The question that should constantly be on our minds – “who owns you?” This is not a trivial question. It is a philosophical ‘fork in the road” for people who call themselves “libertarian” (note small “L”).  The answer you give to it will  mark you as either a Christian libertarian or an anarcho-libertarian. This well-done video is an excellent illustration of what we mean. Watch this closely and see if you can detect where it goes off the rails-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6J730PqBik&feature=player_embedded#at=39[/youtube]

Did you notice that the video presents an either/or dichotomy in answer to the question? That’s pretty easy to see- self-evident, if you will. But did you notice that the “either/or” dichotomy presented is a false one? The only choices given are “me” and “someone else.” There’s a third choice and it’s the most important choice. The third choice brings the question into clear focus because it provides an answer to all of the “yes, but’s…” created by the two other choices. For instance the video asserts that “each person by virtue of being a human being has the absolute right to control his or her own body and remain free from outside interference [emphasis added].” The video then asserts that “our founding fathers believed that self-ownership was a self-evident truth” which leads to the idea that everyone has the “right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, but… where in the writings of the founders or in the foundation of the founders¹ can we find this idea of “self-ownership?” John Locke is quoted in the video… out of context… regarding self-ownership. Locke’s true view on this is important, central in fact, so we’ll expand on it in a moment.

Yes, but… it is asserted in the video that we possess “rights.” The 800-lb gorilla in the room then is “where do “rights” come from (especially the idea of “absolute rights”)?” Are rights merely the agreement of all people in a social contract? What if all don’t agree? What if a majority in one body-politic or another decide to exclude minority members of that body from the contract for one reason or another, for instance exclusion on the basis that they haven’t obtained “full personhood” status or once had but no longer meet the criteria for that status?

Yes, but…is the video’s claim of the founders’ philosophies even in the correct category regarding the “self-evident truth” found in the Declaration of Independence?

To make it clear, we believe that there is a vitally important third choice for the question “who owns you?” But it’s ignored by the video maker.

That answer is- God. Now if you choose God as the answer the “yes, buts…” disappear. To demonstrate that we’ll examine our “yes, but…” list in reverse order.

First- The founder’s philosophies of government were formed by reading theologians and philosophers like Calvin, Knox, Beza, Luther, Pufendorf, Ockham, Grotius, Augustine and, yes, John Locke among dozens of others. Note we said theologians and philosophers, the vast majority of them Christian. The self-evident truth held by the founders was not the “truth” of self-ownership, but the truth of “inalienable rights,” that is the belief that rights that are an intrinsic property of the individual. Sounds more or less the same doesn’t it?

That is, until you examine the origin of those rights, the gist of the second “yes, but…” In the philosophy touted in the video, rights are the sole result of the social contract- an agreement between the members of a particular body politic subject to whatever the majority decides the standards and boundaries of the contract might be. If you doubt this view the video at the Youtube website and read the comments on the video. Several of the video’s viewers are under the impression that “free” health care is a “right,” and that all be done to make it a “right” is convince enough members of the body-politic that it should be a right and- VOILA! A new “right” is created.

In the founders’ philosophy, inalienable rights are an endowment from the Creator- God. That philosophy does not deny that the social contract exists, but in the founders’ view the contract, properly formed, has an authority that it can’t have outside of an endowment of those rights by God. Men can band together and form a social contract for the protection of individual rights because they have, as the image-bearer of God, the right to protect and defend those individual rights collectively within preset boundaries and standards. And the God who endows those rights also sets those boundaries and standards on man’s rights. Thus the notion of the “absolute” right is swept away. Also swept away is the notion that certain individuals may be excluded from the social contract by the arbitrary agreement of the majority regarding the definition of “personhood.” That definition is in the hands of God and is not subject to human will and whim. Hence the inalienable right as the gift of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator.

We claimed that Locke was taken out of context. The video implies that Locke was an anarcho-libertarian but, in fact Locke was a Christian. There can be no doubt about this. Both of his Treatises on Civil Government- the source of the the quote on “self-ownership” is in the Second Treatise ²– and his The Reasonableness of Christianity are undeniably Christian in character, being argued from scriptures. His Christianity was not untainted by the “enlightenment,” but he still maintained a Christian worldview about what “property” and “ownership” are. From a Christian perspective, God retains ownership of all persons and property. He providentially bestows His blessings on whom He chooses. They, in turn, are expected to act as good stewards of God’s providence. This is the contextual framework that Locke’s “self-ownership” MUST be interpreted within. Outside of this framework Locke looks like an anarcho-libertarian, inside it he looks like what he was- a Christian libertarian wherein rights are a gift of God to be exercised within His boundaries and limits. Under the former, rights are the result of societal contract. Government is an unnecessary encumbrance of the contract. Therefore anarchy reigns and there is no mechanism for actually enforcing the social contract. Under the latter, rights are a gift and the social contract is entered into in order to protect them from those who would violate them. Government is a Providentially ordained and limited institution for enforcing the rights given by God.

Barry Sheets, the Director of the Institute for Principled Policy did a series of video presentations over 2 years at Camp American. The subject was the Foundations of the Founders. He has a different take on John Locke as this excerpted portion of a larger 2-hour video shows.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_0LDq9MqA[/youtube]

So where does the “Who Owns You?” video make reference to Locke’s Christianity or his clear references to scripture as the undergirding of his arguments in in both the First and Second Treatises on Government ? Well, clearly any such references would muddy the water regarding the case the video maker is trying to make. Locke certainly understood who owned him- God. And he clearly understood that rights were a gift of God, not the result of the evolution of a social contract. He also understood the concept that God is the true title holder of all and that we are merely appointed through His Providence as stewards over His holdings.

Kind of throws the discussion into an entirely new light, doesn’t it?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes

1 Sheets, Barry,  The Founders’ Foundations, video series on what the founding fathers studied in forming their ideas for government, available at http://www.campamerican.com/?page_id=27&category=11&product_id=25

2 Locke, John , On Politics and Education, Walter J. Black, Inc., Roslyn NY, 1947, P. 87

The Christianity of today has certainly fallen from the orthodoxy that defined it in times past.  It has simply become just another “religion” in the mix, along with all other spiritual belief systems.

This article from the Columbus Dispatch of December 13, 2009 has some interesting insights but a comment in the closing part of the article caught my attention when the author writes, “ the way we personalize our iPhones, we also personalize our religious lives”.

When will those who profess Christ realize the truth of his words when He said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and NO MAN come to the Father but by Me”.  The orthodox Christian faith is one which believes and adheres to what is taught in the Scripture, not just whatever you want to make it.  Any thoughts?

This perplexing question is answered in a new book by former Michigan Congressman, Mark Siljander.  It’s an interesting proposition.

I had the fortune to meet Mr. Siljander in 1991, when he attempted a new run at Congress from the state of Virginia.  He was not successful. But he has been successful in the diplomatic front in some interesting ways.

Now, in a book entitled  A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, Siljander tells us of his own theological journey.  He started with the idea that Islam was the antithesis to Christianity, but has ended with the idea that the Muslim’s Allah is the same as the Christian’s Jehovah, and it is merely that our understanding of God is different, but we’re all referring to the same Person.

For example, Siljander argues that the Muslims attribute to Allah the things that Christians attribute to the Trinity.  He raises the Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Trinity, attempting to argue that in the end it may not really matter whether or not we call the Persons of the Trinity simply “attributes”. It is apparently merely a matter of semantics.  He says,

All three holy books (Torah, New Testament, and Qur’an) describe these three same entities or attributes as Deity — God, Holy Spirit, and Messiah.  I have asked distinguished clerics, both Muslim and Christian, if they could explain to me the interaction of these three deified attributes, and after much bantering back and forth, in the end they have all given me the exact same answer: “Mark, it’s a mystery.”  So what are we arguing about?

This is an interesting proposition.  One that entertains the mind in a  number of ways.  All three books are holy?

You can see in this statement the very question that started me on these series of e-mails 59 weeks ago.  What is your rock-bottom, starting place in theology in terms of the written Word?  This is what determines what the holy books really should be.  Now, Siljander raises the Qur’an to the same level as the Torah and New Testament.

Here’s the challenge:  Where’s the starting point in God’s revelation?  Torah, New Testament, or Qur’an.  Your answer will reveal your basic presupposition about God’s revelation and how we should be seeking that revelation today.

So it seems that the question Siljander has come to is this:  Why can’t the Qur’an have at least equal value with the Torah and the New Testament?

On the other hand, I’ve simply been asking how did the New Testament get equal authority to the Torah.  Now I’ll have to expand this: How does the Qur’an get equal authority with the Torah?  Or, in the case of the Muslims, how did the Qur’an get raised above the Torah?

That ought to get your mind working overtime. Next week, I’ll add some other questions Mr. Siljander does not appear to ask.  Maybe there’s a reason.

Until then, God bless you in your efforts for His Kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

P.S.  If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button

…Or Maybe It Was Never Real in the First Place.

You might want to read this week’s cover story in Newsweek magazine.

It’s entitled “The End of Christian America”.

As I sit writing this report in my hotel room, the TV is on in the background with live calls to the host, and a young man came on line to say how he thought it impossible for any Christian to vote for a Democrat.

The Christian host responded with a question: “Do you believe in the death penalty?”

“Why no,” said the young man.  “No man should be able to take life . . .”

And there he was cut off by the host to illustrate that Christians are not united on the death penalty, nor are they united Democrat or Republic.

Come to think of it, Christians are not united on much at all.  We can’t even agree on what are the criteria to determine if America or any other country, is Christian.

And therein lies the reason for the apparent collapse of “Christian” America.

I have made comment before, that the Christian West has been in decline, at least since the rise of the monarchy and the eventual decline of the Papacy as they fought over this issue: Who was to control the earthly kingdom?  That’s a decline starting 800 years ago approximately.  How can say we have “Christian” America when the very foundation of the nation was built on questionable activities.  Patrick Henry really did smell a rat –everywhere.  And he had the decency not to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787 because of its questionable legitimacy.

This struggle between church and state over this issue only goes to illustrate the problem.  A decline in real Christianity leads to the rise of the secular state.

Christianity is on the decline because it has no “Christian” answers to many issues.  Christians are not united, and a house divided cannot stand.  That’s what Jesus thought, anyway.  Maybe he has a point worth listening to.

If you’re interested, go to The End of Christian America and read the article.  It’s worth the read.

Then go to work to fix the problem.

God bless you in your efforts for His kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.