Richard Pratt on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I mentioned in my last post that I would do a quick post on what I thought was the most provocative quote Richard Pratt gave at our missions conference this past weekend.  So, here it is - I'll throw it out and see if it stirs things up a bit.  The context was a sermon on I Corinthians 9, reminding us that Christians are called to be slaves of all to win as many as possible.  He also made much over the weekend of Christ's call for His followers to die.  So, with that as background, and with the caveat that this is from my own memory and I may not have all the words exactly correct, he said this:

One of the greatest heresies ever foisted upon the church is that believers have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My two cents - our founding fathers were writing political theory, not ecclesiology or any other kind of theology. I offer this as a kind of olive branch to those who may take umbrage at Pratt's comments - i.e. maybe they had something different in mind than what Pratt had in mind here.

Having said that, I think Pratt nails it.  In what sense, if any can a Christian embrace such a statement?  Think about it this way - Christ calls all of His followers to take up their cross and die for Him.  So how could a follower of Christ ever think he has an inalienable right to life?  Secondly, Christ tells us that we are to be slaves of all men that we might win some.  We are also called to put the needs of others ahead of our own.  So how could a follower of Christ ever believe he has an inalienable right to happiness?  Thirdly, where are we told to pursue happiness?  We are told to pursue holiness, we are told to hunger and thirst after righteousness, but are we told to pursue happiness?  John Piper not withstanding, I don't see this in Scripture, or maybe I should say that Piper's pursuit of happiness is really a call to pursue the God in whom all happiness resides.  But I don't think even Piper would call us to pursue the kind of happiness that can be given by a geo-political entity.  So again, how could a Christian think he has an inalienable right to happiness.

The best way a Christian could spin the statement - we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - would be to say that we as Christians would be willing to die, to be enslaved, and to suffer that others might have life, liberty and happiness. 

Or, maybe the Christian could argue that non-Christians have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I don't know, maybe they do, maybe they don't.  Or, maybe we could say that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are necessary to a well-ordered civil society.  That may work, but they aren't necessary to the well-being of the Christian or the church.

In any case, the point I am trying to make is that I think Pratt is right - there is nothing in the Scripture which should lead a Christian to believe that a Christian has an inalienable right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Comments

[Louie Marsh]

A month or so ago I wrote two posts on the whole pursuit of happiness thing, how I believe it's very destructive and certainally not biblical.

But I hadn't considered the first two - hmmm - food for thought.

Thanks!

[Jeremy Pierce]

1. I think it really is worth separating what the founders were talking about from what Pratt is talking about. It's not so much that they were talking political theory and he is talking theology but that they were talking about what rights we have with respect to each other, while he is talking about what rights we have with respect to God. We have no right to demand any of these things from God. God has no obligation to offer us grace. Other people do have obligations to us, and thus derivatively we have rights to those things that they owe us.

2. Not even the founders believed that we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, if you go with the Constitution's formulation). You can forfeit any of those rights by committing certain crimes. You can lose your right to life by committing a capital crime, and thus it's not inalienable. The founders would have admitted this. You can forfeit your right to all manner of liberties by committing crimes whose penalties take away those liberties (e.g. by putting you in prison). The same goes for pursuit of happiness if your pursuit of happiness involves the freedom to move on or the freedom to continue living if you have been convicted of a capital crime. When you throw in property, eminent domain easily shows how that's not inalienable. So even the founders didn't believe what they said if taken strictly (i.e. strictly constructioned, if you will).

[Doc]

I have heard it said, also, that the Founders meant something a bit different by the term 'happiness' than we do. They meant pursuit of a fulfilled life as God meant us to be, not a dissipated life of physical pleasure.

[pgepps]

The Declaration of Independence is not even political theory: it is a practical political / legal document.

Pratt is off-target. The term "right" in this context has nothing to do with its modern usage (which Pratt could criticize with amplep justice). It refers to something which cannot justly be taken from one human by another human in civil society. Outside civil society, human justice does not apply. When someone by violating these rights breaches civil society--becomes an outlaw--the result is a state of war. To prevent partial and interested judgments, though, civil society collectivizes the adjudication and response to such breaches. That is, we limit the extent of the outlawry to preserve the society (not to protect the "rights" of the felon, who has none, as he is outlaw). The misinterpretation of human rights which dominates our penal system these days is hardly an expression of what the Declaration of Independence, or Locke or Blackstone or other political theorists who influenced it, had in mind.

"Inalienable" has very specific legal meaning. It means that it cannot be transferred away from a person. That is, I cannot assign my liberty to someone else--it inheres in my being as a member of civil society. I can obey them, but I can't pretend I had no will in the matter. I have liberty--it cannot be justly taken from me (it is a right) and I cannot assign that to another human being (it is a responsibility).

All of which was developed by profoundly Christian thinkers long before the founding, and none of which means Christians should not acknowledge (a) no such claims apply to God, Who gives and takes life, liberty, and property for His glory and our good; (b) that no human may justly *take* something does not mean we may not--far from it, we often must--use or lay down something for another; or (c) that acknowledging the historical and legal meaning of "inalienable rights" in no way constitutes an endorsement of all the nonsense and misinterpretation of those terms today.

Cheers,
PGE

[Marshall St. John]

You wrote: "I think Pratt is right - there is nothing in the Scripture which should lead a Christian to believe that a Christian has an inalienable right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness."

Have you ever heard of the Ten Commandments? Commandments 5-10 are all about God-given human rights and responsibilities.

Thou shalt not murder: i.e. the right to life

Thou shalt not steal: i.e. the right of private property

Exodus 22:2 is all about the human right of self-defense.

I could go on and on.

[William Meisheid]

The ministry of John Rankin (Theological Education Institute) is built around the concept that inalienable rights are biblical in nature and only biblical, having no other basis for being. See the link to First the Gospel, then the Politics on his site.

I have heard John speak and read his materials and he has very convincing arguments, especially against homosexuality and the affirmation of marriage. He is a superior debater, but does it with grace, so much so that even those who disagree with him, respect him.

[DLE]

American civil religion and Christianity are two different things. We need to start recognizing the difference.

Thanks, David, for noting this truth. Just today, I discussed this in my post on church directories and the right to privacy.

There is no right to privacy for us Christians. Our Master lived in every way a public life that made demands of Him that pretty much eliminated any chance He had for a private life. His very mission negated His own privacy. And so it is for us.

Dying to self means dying to rights, too. We are not our own, we were bought with a price.

[DLE]

American civil religion and Christianity are two different things. We need to start recognizing the difference.

Thanks, David, for noting this truth. Just today, I discussed this in my post on church directories and the right to privacy.

There is no right to privacy for us Christians. Our Master lived in every way a public life that made demands of Him that pretty much eliminated any chance He had for a private life. His very mission negated His own privacy. And so it is for us.

Dying to self means dying to rights, too. We are not our own, we were bought with a price.

[DLE]

Marshall,

You're missing the point of the Ten Commandments. The Law was established by God to show us that He is holy and so should His people be, not to establish personal rights.

If God is God, I have no right to even take my next breath, much less try to warp the Bible into a document that sets up rights. Consider Romans 8:36 and then let's talk about what the rights of the Christian truly are.

[Marshall St. John]

Of course we have no rights as far as God is concerned. He is the Potter, and He is the One who has all the rights. We must submit to His will. But it seems to me that the discussion is about rights among people. My rights with regard to my neighbor. My neighbor's rights with regard to me. This is what "inalienable rights" are about.

God has commanded me to love my neighbor. Therefore my neighbor has a God-given right to be loved by me, and no human agency can take away that right. God has commanded me to refrain from stealing from my neighbor. Therefore my neighbor has a God-given right that his property is not to be taken away by any other human being. God has commanded me not to murder. Therefore my neighbor, and every other human being, has a God-given right to live. God has commanded against man-stealing, therefore every human being has a God-given right to liberty. "Happiness" is ours when we serve the Lord. God has commanded all men to love and serve Him. Therefore every man has a God-given right to "happiness," or blessedness.

This all seems very plain to me.

As far as my relationship to God is concerned, I have no rights. As far as my relationship to my fellow man is concerned, I have MANY inalienable God-given rights.