal" in order to restore to wholeness the ones that suffer from loss, then we can transform our dark and miserable immitation of justice for true justice - a justice that is far less susceptible to perversion and corruption. A justice based on truth, responsibility (for ourselves and to others), and compassion instead a mockery of justice based on ideology, rights, and selfishness. It may look like donating blood, volunteering time at homeless shelters and food pantries, giving money, organizing benefits... take your pick or think of your own. But, in the end, the beginning of all justice is to care. Simply allow yourself to care about injustice and the plight of those losing hope around you. Let that compassion - and, yes, even grief - motivate you to act. Someone you know is hoping and praying for a miracle... a sign. We can be that sign. We can be that miracle. We can become justice for someone. Let the law judge the lawless and the lawful. Let the judges debate crime and punishment. But let the just be the justice that reality demands of all of us.
The Question: Are you, the reader, able to see the distinction between our system of "crime and punishment" (which we may call "crime management") and the ancient concept of justice? Are you willing to trade your personal vested interest in the current system for a new one? If there was a reason that would hold you back from being the change in order to create the change, which would you say is the primary one: the personal cost of change, being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge, or rejecting the validity of the concept outlined in this post? And, lastly, with the absolute failure of the human "crime management system" to prevent or rehabilitate criminal activity++... what more do you have to lose?
Leave the light on.
-------------------
* - Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25
** - James 2:16
*** - Reference Plato and Socrates
**** - Examples: Deuteronomy 16:20, Deuteronomy 27:19, Proverbs 21:3, Ecclesiastes 5:8, Isaiah 1:16-17, Isaiah 10:2, Isaiah 59:15, Ezekiel 22:23-31, Ezekiel 49:5, Micah 6:8, Zechariah 7:9, Matthew 23:23
+ - The Great Omission, Dallas Willard
++ - Based on felony recidivism statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice
The Preamble: I was sitting down with a friend a couple of days ago discussing what I'd written over the theory of "rights" and I was walking through my points with him when he stopped me to ask: "Ok, so if you're saying that rights don't really exist and saying that we should stop using that system, then what are you offering in return? What other system are you saying we should be using instead?" If ever there was the "right question" to ask - that was it.
In trying to give him an acceptable answer I began to remember something I heard Dallas Willard say when I saw him speaking at a conference in Kansas City. He talked about how, in his driving all around L.A., he sees these bumper stickers that say: "Stand up for your rights!" I have no doubt that we've all seen them. Anyone born in the U.S. since the 1960's and/or has listened to Bob Marley should be familiar with that mantra. What struck Dr. Willard was that he has never recalled (and neither have I for that matter) seeing a bumper sticker that said: "Stand up for your responsibilities!" But it is the fulfillment of our responsibilities, not the protection of our rights, that holds the key of true freedom (not just "liberty") for all of mankind. Allow me to make my case.
The Case: Responsibility is a loaded concept these days. In our modern rights-driven culture "responsible" is a problematic idea - something that we shy away from throwing around at each other. To accuse someone of being irresponsible - indeed to be accused of being irresponsible - is to immediately invite conflict. In our modern and, literally, self-centered worldview the attempt to limit our own personal liability and responsibility is priority number one for many people. We see it everywhere and in nearly every aspect of our lives.
We see it in our obligation to pay taxes. We want the government to decrease our tax responsibility in order to keep more of our money. But, for many of us, we also would like to know that the government has less of our money to "waste" on entitlement projects. This, of course, reminds us of the infamous quote by the Biblical Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"* In other words: "I'm not responsible for anyone other than me. Don't bother me with anything that isn't in my own immediate self-interest."
We see this attitude reflected in our legal system. We speed, drink and drive, defraud our brother, commit murder... "Not guilty, your honor." In other words: "I know I did what I'm being accused of, but I should not and do not want to be held responsible by the state or society." We see it when someone sues McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves. We see it whenever someone asserts their rights to free speech or free religion or free whatever. Our legal culture and society screams out: "You can't make me responsible!"
We see it in our children and when we make utterly incomprehensible excuses for their simply inexcusable behavior. We see it in ourselves whenever we offend a neighbor and immediately assert that it is they that shouldn't be offended by us instead of taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness. We see it when someone is shocked that you would admit to hitting their parked car instead of simply driving off. We see it when we come walking out of the mall and find our parked car damaged. We see it everywhere we look. "You can't put the burden on me!"
But I ask you: if the burden is not on "me" and everyone is a "me", then where shall the burden lay? Where does the responsibility lay if not on "me"? How selfish and conceited have we all become that we all stand around pointing the finger outward chanting with our actions: "I'm not my brother's keeper"? The old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Let me assure you all - this system of individual rights and limited responsibility is broken. It is so broken and so hopelessly worn out that the suggestion that we can make it work "perfectly" is laughable. So laughable that the mantra of "I'm not by brother's keeper" is accompanied directly by "Well, it's not a perfect world." As if, by rattling off that old axiom, the world's problems are somehow removed from our hands and we're clean of the consequences. If I haven't made my point yet, please allow me to make it:
You cannot fix the problems of this world until you accept your responsibility for contributing to them. And you cannot accept your responsibility for the problems of this world until you quit carrying around your "rights".
Rights and responsibilities, regardless of what you were taught in grade school (or Sunday school), do not mix. One focuses all of the productive powers inward on the self and the other focuses those powers outward on others. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves. And lest you be tempted to argue that you can - or should - balance the two, remember this other axiom: "A man cannot be loyal to two opposing 'masters'. At some point he will begin to resent one and worship the other."** In our case the choice is far too clear to ignore. You cannot retain the ultimate loyalty to yourself while also putting forth an ultimate loyalty to something that will cost your "self". You cannot be selfish while also being selfless.
The reason that this kind of responsibility sounds so crazy and implausible is not because it is impossible. It sounds crazy because no one is willing to be the first one to do it. We're like a group of school kids in the first day of class unwilling to engage the teacher or each other for fear of being wrong or looking stupid. We're too in love with ourselves and our own self-image to do the right thing.
We're too in love with our luxury and comfort or, for many of us that are barely making ends meet, whatever luxury or comfort we've got. For me it's a $10 used Xbox 360 game. For you it could be new "7" jeans or a Lexus. More square footage in your living space or a pool in the backyard. It could be the moonroof or the leather. It could be the pack of cigarettes or the bottle of Jack. It could be the new CD or iPhone. It could be a Venti Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte from your local Starbuck's instead of a Tall. It could be a "nice" dinner at Fogo De Chao instead of Chili's. Your "rights" tells you to increase your standard of living whereas "responsibility" demands you increase your standard of giving. (Thanks Trey! You're the shiznit.)
And it's not just money, either, though money is the easiest thing to point out. It's the way we spend our time (because time is the only true commodity any of us has). It's the way we resolve (or don't resolve) conflicts and disputes... it's the reason we even have conflicts and disputes!*** It's the way we get irritated at the person on the other side of the drive-thru speaker for not having an "American" accent or good English diction. It's the way we tip our servers (and not just restaurants, either) based on "how well they do" instead of dropping a generous tip at the very beginning and leaving it there regardless of your experience... and doing it every single place you go.**** It's the way we get road rage and employ our horns and fingers in the car. Its the way we get offended for any reason at any time.
Let me be clear to you about one thing. If you get nothing else from me please get this: a person who does not claim to have rights can never have those rights violated. If we don't assert our "right" to dignity, no one can succeed in in-dignifying us. If we don't assert our right to property, no one can succeed in stealing from us. If we don't assert our right to liberty, no government can succeed in oppressing us. If we don't assert our right to our very lives, no one can succeed in taking them. If we don't claim ownership to any right, we can live in absolute fearlessness from losing them. This is true freedom. Freedom from attachment and fear of loss.
Oh, but I hear you protest: "That's not true, Jeremy! If we don't protect our rights we can guarantee we will be violated! And not just us, but our loved ones as well. Our spouses and children and families." Under the current system and worldview, yes - you're right. If what you're interested in making a priority in life is the continued exaltation of your own self-interests (and the self-interests of those around you), then exchanging your "rights" for selflessness and responsibility is the last thing you should do. Responsibilities are a "self-killer". They will put your self-interests in the ground every time because they will always insist on making the needs and interests of others a priority.+ You will, quite literally, lose yourself to the world.++ This is, perhaps, the most difficult question and uncomfortable answer of all. This is, perhaps, the most terrifying decision you will ever have to make. The decision to choose between your rights and your responsibilities will change the course of events in your life from the moment you make it until the day you breathe your last breath. The gravity and weight of it is totally inescapable... it is capable of crushing the strongest ambition, the strongest pride, and the best-laid plans. And if that wasn't gloomy and morose enough (or make me sound more like an angst-ridden teenage "emo" spouting out lyrics from The Cure and Radiohead) for you, then let me also point out that you've been making this decision since the moment your were able to make decisions and are in the process of making it even now. Take a moment, right now, while you're reading this to stop and digest that. Let it sink in for a moment and allow yourself to meditate on that one, single, inescapable reality.
-------------------
Ok. So you ask (and I've already gotten this question), what does the kind of responsibility that you're talking about look like? I will tell you this: you have probably never witnessed it with your own two eyes. This responsibility looks like every high virtue we've ever conceived of in our myths. It is the fundamental "morality" of our religions. It is witnessed in the greatness of our heroes throughout history. It looks like Samwise Gamgee carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mout Doom. It looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrificing himself for his friends on the Death Star. It looks like Sydney Carton going to the guillotine instead of Charles Darnay. It looks like Mohatma Ghandi, living in poverty and starving himself in order to bring peace and justice to India. It looks like Mother Theresa, spending a lifetime in the foulest of gutters just to tend to the needs of the most conveniently and intentionally forgotten amongst us. It looks like Dr. King, a beautifully imperfect man, suffering injustice and indignity - without retaliation or malice - in order to expose the brutality of segregation and racism. And, yes, it looks like Jesus.
Jesus, that patient and radical rabbi, teaching, healing, feeding, challenging the social norms and the selfish bigotry of our world. It looks like Jesus allowing himself to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. He claimed no right. He defied no authority. He railed against no injustice. He suffered, prayed, and died... and did it victoriously. They did not take his dignity - he offered no claim to any. They did not take his freedom - he went willingly. They did not steal justice from him - he claimed a higher justice as his own. They did not take his life - he gave it freely. And just in case you want to feel bad for Jesus or think he got screwed: don't. The way the gospel narrative tells it, he planned the whole thing. And, as Dr. Willard reminds Christians (and, by extension, everyone else): "Jesus didn't die on a cross so that you wouldn't have to. He died on the cross to show you how to do it."
The Question: Only one question worth asking to this. Which will you choose? Your right or your responsibility?
Leave the light on.
* - Genesis 4.9
** - Matthew 6.24
*** - James 4.1-10
**** - Matthew 20.15, Luke 12.33
+ - Philippians 2.3
++ - Luke 17:33
The Preamble: "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." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
It is upon this foundation - the theory of human rights - that the entire western civilization has established itself. There cannot be any value more central to a member of the West than this - above all in America. The concept of human rights is the most solid example of an axiom given the place of factual truth - a place it may actually occupy falsely. Together we will break down the concept of rights and see that it is derived from an ideology that is built around a belief that is, in turn, based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. Together we will take our first steps to seeing a world of truth and freedom that doesn't rely on rights - or acknowledge their existence.
The Case: This examination can get very heavy very quickly so let's take it step-by-step and start at the top. One of the most interesting thoughts expressed by Jefferson in his Declaration is the assertion that human rights are "self-evident". The reason this is interesting is because Jefferson is stating a belief of his as though it were completely and empirically factual. But nothing could have been further from the truth in his time - and this is still the case today. At the time of Jefferson the concept of rights under an arbitrary law derived from the citizenry was not only not self-evident, it was totally contrary to any system of government that had existed in the previous four thousand years. From ancient Sumeria to Georgian-era England the concept of human rights scarcely existed at all and, even then, it was in the minds of radicals that were not taken seriously by the majority of western society. There was nothing "self-evident" about rights and the great trick of Jefferson is to assert his position so boldly, so eloquently, and so passionately that it became the "truth". But the truth of rights and equality derives its authority not from objective reality but from the beliefs of the masses. The truth of this assessment is pointed to not only by history but by current events worldwide: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of societies and cultures around the world that do not recognize Jefferson's rights and they continue to retain what most would consider a peaceful or just society.
What the Declaration won't tell you is that Jefferson's notions of rights are heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke - most specifically Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1698) - and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776). Locke, a career political thinker and radical, makes it clear from the outset of his argument that the concept of private property and ownership is essential to the theory of human rights. (Section 35) In fact, one of his core human rights, is the right to property (replaced, by Jefferson, with "the pursuit of happiness"). Locke's argument also asserts that a man's life and liberty are simply manifestations of human ownership and that such ownership cannot (life, liberty, and property) be infringed upon by any other or by the state (government). There is one very deep-seated and fundamental problem with Locke's argument: if the idea of property and ownership were somehow changed or was understood differently, the entire "house of cards" that is human rights collapses on its own face. Herein lies the problem: there are ever increasing philosophical questions over, and realistic challenges to, the concept of ownership, property and - by extention - rights.
In short: our entire civilzation could be based on a complete fabrication.
This is a huge jump, a jarring conclusion. The possible denial of the validity of human rights is so uncomfortable, so potentially offensive, that it will strain any remaining credibility I have left among you. I simply ask you to hear me out and keep an open mind. I do not ask this question lightly and do not come to any conclusions with a cavalier attitude.
Locke, and Jefferson after him, argues that rights must be recognized and legalized in order to protect the holders from violation. While there are many rights there is a central core among them: "life, liberty, and property". What I find interesting - what stands out so incredibly - is that Locke's predication of rights is his own weakest link. What I mean by that is this: he claims that rights have to be protected and recognized in order to be secure, but I look at this and see the complete opposite: because they must be recognized, legalized, and protected - it is obvious that they do not actually exist! Whew, ok. Let's take a break from this for a second and skip over to an analogy.
Let's say I'm walking along in a field and I find an apple tree. By my own efforts (labor) I pick an apple from the tree. According to Locke, this makes me the owner of the apple. I own the apple simply because I exerted the labor to take it for myself. But this begs the question: how can something go from being in the domain of public (on the tree) to private (in my hand) simply because I decided to take it? Is that even ethical? Is it moral? Is it practical? Back to the analogy: along comes another man and he decides he wants the apple in my hand. He decides to make an effort (labor) to take the apple from my hand. But here's where the definition of ownership breaks down: Locke doesn't call that a transfer of ownership in the academic sense, he calls it robbery in the legal sense! But that begs the question: what's the difference between me laboring to take the apple from the tree and a man's labor to take the apple from me? If I work harder to take the apple from the tree than the tree works to keep it, and the man works harder at taking the apple from me than I do at keeping it... then how does that jibe? But it doesn't end there. Locke says that a man's willingness to "rob" me of my apple (property) constitutes a willingness by this man to steal everything else (my liberty and my life) and I am - according to Locke - authorized to kill that man. Yes - that's actually what he says. Your thirteen year old can kill the bully trying to take his lunch money... no problem, it's a "protected right". I hope that the ridiculous nature of this argument is becoming increasingly obvious to all of you.
But this is where I differ from Locke - right at the beginning. It has become evident to me that the very fact that a piece of private property can be "stolen" from me proves that such an object was never actually in my possession to begin with. In short: if it can be taken from you, you don't actually own it. Ownership must rely on intrinsic security to be real, otherwise it is contrived and false. I'm certain that there are those of you that would see this statement and say: "Well that's just irresponsible and naive." If you belive that, you're certainly entitled to your belief, but the facts and the reality of the world should easily bear out the truth. What's more: if the concept of ownership is not based on reality and fact, it will eventually fail (both individually and corporately) in the same way that ideology will eventually fail.
The final point of contention I will make is theological in nature. Jefferson declares that these "inalienable rights" are endowed by God to a people He has created in a state of equality. This, again, he absorbed from Lockean philosophy. Contrary to public opinion, Jefferson was no Christian. Oh yes - he had a copy of the Bible. Oh yes - he read from it daily. Oh yes - he dropped God's name into as much documentation as he could. But what they fail to tell most people is that Jefferson does not ever refer to God in the traditional sense. He does not refer to Him by the obvious and most oft-used title of "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" or the "God of the Bible". No, he constantly refers to God as "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God" very carefully leaving any Christian dogma or kerygma out of his authoritative writings. Even more disturbing to the Christian is that Jefferson had his copy of the Bible, literally, re-written to cut out any mention of miracles, supernatural occurrences, or - most especially - the divinity of Christ. He regarded (as Benjamin Franklin did) Christ not as the Son of God but as a moral teacher on the same level with the pagan Greek philosopher Socrates. The miracles of Jesus were considered a series of superstitions and legends. The resurrection was a physical impossibility. The narrative of Jesus Christ ended at the crucifixion in the Bible of Thomas Jefferson. And, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, "if Christ has not been raised then our preaching [of Christianity] has been in vain, your faith also has been in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14.
How is any of this relevant? It only goes to this point: Christians (specifically Western Christians and American Christians in particular) have become much more loyal to the teachings of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke than the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. While modern evangelicals have become some of the strongest proponents of the theory of rights in our culture, there is a stark contrast between New Testament and Apostlic Christianity and Lockean political philosophy. Unlike Locke and Jefferson, Jesus discouraged his followers to retain private property (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 14:16, Matthew 16:26, Mark 10:21, Luke 6:30, Luke 6:38, Luke 9:3, Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) , the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6), and pre-Nicene or pre-Constantanian Christian teaching frowned heavily upon the notion of luxury and "comfort" (1 John 2:16, Acts 20:35, Romans 12:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:16). [DISCLAIMER: To double-check my exegesis, feel free to visit any online Biblical resource and read these passages for yourself. I, personally, use Studylight.org's application because it has all available translations of the Bible in one location.]
The New Testament does not give a single endorsement of human rights. It also implies a strict taboo on collaboration with state (government) entities or any institution or societal structure built on top of the concept of private, propertied, or privileged. The post-New Testament church (in the Apostlic tradition) also retained a stigma of unholiness for any system that incorporated the elevation of self-interests (which would include rights and ownership), especially with two influential second century Christian bishops: Polycarp and Hyppolitus.
In short: New Testament Christianity runs diametrically opposed to the theory of human rights, private property, and ownership. This oppositition can also be extrapolated onto a foundational incompatibility between Christianity and the economic system of capitalism (and its political benefactor of democracy).
The Question: There are many questions that one should ask in regards to the subject covered by this post: from the reasonably superficial to the potentially worldview-altering. Does Locke's definition of ownership submit to logic and reason? At what point (if at all) does it start to break down? Does ownership imply or create "rights"? Do rights actually exist in nature or reality? If rights don't exist what remains to hold up the structure of society? Does the society "deserve" to continue existing in its current form if rights are not empirically or factually derived? Does New Testament Christianity really run contrary to the foundation of Western civilization? Does the disparity between Jesus' teachings and Locke's philosophy (assuming disparity does, in fact, exist) give more credibility to either side? If a disparity does, in fact, exist which teaching would you choose to live by? So many questions to ask.
Keep the emails, questions, comments, and criticisms coming. Now, more than ever, we need dialogue. Education - not indoctrination.
Leave the light on.
