The current psychological orthodoxy is that we are most fulfilled when we are being most wholly 'true to ourselves’. The belief is that 'whatever I am is good and should be fully expressed’, and out of this comes one strand of the rights agenda.
Yet there seems to me to be an inherent flaw in this argument that I don’t hear expressed.
So how should we express and be ourselves? Should we express those inclinations that are clearly bad? For example, as we naturally covet the things that other people have, should we go ahead and just take them; if I am naturally a thief, then should I go ahead and be a thief?
Most people would recognise this a bad idea, for thieving is not just illegal but is immoral, unethical.
What about if I am naturally drawn to watch pornography? Should I go ahead and express this side of myself? This is a legal activity (where it involves adults), so the judgement is not about legality, but can be about morality or ethics, for those involved in the production of pornography may be coerced or indeed trafficked! It is also a question of whether this behaviour enhances or damages my own life and those around me.
Yet we use the argument about having a 'right to be myself' as if it is a self-evident truth and without any consideration of whether a behaviour is good or bad, ethical, moral, life-enhancing or harming.
So, how come it is acceptable, indeed good, to resist the temptation to be a thief or to act in other ways that are damaging, and yet we still claim our ‘right to be ourselves’?
For Christians, the matter is explained by the fact that we were made in God's image, yet are fallen beings living in a fallen world:
- Christians know from Genesis that God made men and women in his image; alone of all creation, humankind is said to be made in God’s image (Gen 1v27). After all, if God made us good (Gen 1v31), it is incumbent upon us to be who God made us to be!
- Yet we are all ‘fallen’ (see Gen 3), and in fact, not very much of what I am is actually good even by human standards, let alone by God's standard!
So we rely on the God the creator to distinguish what is good and to be expressed, and what is fallen and is to be rejected.
In fact, if I recognise that I am a fallen, sinful being, rather than harming my well-being or stunting my expression of myself, I am free to enjoy a fulfilling relationship with God, with others and to be fully the person God created me to be.
There is no ‘right to be myself’. In fact, be yourself at your peril!
It's common childhood behaviour to push boundaries. In fact, long before teenage-hood, children discover the power and felt enjoyment in saying "No!". And usually it is only much later that we realise the reasons for those rules, which were usually designed for our own good.
God the Father, like human fathers (and mothers) also lays down the limits, the rules, the boundaries. Unlike human fathers, God's rules are always for our good. But, like children, we, the human race, are well practised in saying 'no' and pushing any boundaries we dislike.
The most basic set of rules were set out by God in the 10 commandments:
God said: “I am the Lord your God ... You shall have no other gods before me."
And we said: "All religions are of equal value and each person can worship whatever or whomever they want; equality demands that no god is put before others".
God said: “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God"
And we said: "If I want to bow down to manmade statues or ideas, or to worship money and material things, why shouldn't I?"
God said: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
And we said: "Jesus, can't I even say what I want?"
God said: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy."
And we said: "No chance! Sunday is the best shopping day!"
God said: “Honour your father and your mother"
And we said: "Honour them! It was due to them that I inherited these ugly genes, and it was them who screwed me up as a child by continually nagging and denying me what I wanted."
God said: “You shall not murder."
And we said: "On this we agree, though if people get killed in the third world through our using cheap labour, that's not our fault, it's just market forces."
God said: “You shall not commit adultery."
And we said: "Eh? What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them, so don't treat us like children!"
God said: “You shall not steal."
And we said: "You shall not steal my things. But if I rob those in the third world and future generations, that doesn't count."
God said: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour."
And we said: "I deny it! And if you continue with that slander I'll call my solicitor!"
God said: “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house ... or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”
And we said: "But he's got a bigger house than me, and just look at that car!
It seems we're still toddlers pushing boundaries...
Bible excerpts from Exodus Ch20 (NIV)
Rights
People tend to talk about their 'rights' in a catch-all manner, whereas the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights are much more tightly defined, including basic rights such as:
- the right to life
- freedom from slavery and torture
- right to a fair trial
- freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion
To the extent that the Convention on Human Rights is a helpful document, I would argue that it reflects God's character. For example:
- God gives life, both natural and spiritual. Our lives are in his hands alone; we are not to take that right back into human hands.
- God made all people equally in his image and all are equally loved. We are not to regard anyone as having more or less worth than another.
- Jesus died to free all who would accept him from the slavery to sin. We are not to put people into slavery or bondage of any kind.
- God is just; in Him there is no injustice. We are to act justly in all things.
- God gives us free choice over whether to accept Him or to turn our back on Him, as we wish. We are not to force, manipulate or coerce others in matters of religion.
Wrongs
But the 'rights agenda' goes far beyond the above, to grossly generalise our 'rights' into something like: I have a right to do anything I wish just so long as I don't hurt someone else. I can choose what to do with my life, how to spend my money and time, who to sleep with, even how and when to end my life - I have the right to choose all such things.
That's how the rights argument goes. And it seems difficult to argue against this; after all, what right do I have to tell you what to do or what is right for you?
This sounds just fine while we are thinking about the individual - be it 'me' or 'you'. But the reality is that these are not rights, they are wrongs! There is no such thing as an individual isolated from all others. We have family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances, not to mention people around the whole world who are affected by our choices and actions; even future generations are affected.
What I choose to do with my life, how I behave, how I spend my money, who I sleep with, even what I watch on TV in the privacy of my own home - all these affect others, directly or indirectly by channeling funds, providing a market or an audience. My every action impacts on others.
Although the 'rights' argument sounds fine when we are talking about individuals, in reality we live as relational beings. Margaret Thatcher once famously said, "There is no such thing as society" (though this quote is taken out of context), but actually there is no such thing as 'the individual'. My choices and behaviour always affect others; my 'rights' always impinge on your 'rights'.
The difference
The difference between human rights, as conceived by the European Convention, and the 'rights agenda' is one of focus. The former is about protecting people from abuse by others; the latter is about a promoting my own desires over others. This is no small distinction! The former (in a small way) reflects God's nature, the latter is self-centredness and sin.
The way forward
At one level the way forward is to deliberately make choices that will do good to others, respect their humanity and dignity, and enhance the community and environment for others in the present and the future. However, this is a very partial answer - for our attempts to do good to others are severely limited and always tainted with self-interest. The deeper answer comes in an unexpected form.
The Bible tells us that we have all fallen short of God's standards and gone our own way (Isaiah 53 v6); there is no good in us. Promoting our own desires over others is nothing but arrogance or selfishness. Moreover - though this is not Biblical language - the Bible makes clear that before God we have no rights whatsoever; he is the creator, we the creatures; he is Lord, we the subjects! This is not a message likely to win many friends in this rights-driven age!
However, although this message sounds disheartening, it is a paradox. There is a stark contrast: the devil says 'stand up for your rights', but ultimately offers self-centredness, unhappiness and destruction; Jesus says 'you have no rights' but offers peace, joy and life to those who will accept it.
Those promoting their own rights will find that they have bought a lie, and built on quicksand. For myself, I'm happy in knowing that I have no rights, but am in the safest possible place - in the hands of the all-powerful but loving God.
