Theological basis of human rights
London, February 18-21 1976
The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, meeting in Uniting General Council in Nairobi, 1970, called for a study of the Theological Basis of Human Rights. Between 1971 and 1975 many of the member churches, some officially and others unofficially, as well as a number of special committees and groups of theologians produced a variety of statements on several aspects of the issues in question. To gather up the insights of the study and to attempt a cohesive expression of Reformed thinking on the subject, the Department of Theology through the Executive Committee of Warc held a consultation in London from 18-21 February, 1976, attended by 21 theologians from six countries. At the London Consultation Jürgen Moltmann was invited to present a study paper expressing the results of reflection on the material gathered from the member churches. Arising from the discussion of this paper, the members of the Consultation worked out and submitted the following short statement of Theological Guidelines.
The participants at the London Consultation set on record their appreciation for this stimulus provided by Dr Moltmann’s paper, which study paper is attached as an appendix to the present report. These two documents should be taken as complementary to each other.
I. Theological guidelines
“The task of Christian theology is not that of trying to present once more what thousands of experts, lawyers, legislators, and diplomats in the United Nations have already accomplished. But neither can Christian theology allow itself to dispense with the discussion of, and the struggle for, the realization of human rights. On the ground of the creation of man and woman in the image of God, on the ground of the incarnation of God for the reconciliation of the world, and on the ground of the coming of the kingdom of God as the consummation of history, the concern that is entrusted to Christian theology is one for the humanity of persons as well as for their ongoing rights and duties” (cf. Moltmann paper, page 1, para. 3).
1. We understand the basic theological contribution of the Christian faith, in these matters, to be the grounding of fundamental human rights in God’s right to, i.e. his claim upon human beings.
This is to say that human rights are ultimately grounded not in human nature; nor are they conditioned by individual or collective human achievements in history. They reflect the covenant of God’s faithfulness to his people and the glory of his love for the church and the world. No earthly authority can legitimately deny or suspend the right and dignity of being human. It is in the light of this covenant as fulfilled in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit outpoured upon all flesh that Christians express solidarity with all those who bear a human countenance, and more particularly, a willingness to stand up for those whose fundamental rights and freedom are robbed.
2. Our biblical faith commits us to a view of human life in its wholeness expressed in three basic complementarities: male and female, the individual and society, human life and its ecological context.
In the identification of our humanity as created in the image of God, we affirm
* the equal dignity and interdependence of man and woman;
* the equal validity sand interdependence of personal rights (freedom and dignity) aid social rights (justice and community);
* and the equal dignity and interdependence of the present generation and future generations in the stewardship of nature.
As humanity stands in a covenant relationship to God, that relationship carries with it covenant responsibilities in our stewardship of creation.
Further, we acknowledge
* the equal validity and interdependence of “my rights” and “the rights of my neighbour”; and
* the equal significance and interdependence of human rights and human duties.
3. Our biblical faith also warns us about the destroying powers we face in the struggle for the realization of human rights.
It has been said, aptly, that the only universal thing about human rights, today, is their universal violation. In the light of our biblical faith we are driven to acknowledge the extremity to which the image of God has been corrupted and distorted in our world.
Human rights suffer not only from their denial and abuse but from their partisan and polarized fulfilment. Witness the demonic compulsion of one human being or ethnic group to achieve self-confirmation by the dehumanization of others. Witness the demonic compulsion of states to tyrannize their citizens and exercise imperial dominion over other states. Witness the demonic compulsion of the powerful to implement their economic aggrandizement at the expense of nature, the power of the earth and the future of humanity. As a result we must confess that the exercise of human rights participates fully in the ambiguity of human life and can be destructive as well as creative, demonic as well as holy. Being human is being threatened by Sin, Satan and Death. These threats are no respector of human beings and human rights are no match for their power. In anguish, fear, frustration and despair humans cry out for salvation!
4. We boldly confess the liberating power of Jesus Christ and affirm the church’s ministry of reconciliation and grace.
Though caught up in the experience of its own guilt and frustration and virtually impotent in the face of the demonic powers which enslave our sinful world, the church is, nevertheless, commanded to bear witness to the liberating power of Christ’s cross and resurrection. Called to live and think in this perspective, Christian theology can contribute to the theory and practice of human rights by ministering the distinctive wholeness of the gospel bequeathed to the church, the Word of reconciliation and grace!
In the struggle for human rights, there is no way to avoid conflict between different groups, particularly between the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless. The message of reconciliation, which must always be faithful to God’s act of reconciliation in which his justice and love issue inseparably in action, does not obviate these conflicts. As the Word of the cross, reconciliation means neither appeasement nor neutrality. Yet, it is the basic promise of the gospel that, in spite of the bitterness of the struggle and the suffering it entails, the final goal is the reconciled community within the one family of God.
The theological affirmation of God’s right to, i.e. his claim upon human beings, as the foundation of human rights, opens the perspective of God’s free grace as the ultimate perspective, transcending all our achievements and failures. This is particularly important for our struggles in the areas of human rights. It prevents us from despairing in situations of overwhelming and frustrating setbacks, as we confront them in our contemporary world. At the same time, it prevents our involvement in the struggle for human rights from becoming a self-righteous justification by works, rather than a thorough-going repentance and self-giving investment in justice and freedom as a response to our having been justified by God’s grace alone.
This spirit of “costly reconciliation” and “costly grace” represents the contribution of the Christian church to today’s world-wide struggle to sustain and foster human dignity and human rights.
II. Some practical implications
The preceding theological theses and the arguments set out in Dr Jürgen Moltmann’s paper suggest many practical implications. Some of them appear in the form of four final points in Dr Moltmann’s paper. Others are outlined in what follows.
It must be emphasized that the following principle must be seen in the closest connection with the theological bases from which they have been derived. Like the preceding theological arguments they are only offered as guidelines which might be useful in indicating possible ways of implementing human rights in different social, cultural and political contexts.
1. Principles relating to the internal life of the churches
The theological basis suggests that the Christian community of all realms should be one in which the dignity and rights of all men and women are fully recognized and implemented.
1. It is therefore recommended that all member churches should study the foregoing theological guidelines and hence relate them as further programmes of action. In particular, such a study could be related to local conditions to determine whether special attention needs to be given to
* the rights of the individual;
* the rights of society as a whole;
* the right to religious freedom;
* the rights of relating to the environment;
* the rights of the generations following.
Individual member churches might take it upon themselves to make appropriate representations to their governments with a view to appealing for action where this is desirable.
2. It is recommended that member churches draw in those members of the community who through special knowledge, experience and resources, or simply through concern, are able to serve the cause of human rights.
3. In that violations of human rights and the destruction of human relationships go together, attention should be given to the processes of reconciliation, taking cognizance of the fact that confrontation and pain are invariably necessary in order to expose the disabilities and cruelties under which people are suffering. The processes of reconciliation begin with the full recognition of the human dignity of the other in Christ.
4. In this way the Christian communities should strive for a realization of that kind of “alternative society”, characterized by the marks of the kingdom of God, in which people can individually and collectively achieve their full human potential. The church will thus be a sign to the world of true human existence under the reign of Jesus Christ.
5. By faithfully respecting the dignity and rights of their fellow Christians the churches will promote that interdependence among themselves which is integral to a faithful representation of the new creation in which the image of God is being restored (Col 3.10-11). Only thus can the witness of the church in the world become more credible and effective.
2. Principles relating to the external life of the churches
In that the church is part of the larger human community and represents that which the Christian faith believes to be potentially true for all humanity, it has inescapable responsibilities towards that wider society.
1. In relation to society and culture
There is a need to expose the root causes of the brutal and subtle violations of human rights which are increasing rather than decreasing. The general principle would be the tendency of one group to dominate another. This domination is often rationalized and even “justified” on ideological, religious, racial and even sexual grounds insofar as women suffer serious disabilities in comparison with men in most societies. The churches could engage in active programmes of investigation into these possible problems, since those who are suffering are often the most inarticulate.
As freedom of conscience and religious practice are paramount in the understanding of humanity as created in the image of God, the Christian church should at all times appeal for this freedom for all. This is the necessary implication of that freedom which it desires for itself, not in order to be of service to the society of which it is a part. By engaging in this service Christians in situations of relative freedom will express their solidarity with those experiencing oppression (cf. further the final paragraph of Dr Moltmann’s paper).
The specific way in which humanity is willed by God in a community of male and female reflects the image of God and constitutes the fulness of humanity. However, women in comparison to their male counterparts are often placed at a disadvantage through religious, legal, educational and other factors. There is need for a positive programme of study and action in the churches, to eradicate all discrimination against women in church and society.
The differences in culture are in themselves normally neutral in relation to human rights, but cultural imperialism, or the abuse of cultural traditions, do endanger them. While no single culture can be normative for all, all are subject to the judgement of the Word of God if they violate the dignity of man.
2. In relation to the State
It should be acknowledged that no human form of government is perfect, and all are necessarily under constant scrutiny in terms of the processes which they have promoted and do promote, and the processes which they counter and negate. As human rights are inter-related, and are also subject to ongoing historical processes, their fulfilment, negation or violation by any group or agencies or even churches, have to be judged in a similar manner. Structures created by human beings are in constant danger of becoming self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling, and hence of becoming idols – in a truly biblical sense.
It should be observed that the Reformed tradition makes specific provision for the right, and even the duty to resist, when human governments violate the purposes for which they were appointed. (Note the citations in Dr Moltmann’s paper.) The Christian community must be willing to become an offence to powers in its support of the powerless and deprived. Christian resistance against oppressive powers is grounded in Christ’s offering of his life for the redemption of the world (Phil 2). It is thus the expression of the Christian’s love for his neighbour, and not of self-concern. Our discipleship of Christ can take different forms in different situations:
* active and constructive resistance
* passive resistance and civil disobedience
* suffering and silent resistance
* martyrdom
3. In relation to international affairs
Following the existing Covenants on Human Rights of 1966 there would seem to be the need for a further Human Rights’ Covenant, a covenant relating to environmental rights. Such a covenant would be concerned with the responsible use of land and nature, and the capital resources of the world, the limitation within appropriate bounds of the development of industrial plants, etc.
These covenants have the value of functioning as continuing critiques of unjust situations.
Attention needs also to be given to the rights of future generations of the world, since there is the perpetual tendency to think in terms of the gratification of immediate needs, at the expense of those who will come after us.
The churches should take note of the escalation of violence and the development of destructive weapons in the world. It should be observed that “although there has been no direct military confrontation between the superpowers since World War II, some hundred wars have been fought, causing the deaths of more than ten million people in about sixty countries” (The Armaments Situation, WCC Fifth Assembly 1975). These facts raise serious questions about any easy assumptions regarding just violence and unjust violence. The use of power to destroy people with apparent legality and impunity is a direct violation of that creation which has been made in the image of God and which has been called to live in the freedom of his grace.
Conclusion
As against the inclination on the part of many to shrink from this entire task because of its magnitude, it should be undertaken with hope. Because the responsibility for these concerns has been given by God they are not a mockery but are capable of fulfilment. No church, no Christian, no individual is powerless, but has a God-given competence, since “God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty” (1 Cor 1.27-29).
Popularity: 1% [?]
Filed Under: Biblical Human Rights
