"I've Got My Rights!"

    Within the last couple of generations, citizens of this country have put a bigger premium on their individual rights than did those in the past. It was not too many years ago that individuals were more willing to surrender some of their own goals and desires if they saw that it was plainly illegal and/or immoral, or even if it was for the good of the nation or community as a whole. Now, though, it seems few care about the common good, and fewer still care if it is illegal or immoral. More than ever, we are hearing people cry, "I've got my rights!" And our courts have heeded the cry by striking down laws that limited deviant behavior and immoral activities within the home. Just in the last two years, we have had two major Supreme Court rulings that cleared the way for activities and behavior that had been, since this country's founding, deemed both immoral and illegal. Now, according to the courts' decrees, it appears that no one can limit [by law or other means] the behavior of another, so long as they do it in the home. More than ever, individual rights reign as the supreme law. Do we need to guess where this is leading?

    Unfortunately, this escalation of the emphasis on individual rights has led to a degeneration of personal responsibility. It seems many want the "right" to do what they want, but few want to take the responsibility for their own actions. As Paul Harvey often says, "Freedom without responsibility is anarchy." And that is exactly where we are headed if this decline is not halted and corrected. If this country continues down this path unchecked, I shudder to think what society will be like within the next couple of generations.

    And to make matters worse, this idea of personal and individual rights has found its way into the lives, practices and teachings of the religious world. Where there was once a clear distinction between the worldly and the spiritually-minded, it is now all but impossible to tell the difference between the two. Not only are the selfish worldly-minded ones demanding their "rights," but now the people coming into the churches are making the same demand. I remember hearing a report about 10 years ago that found more people within the "Baby Boomer" generation were returning to church, but were bringing their worldly ideas with them. Those ideas were, not surprisingly, related to the doctrines and practice of the church and a mind set that said everyone should have a say in what is taught and practiced, and a rejection of discipline [a religion of 'democracy' where everyone voted on what was right or wrong]. Situation ethics was brought out of the world and into the churches! It seems they wanted to come to God, but on their own terms. Once again, the cry is "I've got my rights!"

    It is clearly obvious that this mind set has infiltrated the denominational church, but let us not be blind to the fact that many of the brethren are making the same cry. It seems many of my brethren are making the same plea: "I've got my rights!" Let's consider a couple of those demands in light of the Scriptures.

    Occasionally, brethren within local congregations will have conflicts over one thing or another. Sometimes, it is something as simple as the color of the carpet or which song book to purchase; other times, it may be a matter of who to invite to speak in a Gospel Meeting or which preacher will come to work with the congregation. Sometimes, when these conflicts arise, some brethren make it known that they are going to have their way or no way at all. ['My way or the highway.'] Instead of striving to make sure nothing is "done through selfish ambition or conceit" and instead of looking out "for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3, 4), some are adamant about having things their way and will not give an inch even on the most trivial matters. To some, compromise [even compromise that does not compromise truth] is a sign of weakness and they will hold out and get downright cantankerous, offending brethren with whom they have worshiped for decades, and not stopping until the congregation is divided.

    It appears that some of these brethren think they have the "right" to have things their way all the time. Nowhere is this taught within the Scripture, but I can tell you from personal experience with this, the absence of any Scripture teaching or even allowing this is not a hindrance; they are so hardheaded, even a lack of Scripture justifying their actions is not enough evidence to overcome their selfishness. Even Scriptures that plainly condemn such behavior will not stop them!

    Must we be reminded of the need to sometimes forgo our "rights" for the sake of the common good of the Lord's church? The apostle Paul reminded the Corinthian brethren that he did, indeed, have a right [the right to eat and drink, the right to bring along a wife, and the right to live from the support of the brethren, rather than by working; 1 Cor. 9:1-15], but he did not demand it! Paul did not waltz into Corinth and demand they support him financially. He did not demand they allow him to refrain from working so he might devote himself more fully to the Lord's work. He did not demand these things though he had the right. Why? Because he considered the bigger picture of the Corinthians and their perception of him. He was most concerned for their souls! He gladly set aside his "rights" and did what he came to do. It did not hinder him one bit and at no time did he protest that it was unfair. More brethren need to heed his example.

    Though the teachings of Jesus are plain, it seems some of the brethren have decided to ignore these plain teachings and demand their "rights." Some have declared that a man may divorce for any reason, as long as he "repents" of his sin of divorce and "lives faithfully with his spouse from that day forward." But note that when Jesus was asked if a man could divorce for any reason, He first pointed to God's original intent: man should never divorce (Matt. 19:4-6). But then He said, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9) God never wanted divorce at all, but gave one exception: sexual immorality. Jesus said a man may not divorce for just any reason.

    And now some of my brethren are teaching that a woman who is put away unlawfully [for a reason other than sexual immorality, or fornication] retains forever and without end her "repudiation rights" to put him away if he commits some act of sexual immorality after the divorce [because she was put away unlawfully]. According to these brethren, the "innocent spouse" [make sure you have them define what "innocent spouse" means] has some "right to repudiate" [i.e., divorce; put away] that has been given to her by God and which can never be taken away.

    The Scriptures teach no such thing. Friends and brethren, the only thing you will find in the New Testament about a "right" we have been given is the right to be called God's children given to those who receive Jesus (John 1:12), the right to decide what to do with our own money (Acts 5:4), and the right to the tree of life given to those who do His commandments (Rev. 22:14). You will not find one passage that says a woman who was wrongfully put away has some irrevocable "repudiation rights." In fact, Jesus said "whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matt. 19:9b) Is it fair? No, it is not "fair," but if they were divorced for some reason other than sexual immorality, neither has a "right" to remarry [except to be reconciled to one another, 1Cor. 7:10, 11].

    Instead of demanding our "rights," we should be striving to follow the example of the Savior, who prayed, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39) Knowing His "right" to life was about to be taken from Him, Jesus did not protest, but humbly submitted to God. Let us do the same.

---Steven Harper

 Page 1