Principles of Liberty, Teaching Plan for Session 3

Principles of Liberty: Ten Biblical Truths Embedded in the Declaration of Independence
A Five-Session Bible Study

Teaching Plan for Session 3
Equality and Rights: Self-Evident Marks of the Creator on Humanity

In this series of Bible studies, we are exploring ten Christian elements in the Declaration of Independence, ten ideals that are thoroughly biblical but not always recognized as such in our day. In fact, modern non-Christian influences have so redefined and reinterpreted words and concepts that in some cases, contemporary Americans completely misunderstand what the Founders intended. A Word Foundations article titled “Principles of Liberty” is foundational to this series.

A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.

It’s high time we rediscover the true meaning of these principles and that we contend anew for them as the Founders understood them. In our study, we are highlighting words and phrases from the most quoted portion of the Declaration, then we’re demonstrating how they’re linked to Scripture and to biblical truth. In each session we’re considering two principles.

Here are the principles we will examine in Session 3.

A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.

Read the background information for the session. Be aware it provides a good bit more information than you will use in the time allotted for the Bible study.
Ask: Who was Richard Henry Lee? You can identify him for your participants in John Trumbull’s paining The Declaration of Independence here. Explain that he was a Virginian and the Founding Father who made the formal motion to the Second Continental Congress that the colonies formally break away from Great Britain and become an independent country. The first part of his three-part motion read, “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
Display this statement, which also is a quote from Richard Henry Lee. “It must never be forgotten…that the liberties of the people are not so safe under the gracious manner of government as by the limitation of power.” A PDF file of this graphic is available here.
Explain that government may sound gracious and benevolent—but beware! When it does, liberties are in the gravest of danger. Liberties and rights are safest when government is clearly and obviously restricted from encroaching on them. Say: In speaking of liberties and rights here, I mean the “unalienable Rights” to which America’s Founders referred in the Declaration of Independence.
Read Principle 5: Rights are inherent and God-given and are rooted in God’s having created members of the human race in His own image. Explain that this principle is evident in this statement in the Declaration of Independence, especially in the key words we’ve highlighted in bold italics: “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.” A PDF file of this graphic is available here.
Discuss each of the phrases in bold type. Begin with self-evident truths. Explain that a significant amount of truth about God and His creation is self-evident, or obvious to all. First, God’s existence is self-evident in and through creation. We examined this truth in Session 1 with a quote from Robert A. Laidlaw. More importantly, we examined three passages of Scripture: Psalm 19:1-4, Psalm 14:1, and Romans 1:18-23 (these passages are available from biblegateway.com here). Remind participants of these passages — that they teach that nature’s testimony about God is so clear that everyone can understand it (see Psalm 19:3-4). Also, the message nature sends about God is so specific that Paul wrote in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse….” In Psalm 14:1, David wrote, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.
It also is self-evident that human beings are unique in God’s created order. God has made them — us — in His own image (see Genesis 1:26-28; 9:6; Psalm 8:1-9). Ask participants to brainstorm ways members of the human race are set apart from the rest of creation. List these on the board or screen. If helpful to your discussion, go here for a list of 31 ways human beings are unique among the members of God’s creation.
Created equal. The Founders believed not only that God created all people equal in terms of worth, but also that this truth is self-evident. The equality of which the Founders wrote was not and is not an equality that comes after creation, but one that prevails by virtue of God’s creating people in His image. Thus, this is not an equality that can be engineered by government, but one that already exists and that government is obligated to recognize and uphold. A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.
Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Again, the men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence believed not only that 1) the Creator endowed people—all of them—with unalienable rights, but also that 2) the fact that He had done so also was self-evident. It’s like a construction worker who builds a house. When the house is completed, we not only can say the builder built a house, but also that he built a kitchen as well, and at least one bathroom. To build a house is to build a kitchen; to build a house means building a bathroom along with it. In like manner, God cannot make human beings without building into them unalienable rights.
Something that is unalienable is an inseparable part of something else. The two cannot be split from each other. This means these rights cannot be transferred. They are inherent, innate, or built in. They belong to every human being simply because that person is human. Only God can give such rights, because only He can create people. Such rights are no other entity’s to give or take away.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These specifically-named rights are among the unalienable rights God grants to members of the human family. Therefore, these three named rights do not constitute an exhaustive list. Examining these rights, we can come to understand the kind of rights the Founders believed to be innate. Unalienable rights are very different from the “rights” Americans typically think of today.
Tell participants that examining President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s State of the Union address given on January 6, 1941 will help them understand rights better. That speech became known as the “Four Freedoms” speech. On this page, Roosevelt can be heard talking about “the Four Freedoms” in his address. Also, the page displays Norman Rockwell’s beautiful portrayals of the Four Freedoms. The Four Freedoms are 1) freedom of speech and expression, 2) freedom of worship, 3) freedom from want, and 4) freedom from fear. A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.
Display each painting to your group, one by one, and ask your participants these questions of each: 1) What is required on the part of government to protect and maintain this freedom or right for its citizens? 2) What is required on the part of citizens to protect and preserve this as a right? 3) What does equality mean with regard to this freedom? In other words, how is equality achieved, or how might it be attempted, in terms of this “right”? A PDF file of the above graphic is available here.
Your discussion should soon show that the first two freedoms or “rights” on Rosevelt’s list are fundamentally different from the last two.* For people to exercise their freedoms of speech and worship, citizens and the government need to stay out of the way. To attempt to achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear, government has a never ending series of tasks that require it to engage in manipulation, taxation, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering that restricts people’s personal freedoms.
For this reason, we said this in our main article: “This latter concept of equality [promoted by the last two of Roosevelt’s “freedoms” and freedoms like them] consistently is 1) elusive, 2) unsatisfying, and 3) a poison that kills people’s personal incentive to work and achieve. Despite this, you’ll find many advocates for this concept of equality among those contending for so-called “social justice” today.” Distribute this handout to participants and encourage them to read it as they follow up on the Bible study session in the coming days.
Display this graphic. It showcases the last sentence on the handout. A PDF file of this graphic is available here.
It’s important to explain that the terms negative and positive do not mean “bad” and “good.” They mean “restraint on government action” and “requiring government action,” respectively. A PDF file of the accompanying graphic is available here.
Ask: What is the fundamental difference between negative and positive rights? If helpful, use this illustration. Consider enlisting a participant in advance to present the illustration for you, or consider asking two participants to present it — one to describe negative rights (scenario one), and the other to describe positive rights (scenario two).
Explain that maintaining negative rights means government stays out of the way and allows people to exercise their freedoms. Seeking to secure positive rights means government manipulates the playing field and, intentionally or unintentionally, interferes with people’s freedom and lives to achieve a semblance of so-called “equality.” But as we have indicated, it’s an elusive equality.
Display this graphic. A PDF file is available here. Note that an individual’s right to a trial by jury is one of the few positive rights the Founders upheld.
Emphasize that the Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on government for the purpose of protecting and maintaining negative, or unalienable, rights.
Moreover—and this is extremely important—although the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, is a list of moral responsibilities, it also is a list upholding negative rights (such as the right to worship God, the right to work, the right to life, the right to be respected and honored in one’s family and as a member of one’s family, the right to own and manage property, and the right not to be defamed or maligned). We will explore the concept of the Decalogue’s connection to negative rights more fully in our next session.
Distribute this handout and allow participants to follow along as you explain and discuss with them why positive rights are impossible to attain.
Highlight Dr. Calvin Beisner’s statement about rights, which we cited at the bottom of page 2 of the handout: “Properly understood, rights are not guarantees that something will be provided for us but guarantees that what is ours will not be unjustly taken from us. That is, properly speaking, rights are not positive but negative.” The bottom portion of this graphic is a reproduction of a draft of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. A PDF file of this graphic is available here.
Ask your class members to give examples of the “rights” people are clamoring for today. Ask: Are these negative rights or positive rights? Emphasize how far Americans have departed from the ideal of unalienable rights the Founders upheld. Sadly, today, Americans think of rights almost entirely from a positive rights perspective. Point out that it is no coincidence that as Americans have increasingly ignored and rejected their nation’s Christian roots and the God of the Bible, they also have abandoned the Founders’ love for negative or unalienable rights and are embracing an insatiable appetite for positive rights.
Ask: How do negative rights affirm human dignity? How do positive rights trash it? How do negative rights recognize man’s sinful nature? How do positive rights feed on it?
If time allows, you may want to mention the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which included a case involving Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan. It’s a disturbing example of a court’s creating positive rights. Information and teaching plan suggestions are available here.
Say: Because positive rights are fashioned and forged by government and maintained by the government, the government grants them, and it also can take them away. This means that in fashioning and dispensing positive rights, government is acting as god. Also, as we will explore even more fully in our next session, efforts on the part of government to create and grant positive rights to some necessarily means that it will trash the negative, God-given rights of others.
Remind participants: We’ve been discussing Principle 5, which states, Rights are inherent and God-given and are rooted in God’s having created members of the human race in His own image.
Explain you’re moving along to Principle 6, which says, “Equality” as used by Jefferson and the rest of the Founders refers to equality of worth and affirmation of natural opportunities, not to equality of outcomes achieved by government manipulation of outcomes, opportunities, or both. We see this in the Founders’ affirmation of negative rights—then they went on to affirm, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Note that the word “That” at the beginning of this clause refers back to the term self-evident. In other words, what comes after the word that is another self-evident truth. What additionally was self-evident to the Founders? The reality that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (See item 4 on this page.) So, according to the Founding Fathers of this country, government’s role is to secure, or to make secure—to protect and maintain—the negative, God-given, inherent rights of all its citizens.
The Founders would see government manipulation to orchestrate positive rights as being way outside the state’s limited responsibilities. As we indicated earlier (in item #8), government is not to engineer equality or what it thinks comes close to equality; rather it is to maintain and promote an equality that already exists. We can call this an equality of opportunity. Do all have equal opportunity? We can admit they don’t in a technical sense. Some have more money than others. Some know certain people who can give them an advantage or a benefit not available to others. Some have greater talent or skill. All of these things, however, are factors relating to the private and personal affairs of the individuals involved. This is none of government’s business! The point of negative rights equality (a new term I just coined) is that if government acts as it should, all will be equally unhindered by government and by their fellow citizens as they expend efforts to reach their God-given potential.
As Dennis Prager frequently points out, however, those on the right side of the political spectrum pursue policies that do good, but those on the left side pursue policies that feel good. We must keep ourselves from falling for the emotional rhetoric.
One example is affirmative action, which we considered in the background information article for this session. (Thomas Soewell’s article, which we cited, is available here). Another is the welfare state. Walter Williams has written a brief but powerful article about that “positive rights effort,” and you can read it here.
Share this with the class: Economist Walter Williams writes, “In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Here’s my question: Was the increase in single-parent black families after 1960 a legacy of slavery, or might it be a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty?…At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today roughly 30 percent of blacks are poor. However, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent. The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.” A PDF file of the above graphic is available here. Repeat Williams’s last sentence: The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.
How has welfare—a well-intentioned program—been so destructive? By killing the incentive of a couple to get married or stay married, and by killing a natural incentive to work. As with so many efforts to implement positive rights, we see destructive consequences, however unintended.
Encourage participants to recall the quote from Richard Henry Lee you cited at the beginning of the session. Display his statement again: “It must never be forgotten…that the liberties of the people are not so safe under the gracious manner of government as by the limitation of power.” A PDF file of this graphic is available here.
The Founders were interested in and drawn to what was and what did good, not in what felt good. They used their heads as well as their hearts—and so must we if we’re going to recover and preserve our liberties and rights.
Let’s review: Remind participants that you’ve been exploring the fifth and sixth principles on our 10-item list. These are • 5) Rights are inherent and God-given and are rooted in God’s having created members of the human race in His own image, and • 6) “Equality” as used by Jefferson and the rest of the Founders refers to equality of worth and affirmation of natural opportunities, not to equality of outcomes achieved by government manipulation of outcomes, opportunities, or both.
Looking ahead: Share with participants that next time, you will examine the seventh and eighth principles on the list. A PDF file of this graphic is available here.

- - Rights are inextricably linked to God’s laws.
  - Government does not grant rights but has the responsibility to recognize, maintain, and protect them.

Assignment: Remind participants to read/review the handout on what Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms show us about the nature of rights. Mention that it’s especially important for believers to understand that the Bible commends hard work and the satisfaction it brings. There is a list of Bible passages on the bottom of the page that affirm these teachings.

Also ask participants to visit the Word Foundations website at www.wordfoundations.com. Remind them: On the menu on the left, the 3 items listed right above the Subscribe boxes are

- - “The Bible and Free Enterprise, Part 1,”
  - “The Bible and Free Enterprise, Part 2,” and
  - “The Bible and Free Enterprise, Part 3.”

Ask your class members to visit the site and to click on Part 3 and read it for next time. If needed, remind them that the free enterprise system rests on the freedoms the Founders upheld in the Declaration. We need to learn how the principles of a free market economic model align with biblical truth. (You can access all the articles in this series from this page.)

Close in prayer. Ask God to help you and the members of your Bible study group be able to help others see the connections between negative rights and genuine liberty. Thank God that the Founders of the United States rightly understood the role of government under God.

top image credit: 1973 postage stamp anticipating the US Bicentennial; the stamp depicts Patriots acknowledging the spirit of independence by honoring the post riders who delivered mail on horseback

*The insight that the first two of the Four Freedoms are qualitatively different from the last two was developing in my mind when I first heard Chuck Colson express it and explain it. I have searched extensively for the source in which he wrote or spoke about this but have been unable to locate it.