On the understanding of human rights

On the understanding of human rights
The theological approach to human rights
Recommendations
Agreed findings

In offering the findings of the group as a contribution to ongoing work in the wider oikoumene, the participants recognized the obvious limitations of a discussion within a relatively small group and recommended that further theological work by a more widely representative group should probe the implications of distinctive contextual approaches in clarifying the theological basis of human rights.
On the understanding of human rights

a) Human rights are concrete expressions of human dignity. Human dignity, however, cannot be confined to formulated and defined human rights. These refer to something that in the human being is ultimately inviolable; they commit state and society to accept their share of responsibility for the human being. In this sense, human rights (as defined for instance in the two international conventions of 1966) are intended to fulfil basic needs and enable human beings to lead a responsible life before God and before their neighbours.

b) The concept of human rights as used today in legal instruments, political disputes and scholarly publications is somewhat ambivalent. It is a fact, however, that the whole complex of human rights recognized, in different ways, on the international and national levels can be divided into several categories:

* rights to protection (right to life and to physical integrity, procedural rights, etc.);
* freedom rights (freedom of religion, of opinion, of assembly, etc.);
* social rights (right to work, to shelter, to education, to social security, etc.) and
* rights of participation (right to participate in decisions by the state or others).

Other structural models come to mind, eg the distinction between rights that have to do, above all, with providing rights for the individual or with individual activity, and others that are chiefly aimed at safeguarding activity within the community or the existence and self-determination of communities (“social rights” in a special, divergent way).

c) We must continue to discuss how to relate the various categories of human rights. Above all we must ask whether the “freedom rights” are, in a fundamental sense, the basis for all other rights, even though the empirical and historical reality shows that certain social rights can very well be considered to have priority. In other words, the question arises of whether the relationship between the various categories is one of complementarity or one of “unconditional” hierarchy. In addition, there is an “inner circle” of inalienable human rights: the right to life, the ban of torture, freedom of religion (see below). I e

If all human rights are interpreted as fundamentally guaranteeing a responsible way of living, then the various categories must be seen to complement one another: this is our preliminary finding. Freedom of thought is of no use to the starving. In turn, a responsible way of living is not possible without adequate personal freedom and without adequate opportunities of participating in decisions that directly concern people. The practical significance of individual human rights varies from one historical situation to another: in a given country, the struggle for freedom rights may be particularly urgent; in another, certain social rights are fought for more intensively.

d) A special problem that needs to be discussed further is how human rights stand up to the forces that threaten them: first of all, to the power of the state, but also to private forces. Human rights must compel states to make their legal order humane; in this sense, they have a formative, not only a defensive, effect even though they cannot once for all and in detail determine a state’s legal order.

e) Human rights are increasingly the object of international legislation. Implementation thus ceases to be simply the “internal affair” of states. The states are not, however, freed from their task of protecting human rights: on the contrary, they must safeguard internationally recognized human rights in a manner appropriate to their special context; they must provide enough mechanisms to implement them and they must continue to improve them; churches should stand up firmly for, among other things, a more precise wording of the ban on torture and an improved set of tools to implement it. States should not be allowed to suspend the “hard core” within the complex of human rights, not even in case of war or other emergencies (cf article 4 of the UN convention on civil and political rights and article 15 of the European convention on human rights).
The theological approach to human rights
a) The relationship between the secular nature and the theological basis of human rights

1. When speaking of the secular character of human rights, it must be kept in mind that the word “secular” does not mean only “worldly” as opposed to “spiritual”, but that it also means globally valid. Speaking, then, of the secular nature of human rights does not imply that theology is abandoning human rights to an ungodly world, but, rather, refers to their worldwide validity as a starting point for a theological basis.
2. In spite of efforts being made all over the world towards a de facto enforcement of human rights, there is lack of theoretical legitimation. Humanist ideas that in the 17th and 18th centuries marked and advanced the notion of human rights in western Europe and America have come to a crisis. It is particularly difficult for us to share the anthropological optimism implicit in these ideas.
3. Along with insufficient legitimation, there are today competing legitimations. A world divided into blocs provides various approaches for a basis and an understanding of human rights. In a world split by true conflicts of interest, human rights must be taken into account if humanity is to survive.
4. In this connection, a Christian theological basis of human rights must aim at cooperation, must promote the worldwide validity of human rights without jeopardizing it by making absolute claims for the basis. A Christian basis of human rights must interact with other approaches and thus relate its position to other viewpoints.

The implementation of human rights requires that the authorities concerned as well as committed groups and individuals be convinced of the fundamental rightness and importance of the notion of human rights. For such a certainty to develop and grow the theoretical analysis of human rights and accordingly and especially their theological basis has to playa significant part.
b) Theological approaches to human rights

1. All theological statements on human rights derive from the Christian anthropology of the human person made in the image of God: This human destination is what constitutes the inviolable and inalienable dignity of the human person. All people irrespective of their skills and achievements have the same dignity and a common hope: the human destination of being made in the image of God is to be perfected by becoming like unto God.
2. With this common understanding, we can then choose among several approaches to human rights.
* One approach proceeds from the creation of the human being and considers the sources for recognizing human dignity and fundamental human rights to be implicit in the natural law of humanity. Recognition in Christ is the criterion for dealing with the historically developed natural and human rights.
* Another approach is based on the experience of God’s covenant with his people. Here it is deemed that the story of the biblical covenant is an exemplary representation of human dignity and fundamental human rights. The new covenant in Christ conclusively manifests God’s righteousness and the justification of the human being.
* A further approach takes the event of the justification of sinners through God’s grace to be the basis of their freedom, and from there proceeds to people’s responsibility for their neighbours in the world.
3. Three areas need further theological research and discussion, namely
* The understanding of the human person made in the image of God,
* The relationship between justification of the sinner and the kingdom of God,
* The relationship between a theology of creation and natural law.

Is the human being as imago Dei an imago Trinitatis? Must he/she as imago Trinitatis be understood as a social being? Is the justification of the sinner through the gospel of grace embedded in the wider context of the gospel of the kingdom of God for the poor, the suffering, the oppressed, the sick, etc. ?
4. The struggle for recognition and implementation of human rights takes place in a world that is no longer God’s good creation and not yet the kingdom of God. Hence codified human rights are always polemically addressing violations of human dignity and the destruction of human rights. We do not share the humanist optimism of the Enlightenment in whose spirit human rights were first formulated in Europe and America.

Because human beings are made in the image of God and are sinners at the same time, we formulate human rights to counteract degrading conditions existing in this world. We understand human rights to be a road towards and a struggle for human dignity and freedom, and reject any project for the future that sacrifices human dignity and freedom. Out of the struggle for human rights the duty grows to work for a world that respects human dignity and that can survive.

Recommendations

We recommend that

* the interconfessional dialogue on the theological basis of human rights and the ways to implement and realize them be continued
* the interdisciplinary conversations on human rights be continued and extended to include not only lawyers but also sociologists, psychologists, etc.
* interreligious conversations on human rights, perhaps with Islam, be initiated
* ways be identified of how the churches can participate in the development of human rights and legislation in connection with human rights
* the reservations held by individual denominations in the course of their history with regard to human rights be examined

Popularity: 1% [?]

Filed Under: Biblical Human Rights