The idea of “rights” was hot in 1776. Thomas Paine’s wildly popular Common Sense was published in January, fueling the public’s demand for their rights. George Mason authored and led the adoption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June. The Declaration of Independence resounded with the ringing endorsement of human rights, those that are unalienable: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders weren’t done. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, were devised as a preface to the Constitution, calming the fears of those dreading too much power being concentrated in the federal government.

The concept of “rights,” oddly enough, didn’t come from the Bible but from Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke. So how do we sort out how to think about rights – mine, or the rights of others?

Mary Ann Glendon, who taught law at Harvard before being appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, wrote an important book called Rights Talk. In America, we talk endlessly about “rights,” and many political arguments are over “rights.” But whose “right” is right? Does the conceived child have a “right to life”? or does the woman have a “right to choose”? Do people have a right to privacy? or do citizens have a right to safety that overrides?

Glendon has noticed in our “rights talk” a disturbing “starkness, legalistic character, exaggerated absoluteness, hyper-individualism, and a silence with respect to responsibility.” She believes the shrill insistence on rights has ruined democracy and shortchanged citizenship. Flatly asserted, “I have this right!” leaves no room for exploration, no room for give and take. Little wonder debates cannot be resolved and we wind up with gridlock.

Usually, the notion of “rights” plays out as “my right,” which is pretty different from me defending “your right,” or those who have no “rights” at all. Not only do Americans have countless “rights,” but they curiously have no legal duty to come to the aid of someone in danger. Rights without responsibilities? God turns all this on its ear and lovingly suggests we have no rights per se, but many responsibilities.

Instead of “rights,” the Bible’s way of thinking speaks of “gifts.” There is no “right to life.” Life is a gift, and this may be the compelling reason we do not have any right to destroy life. I do not have “rights” over my own body; God has those “rights.” My body is a gift of God, an instrument to be used in service to God, a temple of God’s Spirit, not a private domain for me to use as I wish. Christians are given “responsibility” – which is “response-ability.” God has made us able to respond to God’s gifts. Responsible people do not gripe or whine so much as they get involved, they do something. Citizenship is responsibility, and perhaps the Christians could foster a buoyant hope in America life by simply refusing to play the “rights” card and instead lead the way in taking responsibility for the good stewardship of God’s gifts.

Isn’t it freeing to think I am not a fist seizing my rights? but instead I am an open hand, gratefully receiving gifts from a loving God? – and sharing with others? Rights are about me; gifts are about us. Rights require law; gifts require love. Rights build walls; gifts open doors. Rights I cling to; gifts I share. Rights depend on government; gifts come down from God. I am curiously enough in sync with God when I labor for what society calls the rights of others, especially the marginalized. What could be more biblical than that?

If we think of life as God’s gift, then the political argument shifts. We might even wind up with a new logic. Consider this: years ago, Cardinal Bernardin popularized a notion called “the seamless garment of life.” If life is God’s good gift, and we don’t have the right to take another life, then we find ourselves against abortion, against capital punishment, against euthanasia, and against war. Of course, Christians who understand that life isn’t a right but is God’s beautiful gift may devise divergent arguments about how best to be responsible about life as God’s good gift – but at least we will be speaking the same language, and debating on the same terms.