Christianity began as a small reform movement within Jewish Culture
in Israel, led by Jesus of Nazareth (4BCE-29CE). Israel was under the rule of
the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus (63BCE-14CE) when Jesus was born.
The Jews were a small nation with unusual religion for the time, which insisted
that there was only on God (monotheism)
Christianity grew out of Judaism, adopting its monotheism (belief in
one god), its ethical focus on humanity instead of nature, and its history. From
a human perspective, Jesus, its founder, was Jewish reformer of prophet who
was crucified for his beliefs. From the Christian perspective, Jesus was the son
of God, the Messiah or Christ sent to save believers from their sin and suffering
and to begin the new religion by showing God's power to heal suffering, guide
social justice, and overcome the fear of death with the promise of eternal life.
Christians were first persecuted by Romans, then, beginning with. Emperor
Constantine's Conversion, Christianity became the official religion of the
Roman Empire under Emperor Theodosius in 380 CE. This move from
persecuted to ruling religion was a great change, but the Church still had many
political and theological problems to solve. The old polytheistic pagan religions
did not just fade away, and among Christians many debate raged over issues
such as the divinity of Christ.
THREE DIVISIONS OF THE CHURCH 1
The early medieval Christian Church was based in Constantinople (now
Istanbul, Turkey), center of the Byzantine Empire. In Italy, the Bishop of Rome
gained increasing authority as he worked to protect Rome form invasions and
to Christianize the crumbled Roman Empire in the west. The original Greek
Speaking Byzantine Church split away from the Latin speaking Roman Church
in 1054 CE, and become the Eastern Orthodox Church. This Church spread
west to Greece, up to Balkan states, and north to Russia. The Roman Church
called itself the Roman Catholic Church, spread west to Spain and north into
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 48
Western Europe, and organized under the Pope. In 1517 CE in Germany,
Martin Luther started the third division of Christendom called to Protestant
Reformation that expanded across Northern Europe and to North America.
Protestant branched into four overlapping division; the Lutheran Church, the
Anglican Church, the Calvinist Churches and the Free (or Anabaptist)
Churches.
CONTEMPORARY DIVISIONS
While the three major divisions of the Churches continue, contemporary
issues have drawn new groups together that often cross old organizational lines.
(i)
Conservatives-
2
Today conservative Christians tend to accept the
Roman Catholic Pope's or an orthodox Patriarch's authority.
Conservative Protestant includes fundamentalists, evangelicals and
Pentecostal, in numerous denominations. Three groups interpret The
Bible rather literally. They also tend to support male leadership and
oppose abortion and same sex marriages. They tend to maintain the
exclusivist idea that their branch of Christianity is the only numbers
mainly due to Church and population increases in Asia, Latin America
and Africa.
(ii)
Mainstream-
3
Both conservatives and liberals can be found in
mainstream (or mainline) denominations, such as the Methodist,
Presbyterian, or Anglican Churches. The large middle-ground
population of the most Churches may or may not interpret The Bible
more symbolically, and may or may not welcome scientific and
technological advances, such as the theory of evolution. Some welcome
the ordination of woman. Use gender-neutral language in liturgy, and
work against racial prejudice, while other do not. They may respect other
world religions but have minimal relations with them. They may hold to
ancient liturgies or blend them with new forms.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 49
(iii)
Liberal-4 Liberal Left-wing and radical Christians, such as same
American Baptist, Lutheran, and United Church of Christ Churches,
strive to rethink many basic principles of the faith, such as theism, the
masculine image of God. They seek to reform the Church, interpret The
Bible more symbolically and may break with their Church hierarchy on
issues such as ordination of women or ordination and marriage of gays
and lesbians. They may use both male and female images of God or
explore the ancient goddess traditions. They respect most scientific
knowledge and seek to reconcile it with religious views. They welcome
many technological advances but increasingly reject those that are
beaming ecological problems. They welcome relations with other world
religions.
Initially a reform movement within Judaism Christianity adopted the
Jewish sacred books written in Hebrew, the Tanakh, and called it the "Old
Testament". In Judaism, the first five books are called the Torah, or the
"Books of Moses": Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.5
Since many men were literate in Jewish and Greek cultures in Jesus's
time the records of emerging Christianity were written down, saving it from
extinction. These texts became the authoritative textual foundation for the
development of Christian beliefs, of tenets- The Bible, Adopting the Jewish
holy books as the 'Old Testament' Christians added to it the "New Testament"
that recorded Jesus's Life and teachings, and the theological teaching of Paul
and other early Church leaders. As history unfolded, the three branches of the
Church each adopted slightly different versions of The Bible. Early issues that
the Church had to solve involved disputes over the nature of Jesus's divinity,
the extent and nature of human sinfulness, and the growing structure of the
Church councils met to debate these issues and issue creeds, such as the Nicene
creed (an early statement of Christian faith stressing Jesus's divinity, 325 CE),
the theologians such as ST. Augustine (354-430 CE) wrote definitive texts.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 50
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Traditionalists believe that The Bible was inspired by God and, although
written by human hand, is literally true and error free. The great leader of the
Hebrew Exodus out of Egypt named Moses, the believe, wrote the first five
books of The Bible. But by looking closely at biblical language, history and
archaeology, critical analysis shows that the composition of The Bible was far
more complex. Though one could still believe it to be inspired by God, it was
written by many hands and edited centuries after the writing. Events that
happened long after Moses's death, for example, are recorded in the fifth book
Deuteronomy that he supposedly wrote. The Bible includes both history and
poetry, both intended to teach the acts of Israel's God in history. The study of
world religions has shown numerous parallels that Jews and Christian may have
absorbed from other cultures. The account of Noah's Ark, for example, has a
direct parallel in the Babylonian story of Uta-Napishtim, which was available
to Hebrews during their exile in Babylon around 550 BCE. 6
After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, Jewish
rabbis gathered to decide which of their many sacred scrolls were to become
the canons, or the official holy text. By about 100 CE the rabbis had agreed to
the contents of their canon, called Tanakh, Written in Hebrew. Tanakh is an
acronym for Torah (the 5 book of Moses), Navi'im (the Prophets), and
Kethuvim (wisdom Literature or writing). The Jewis Tanakh became the
Christian Old Testament, because Christians saw Jesus as bringing a new
testimony of God's will. Many major Jewish themes were absorbed into
Christianity, most notable monotheism's cosmic scope, the Law's stress on
ethical responsibility, the prophetic tradition on sincerity and social justice, the
messianic tradition, and the value of each individual. 7
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 51
THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, a Hellenistic dialect of
ancient Greek and written language of educated people at the time. But certain
passes, such as Jesus's cry on the cross: "Eli, Eli lama sabachthani (My God,
My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?). (Mathew 27:46, Mark 15:34) are in
Aramaic. Another New Testament Aramaic word is Golgotha ("the place of the
skull") where Jesus was crucified. Whether Jesus spoke many passages in
Greek, or Gospel authors translated his spoken. Aramaic into written Greek is
unknown, but Greek was the more literary languages of the time. Ancient New
Testament Greek text numbers about 5,000 fragmentary scrolls of parchment
or papyrus. The first New Testament Greek fragments known to be translated
into Latin were found in same scrolls from North Africa form the second to
fifth centuries. The Latin vulgate combining Jerome's Old Testament and Latin
Translations of various Greek manuscripts, was the standard Catholic Bible
until 1943, Many Protestant Reformers returned to the ancient Hebrew
Masoretic text for their Old Testament translation and added translations from
various Greek manuscripts. Today the scholarly English New Revised Standard
Version: Holy Bible includes all texts from all three branches: Orthodox,
Catholic, and Protestant. It also strives to avoid use of male pronouns when
both male and female are meant. 8
The New Testament begins with the four Gospels: Mathew, Mark,
Luke and John. Each book tells of Jesus's birth, teaching, crucifixion and
resurrection. The first three are called the "Synoptic" Gospels because they are
similar, repeating accounts of Jesus's life with variations. They are written
down about 70 to 95 CE. Mathew has the longest version of the Lord's Prayer,
Mark's is the shortest and probably the oldest text and Luke has the most
extensive birth narrative.9 The Gospel of John is similar to the synoptic Gospels
but has a stronger mystical and Greek influences, such as the opening cosmic
statement: "In the beginning was the word (Greek: logos), and the word was
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 52
with God, and the word was God." For John, Jesus is seen as a divine, eternal,
"word" or cosmic principle of meaning as well as the Hebrew Messiah (Greek:
Christos), who speak mystically of "living water", "living bread", and "living
light".
BASIC FEATURES OF CHRISTIANITY AS A RELIGION
Despite having its roots in the essential Judaic teachings and also being
influenced to some extent by Zoroastrian faith, Christianity has some of its own
distinctive features. I am mentioning below some of these points will come up
in due course while we will be dealing with the specific beliefs and practices
of the religion in somewhat greater details:
(1)
It is monotheistic religion believing in one and only one God.
(2)
God is of the nature of a Person, although not in the ordinary sense of the
term 'Personality'. He has consciousness and will and is of the nature of
pure spirit.
(3)
Although God is one, He is internal trinity the trinity being God the
Father, God the son and Holy Spirit. He is three in one.
(4)
Jesus, regarded as the son or sometimes the messiah of God, is the
founder of religion. He represents the true image of God on earth.
(5)
God has many metaphysical and ethical attributes but essentially He is
the nature of a loving father.
(6)
God is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world. He has created
the world out of nothing and may destroy in any time according to His
sweet will.10
(7)
Man is created by God in the latter's own image and so potentially man
is great. But he has degenerated into sin by misusing the free will granted
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 53
to him by God. Committing original sin by the first man Adam is the root
cause of man's suffering. Sin is nothing but disobedience to God.11
(8)
Nevertheless God being essentially kind and loving wants man's
redemption and it is for this purpose that He sent Jesus on earth to
educate people on proper lines thus Jesus is the redeemer of man.12
(9)
True religion consists in nothing but loving God as well as one's fellow
beings in utmost sincerity and humility.
(10) Although a sincere moral life of love is sufficient for man's redemption,
simple prayer to God without any rituals and sacrifices is also taught in
Christianity. Redemption or liberation is ultimately the fruit of God's
grace.
(11) Christianity believes in the immortality of soul and therefore it believes
in a life after death also. The final day and also allotment of heaven and
hell in accordance with the earthly deeds of men are the chief ingredients
of Christian eschatology.
(12) Hell is eternal damnation and heavens-is the symbol of eternal immortal
life in constant following with God.
(13) Christianity also believes in heavenly angles, both good and bad. Satan
is the chief evil angel, the devil, who contributes to the disobedience, is
also attributed to his instigation. However, he is not beyond God's
control. Satan is also deemed to be master of hell.13
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CHRISTIANITY
In the ancient world, the emergence of the Stoic and Christian
conception of human equality and dignity foreshadowed a more universal and
abiding conception of rights. But the stoics and the Christians believed in the
divine origin of creation. Both believed that human being were endowed by
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 54
that creator with a basic equality and that virtue rather than vice mercy rather
than severity and charity rather than cruelty were the standards of upright
living, whether for the ruler or the ruled.14 Yet still the concept of rights rested
on convention and was rooted in tumultuous, changing and unreliable world of
Politics, where brutality was often respected as greatly as clemency was
admired. 15
The historic relationship between Christianity and human rights is an
ambiguous one. For hundreds of years of Christian’s Church actively promoted
religious intolerance and persecuted those who failed to accept its moral value
and customs. Many of these values and practices are today rejected as contrary
to a human rights culture and moral decency. Max Stackhouse argues that
while "(t) he deep roots of human rights ideals are rooted nowhere else than in
the biblical tradition." these values "remained a minority tradition (within the
Church) for centuries."16 James Woods in turn argues that "religion and
freedom have not been natural allies.” 17
The affirmation of human rights emerged painfully and belatedly in the
Christian Church. The "deep biblical roots of human rights ideals” have,
however, periodically been acknowledged and retrieved throughout the history
of the Church in an attempt to correct wrongs, repudiate theological support for
abuses, and to pursue a more human society. The history of the emergence of
human rights within the Western Christian tradition recognizes that religions
develop in interaction with other social and cultural forces in society.
THE THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The tradition of human rights in the west is rooted in an array of
interrelated sources. Harold Berman suggest it took five great revolutions to
separate law from religion and to open the way for public debate on the nature
of moral value.18 These included the Protestant Reformation in Germany in the
sixteenth Century, the English Revolutions between 1640 and 1689, the
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 55
American and the French Revolutions of the 1776 and 1779 and the Russian
Revolution of October 1917. Each progressively separated Church and state
and further secularized law, introducing a healthy (at times aggressive)
encounter between religion and state.
In the process it was primarily secular insights into the dignity of
humanity, arising from the Enlightenment and the harrowing experience of war,
human oppression and genocide, the constituted the foundation of the modern
human rights tradition. Within this context there are, however, some notable
thinkers who argue that human rights are no more than figment of political
imagination. They suggest that while the idea eases the conscience of
Politicians, it falls seriously to contribute to the lives of those who suffer under
its violations.
Alasdair Mac Intyre, has, for example, suggested... "The truth is plain : there
are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in
unicorns ......[E] very attempt to give good reasons for believing that there are
such rights has failed .... Natural or human rights ... are fictions." 19
Leo Straus has, in turn, argued that "modern notions of human rights
have undermined the classical notion of natural rights, not least the virtue of
prudence", which he sees as the basis of a viable political ethic.20 Some
theologicans (both conservative and progressive) have discerned this critique
as an opportunity to promote biblical ethical values and Christians spirituality
(rather than enlightenment ideas) as a basis for rediscovering the ideals of the
"failed" human rights agenda.
In pursuance of this critique of the contemporary secular human rights
debate, much has been written on the ethical roots of the Enlightenment,
Marxism, the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
related human rights instruments. Some have delighted in relocating those who
have deliberately turned away from Theism back. In the biblical ethical
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 56
tradition, arguing that their reliance on the ideals of The Bible are an inherent
part of humanist thought.
The approach that follows is less ambitious. Neither is it driven by a need
to promote Christian ideology! I do not suggest that the roots of human rights
ideals are found "nowhere else than in the biblical tradition". This would simply
be untrue. I seek rather simply to identify the ethical trajectories of the Christian
tradition that pertain to what we today regard as the essential values of human
rights.21
In the early (New Testament) teaching of the Christian Church, the
notion of human dignity is at least implicit to Christian belief. Christ's gift is
the fullness (abundance) of life (John 10:10). Paul has in turn, indicated that it
is "for freedom Christ has set us free," not to live as slaves to anyone (Gal 5:1).
There are other texts- not least Christ's rejection of the role of political messiah
("My Kingdom is not of this world," John 18:36), which have often been
interpreted to suggest that Christ's gift of life and freedom does not have
implication for the quality of life here on earth. Luke 11.20, on the other hand,
indicates that the promises of God's kingdom have already dawned on earth. It
is within this tension that the foundation of the Christian struggle for human
dignity was forged. 22
Frequently, the human rights ideals within the early Church did not come
to explicit expression what are by today's standards construed as a gross
violation of human rights (inter alia, the subjugation of women, the acceptance
of slavery and discrimination on the basis of sexual behavior) were frequently
condoned and promoted in the early Church. The Edict of Milan (CE 313) and
the eventual transformation of Christianity into the state religion of the Roman
Empire resulted in further ecclesial restrictions against what was regarded as a
social and deviant behavior. Despite these developments there were Christian
apologists at the time who defended religious freedom. Lactantius, for
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 57
example, wrote "[l] iberty has chosen to dwell in religion" stressing that there
is "nothing ... so much a matter of free will as religion......”
23
St. Martin of
Tours, in turn, bitterly, condemned the actions of a group of bishops who
persuaded the emperor of execute a supposed heretic, Priscillian. 24
St. Augustine's years as Bishop of Hippo (396-430) marked a further
phase in the imperialisation of Christianity, which resulted in further violations
of the rights of individuals and groups who were unwilling to identify with the
norms and customs of the Empire. Rosemary Ruether's critique of Augustine
is telling one: "when faced with the test of a non-Roman identity, Augustine,
as much as Eusebius, proved that his catholicity was a closed universe,
bounded by the Greco-Roman Oecumene."
25
He was initially refused to
support the use of force against the apocalyptically minded Donatists who
rejected assimilation into the dominant Catholic Church. When, however, his
ecclesial coercion met with Donatist resistance with soon developed into "a
peasants' revolt in embryo".
26
Augustine supported of the intervention by
imperial troops. Unrependant Donatists were persecuted and resister killed.
Bluntly stated Augustine favoured political stability in unstable world as a
priority that needed to be protected at almost any cost. It needs to be asked to
what extent, in so doing, Augustine, intentionally or not, established an
implicit principle allowing for the curtailment of individual rights in the interest
of national security?
Despite the intensification of persecution of dissidents by the Church,
Brain Tierney argues that ultimately the medieval popes and bishops
unintionally contributed to the eventual emergence of the basic human rights,
by insisting on the freedom of the Church form the control of the temporal
rulers. 27 This was an important development in the wake of the unity of Church
and state which prevailed in the Christian Roman Empire. Individuals and
groups (such as the Donatists) were left without a recognised moral authority
to which to appeal, beyond that imposed by the theocratic state-Church alliance.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 58
Then, as imperial power began to decline and to be challenged by that of the
Pope, things began to change. There were two (often conflicting) authorities:
Spiritual and temporal. This history of the medieval Church-state encounter,
which at times manifested itself in a stand off between Emperor and Pope and
at times favoured theocracy- with either the pope or the emperor claiming the
unqualified support of God- need not to be discussed here. It was a long and
bloody battle. 28 Pope Galasius (492-496) asserted the independent role of the
Church. Charlemagne became the first Holy Roman Emperor, claiming to
be the vicar of God on Earth. The dramatic fight back came under the
pontificate of Gregory VII (1073-1085) which gave rise to the Investiture
controversy (or Papal Revolution). In the end neither Emperor not Pope could
win. The outcome was compromise as agreed to in the Concordat of Warms
(1122).
It would, of course, be quite wrong to read too much into these
developments. The struggle was not for the freedom of religion (let alone for
other rights) for each individual. It was rather for the freedom of the
institutional Church to direct its own affairs - a development which itself often
resulted in the most savage persecution of individuals. It was merely a step
though an important one, along the way toward a questioning of the nature of
authority.
Equally important was the affirmation of individuals conscience in
medieval theological thinking. It influenced the political developments of the
time to the extent that it began to focus attention on the persecution and
eventually the rights of the individual. In the twelfth century Peter Abelard
"taught that to act against one's conscience was always sinful, even if [in so
doing one's conscience errs is discerning the will of God]. 29 Thomas Aquinas;
in turn, stressed that we are only obliged to obey the higher authority of God
when we know that it contradicts our own conscience. "[N]o one", he argued,
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 59
" ought to act against his own conscience and he should follow his conscience
rather than the judgment of the Church when he is certain ....... . 30
Again it would be wrong to read too much into medieval teaching on
conscience. It did, however, raise further questions concerning the source of
authority and the nature of the moral imperative. A further development is
ecclesial thought, not unrelated to notion of conscience, was the emergence of
the idea of natural rights, a phenomenon which emerged with in the context of
the social and intellectual renewal of the late twelfth century. If hitherto ius
naturale (natural Law) was understood to mean "what is naturally rights", it
now began to acquire the more subjective sense of being a faculty or ability
inherent in the individual. This was a notion that would in time give rise to the
belief that individuals have certain inherent rights. 31 Not least prominent in this
regard was William of Ockham (1285-1349). He broadened St. Paul's
understanding of Christian freedom as meaning freedom from Old Testament
law or freedom from sin, to mean the freedom of the Christian from all
tyrannical forms of control, within both the Church and state. "Not even the
pope, he wrote [can violate] the rights and liberties conceded to the faithful by
God and nature." 32
It is time to summarise the emergence of medieval moral ideals as they
pertain to what would in time be seen as an emerging human rights tradition.
The struggle for hegemony between state and Church raised an important
question concerning the nature of moral authority. The recognition of
conscience, in turn created the possibility of moral appeal against imposed
authority - whether by state or Church. The notion of natural rights took the
quest for moral authority a step further, suggesting the existence of an objective
moral authority to which individuals could appeal.
These developments were further nurtured within the context of the rise
of nationalism in Europe, not least in the Germanic states, which contributed
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 60
to the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther's emphasis on the need for each
individual to personally respond to God's grace opened the way for each
individual to interpret for him or herself what is right in a given situation.
Luther's teaching on justification by faith, the freedom of the Christian, and the
priesthood of all believers was seen, if not by himself, then certainly by the
peasants who heard his message, as providing a theological basis for their
struggle for social and economic rights. Luther reacted strongly to the
Peasant's revolt in 1525, as a basis of sustaining the rule of Princes. His antiSemitism and his attitudes towards women, similarly reflect his support for the
social milieu of his time. His promotion of educational marital and other
reforms; on the other hand, have caused some to discern a "progressive"
dimension to his thinking that separated him from many other of his time. This
having been said, it is equally important to note that within decade of his break
with Rome, he opposed the activities (if not always the ideals) of many of the
priests, radical peasants, craftsmen and the emerging bourgeoisie who sought
to promote political reform. Luther had at the same time enabled people to gain
a new sense of personal worth that neither the structures of feudal politics nor
his own ecclesial control could withstand.
John Calvin, who adopted a more positive attitude concerning the social
responsibility of the state, provided Geneva with the system of social services
that surpassed what was provided elsewhere in Europe at the time.
33
At the
same time he emphasized the need to show obedience to God rather than human
authority; and this with a resolve surpassing anything suggested by the more
conservative Luther.34 Ultimately however Calvin and Luther (also Huldrych
Zwingli in Zurich) reacted against the initiatives of the poor, of women and of
others (Jews, Christian dissidents and "heretics") who refused to submit to
prevailing authority.
The social and ethical forces unleashed by early Protestant thought
ultimately found fertile ground in the Puritan and Free-Church movements
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 61
in England and North America, a process that further affirmed the rights of
the individual. In the words of Franklin Littell, "The most direct contribution
of the Free Churches to the individual citizen, whether Church member or not,
was in the establishment of liberty of conscience".35 Focusing on a conventional
relationship between individual in community with other Christians and God,
the notion of political and moral responsibility in society was enhanced. 36 This
sense of covenant was first expressed in the demands for the freedom of
worship and the right of each congregation to govern its own affairs. It was
soon, however, broadened to include the right to self-determination in the
political, economic, familial and professional realms. These social spaces
within society were seen to be God-given arears within which Christians were
to discern the will and moral authority of God; in relation to which the
community was to organize and assemble with a view to analyzing and
criticizing the political order and promoting their perceived understanding of
the will and purpose of God. This gave rise to a momentum that ultimately
carried Puritan believers well beyond the confines of theology into secular
political engagement. In so doing they found a significant measure of common
cause with secular humanists in the struggle for human dignity in the political
order. In America, Puritans and the liberals shared the view that society should
be governed by “self-evident” moral truths. The names of Puritans theologians
like John Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, Cotlon Mather and others were
heard alongside those of Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison and Thomas Paine.37 For the Puritans this meant the law of God as
understood within the context of the community of saints. For liberals it meant
the discernment of moral values through reason alone.
The above discussion notwithstanding, there persisted a certain suspicion
concerning human rights in other Christian traditions. This suggests Erich
Weingartrer, was because while the American human rights tradition was
based on a Christian understanding of the Enlightenment at natural law, the
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 62
French version derived from rational philosophy which juxtaposed human
rights with the divine rights of monarchs and the traditional recipients of the
Church’s patronage – giving rise to a strong tradition of anti- clericalism and
religious belief.38 The outcome was a perception of human rights as rebellion
against God in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching, as well as
among Protestants on the European continent. A certain caution concerning the
human rights agenda by some Churches in South Africa, not least the Dutch
Reformed Churches, can be traced to this.39
The contours of the modern quest in the Church of human rights in all its
complexity need not be traced here. Different Churches within Christianity
tracked the problem in different ways. 40 Based on a measure of self-interest,
the twentieth century concern for human rights within Christianity became
most audible and articulate in relation to representations made to colonial
authorities for the right of missionaries to evangelize to indigenous people.
41
This gave the early ecumenical concern for religious liberty a distinctly
Christian focus. In time, however, it was broadened to affirm the freedom of all
religious belief.42
It was, nevertheless only in the wake of world war II, under the impact
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the struggle of third world
peoples for individual and national rights, that the Churches began to see the
inherent link between religious freedom and other fundamental human rights.43
While the World Council of Churches, (WCC) inaugural assembly in
Amesterdam (1948) underlined the importance of the Churches work on human
rights, it was not until the late 1960s that WCC began to focus on specific
human rights programmers.
The commitment of the WCC against racism at the Uppsala Assembly
in 1968 constituted a decisive step in this direction.44 It led to the information
of the Programme to Combat Racism a year later - with major implications for
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 63
South Africa.45 The WCC would in time focus on a range of other specific
human rights concern, including torture, extra judicial executions, the rights of
women, the exploitation of children, militarism and other concerns. The WCC
Human Rights Resources Office for Latin America was established in 1975,
followed by the Human Rights Advisory Group in 1978, as well as numerous
regional ecumenical human rights programmes. This renewed (and broadened)
ecumenical interest in human rights resulted in the St. PoIten (Australia)
consultation on "Human Rights and Christian Responsibility” in 1974. The
consultation statement reads:
"The WCC has frequently declared that religious liberty is a basic human
rights. This right is required so that the full responsibility of Christian faith may
be undertaken. This right is not a privilege or an exclusive freedom of the
Church. Human solidarity demands that we should be aware of the interrelatedness of all rights, including the rights of those of other faith or no
faiths.... . The rights to religious liberty exist in order to serve the religious
community according to the commands of the gospel.46
This position was re iterated in the Nairobi Assembly of the WCC,
mobilising a new found commitment to human rights in the ecumenical
movement.
Parallel to these WCC developments was a new incentive by the Roman
Catholic Church, an initiative expressed in Pop John XIII's encyclical Pacem
in Terris in 1962 and the pastoral constitution of the Second Vatican Council
Guadium et Spes. Other important foundation Roman Catholic teaching
includes the Message Concerning Human Rights and Reconciliation.
Published by the Roman synod of Bishops in 1974, and a proper published by
the Papal Commission, Justitia et Pax, entitled "The Church and Human
Rights; in 1975. The breakthrough came in the bold re iteration that it is through
the revelation of Christ that the basic rights of human kind are made known
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 64
something that had always been part of the Thomistic and Catholic tradition,
but often neglected prior to Vatican II without turning away from natural law
teaching, the theology of Vatican II provided a strong Christological focus.
We read in The Church and Human Rights: "The Truth is that only in the
mystery of the Incarnate word does the mystery of the Father and His love, fully
reveals man to man himself".47 The words of John Paul II to the Pueblo
conference of the Latin American Bishops in 1974 were decisive for subsequent
events:
The truth that we owe to human begins is first and foremost, a truth about
themselves..... Thanks to the Gospel, the Church posses the truth about the
human beings. It is found the Church posses the truth about the human being.
It is found in an anthropology that the Church never ceases to explore more
deeply and to share.48
In providing this Christocentric focus, post Vatican II theology
contributed to the human rights debate well beyond the confines of the Roman
Catholic Church.49
The Eastern Orthodox tradition, in understanding itself to stand in
unbroken continuity with the early Church bypasses, the secular basis of human
rights, As such, it locates human rights in God alone as the source of moral
good, recognising the true nature and dignity of humankind to be revealed in
the Trinity. In communication with the triune God, each person attains an
understanding of his/her true humanity.
In relationship with others we, in turn recognise the dignity of humanity
that is created in the image of the Godhead. For orthodoxy this God is
preeminently a triune God. The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit find their
being in the fundamental relationship that exists between them. Being created
in the image of this (triune) God, relationships are seen to constitute the basis
of a spiritual imperative for human beings to live in mutual respect and
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 65
community with one another. It is this theological basis; rather than secular
humanism of Western liberalism or the anti-theistic tradition of the French
human rights tradition that inspires the orthodox commitment to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and documents.50
Eastern orthodoxy has had limited historic influence in South Arica. As
is the case with the Christological focus of post Vatican II theology, however
the theocentric focus on Eastern orthodoxy provides a resources that could
enable those Protestants who continue to be uneasy about the secular basis of
the western human rights tradition to find a new theological basis for supporting
the goals of human rights agenda.
A REVOLUTIONARY DIMENSION
The question from a theological perspective is to what extent the concern
for human rights is central to what it means to be fully human. In a study
document written for the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC),
Jurgen Moltmann provides a “new” point of departure for Reformed thinking
on human rights which eclipses any suggestion of the anti-theistic humanism
that has continued to plague some European-based Protestant thinking on
human rights.51 In so doing he finds a measure of common ground with the
theistic and Christocentric-based anthropology expressed in post-Vatican II and
Eastern Orthodox thought.
Moltmann argues that the theological task is not merely to affirm an
abstract ideal of certain God-given human rights which are due all people. It is
rather revolutionary. It has to do with unleashing “the dangerous power of
liberation,” which is inherent to a theological understanding of what it means
to be human in the political and socio-economic structures of society.52
Differently stated, theology plumbs the depths of what it means to be human as
a basis for supporting and providing a continuing critique of existing human
rights declaration and debates. As such, the theological task is not to reinvent
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 66
the wheel in the sense of reproducing a Christian declaration on human rights,
as if Christians are able to cling to a set of values that do not apply to all people,
irrespective of faith, creed, belief or non-belief. In the words of John Langan,
a human right “is a right that a human person has simply by virtue of being
(human), irrespective of his or her social status, cultural accomplishments,
moral merits, religious beliefs, class memberships or cultural relationships.”53
The theological contribution to human rights at the same time knows no
distinction between first, second and third generation rights. Having
anticipated renewed insistence of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights
on the unity of all rights,54 contemporary theological contributions to the human
rights debate recognizes the inter-relationship between so called basic political
rights, socio-economic rights and cultural, ecological and national rights. This
is a biblical emphasis that, at least at this level, finds common ground with the
African Charter on Human Rights and People’s Rights.55 Any focus on
individual rights needs to be realized within the context of community and
communal rights. The right to assemble and the freedom of speech can, for
example, only be fully realized to the extent that certain basic socio-economic
rights, such as the right to education, are affirmed. These, in turn, only acquire
full meaning to the extent that the culture of a particular person or group of
people is given full recognition within public debate.
Lutheran thinking on human rights has developed in relation to the two
kingdoms doctrine, which distinguishes between the spiritual kingdom (which
is the concern of the church) and the temporal kingdom (which is the concern
of the state). Both are required to further the purposes of the Kingdom of God.
Luther engaged in political debate, counselled and criticized the princes, and
encouraged his followers to be active in political affairs. At the time same he
stressed the difference between politics and matters of explicit spiritual
concern. He feared the temptation to reduce the values of the Kingdom to what
is politically expedient or even possible-something that would lead to the
“baptism” or theological legitimization of government. At best, Luther’s two
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 67
kingdoms doctrine functions as a theological incentive to critique the existing
order, with a view to providing an incentive for continuing political reform. At
worst, it results in a preoccupation with spiritual affairs and indifference to
political concerns.
The Lutheran World Federation’s (LWF) study, Theological
Perspectives on Human Rights, published in 1977, is a thorough and insightful
study which illustrates Lutheran social ethics at its best.56 It emphasizes that the
gospel cannot be reduced to human rights concepts (which are of the temporal
kingdom). Concepts such as “structural parallels” and “analogy” are used to
describe the link and yet the difference between “the justice which applies in
the kingdom of God and that in worldly law.” In this distinction, the essential
task of the gospel is underlined.57 It constructively and critically challenges all
human rights proposals from the perspective of faith and love, and enables
Christians to engage in the struggle for human rights with a level of hope and
courage that surpasses what the law alone can generate within us. Without
reducing the social ideals of the gospel to any specific set of human rights
claims, the gospel requires us to commit ourselves without constraint to the
goals of current human rights endeavors- what Luther would recognize as the
love of neighbor.
The Reformed or Calvinist side of Protestantism was obliged to address
a side of the theo-political debate with an urgency that Luther never
experienced. John Calvin was based in Geneva, an independent city of
refugees, where social reform was a priority. He did not enjoy the confidence
of the rulers and he never fully trusted them- a situation very different from that
of Luther in Saxony. Within this context, Calvin set himself to execute social
reform in accordance with a covenantal commitment to execute God’s will on
earth.
The eventual shape of Reformed teaching on human rights was
determined by a number of historical developments in Europe, England and
not least, the Puritan settlements in America. These strands within the
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 68
Reformed tradition were drawn together in the WARC study on human rights,
initiated by the WARC meeting in Nairobi in 1970. The study was brought to
a conclusion in 1976.58 As third world concerns influenced Vatican II thinking
in 1962-1965 and the WCC’s St Polten report on human rights in 1974, so the
WARC study locates the human rights struggle within the context of people
breaking out of colonial dependence, cultural alienation and political
oppression. It promotes human rights within the context of what it means to be
human. At the same time it promotes the human rights agenda as a response to
a divine initiative to realize this fullness of humanity - both at the level of
personal salvation and at the level of socio-political, economic and cultural
liberation. As such, human rights “involve the bonding of persons to others
under God’s love.”59 This, in the words of the WARC’s final “Definitive Study
Paper,” is “God’s claim on human beings.”60 The paper locates the pursuit of
human rights decisively within the context of the evangelical task of the church.
This ultimately is its strength.
Heinz Eduard Todt asks an important question of the WARC study,
which all theological considerations of human rights need to take into account:
“What,” he asks, “is the relationship between the WARC Theological Basis on
Human Rights and the conventions which have recently become part of
international law?”61 Todt’s question raises, inter alia, the pertinent question
concerning the specific nature of the theological contribution to human rights.
His concern is to clarify the (Lutheran) distinction between what is politically
possible and the ultimate demands of the Gospel. This requires the church to
promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights
instruments. It recognizes that while these instruments deserve the
wholehearted support of the church as important steps towards a more just
social order, the gospel always demands more. To lose the eschatological and
utopian demands of the gospel is to lose sight of the renewing power of the
God’s grace which requires all social and political codifications of law to be
subjected to the ultimate challenge of the gospel that we love our neighbor as
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 69
ourselves. This is an incentive which must ultimately focus on sacrificial love
and service to those most in need (the poor, the marginalized and the alienated
of society) rather than on the rights of the powerful and strong.
This double concern within Christian theology-both for human rights and
in critique thereof (symbolized in the related but different approaches of
Lutheran and Calvinist theology), constitutes the loadstone of contemporary
theological debate on human rights. It is a theology that locates the essence of
what constitutes human rights within a Christological anthropology that
continually makes known the possibilities of the human race within each new
age.62 It is an understanding of human rights that refuses to accept any artificial
distinction between different generations of human rights63. It is here that the
ecumenical consensus on human rights emerges.64
All Christians agree that human rights laws are not authoritative merely
because they are laws passed by the state. The Nazi regime is a vivid example
of the injustice that can be done through the lawful edicts of a state. Moreover,
the death of Jesus, though unjust, was lawful.65 The law is to be obeyed because
it is right, not simply because it is the law. The standard for the law must be
sought outside the law.
This may seem obvious, but many lawyers today do not agree. Those
who embrace legal positivism hold that human rights are simply what the law
says they are. However, as John Warwick Montgomery has reminded us, this
is merely to commit the naturalistic fallacy. The "ought" cannot be derived
from the "is." The fact that people agree does not mean that they are right.
In addition to rejecting law perse as authority for human rights,
Christians reject arguments claiming that humans have rights because of their
intrinsic worth or attributes, if these arguments fail to acknowledge the God
who created these persons and the universe in which they live. Christians agree
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 70
that all affirmations of human rights are grounded in the transcendent reality of
God.
Therefore, Christians do not speak of human rights as "natural rights,"
for this phrase suggests that human rights are merely self-evident
characteristics of the natural order. Christians affirm that human beings have
rights not because they are part of the natural order, but because they are loved
by God.
This is not only the position of conservative Christian theologians
Jacques Ellul and John Warwick Montgomery, but also of Christian
historian of religion, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who argues that "no one has
any reasonable grounds—has any 'right'—to talk about human rights who
rejects metaphysics."66 Human rights, Christians agree, involve what is
supernatural as well as what is natural.
In addition, for much the same reason most Christians no longer argue
for human rights on the basis of a theory of natural law. Protestants have long
been wary of this language. Roman Catholics, who once invoked natural law
as a foundation for values in the created order, now base their doctrine of human
rights on the human dignity of each person as a child of God. Today among
Christian human rights advocates the long-standing controversy between
Protestants and Roman Catholics over the authority of natural law is moot.
In summary, Christians are in substantial agreement that human rights
cannot be justified on the basis of law alone, nor simply by invoking the notions
of "natural rights" or "natural law." For Christians, human rights are
grounded in God. Christians agree that all affirmations about human rights
begin with faith in God, who transcends the world and yet is present within it.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 71
Christians assert that human rights are known through both reason and
revelation. Catholic social teaching speaks of "reason enlightened by
revelation," and Christopher Mooney says this teaching claims
That all reasonable people should be able to discern a human right to
minimum levels of food, clothing, and shelter, the values of work and family,
the binding nature of contracts, as well as the need for both freedom and
interdependence. At the same time there was also a claim, quite consistent with
natural theory, that Christian faith can make a significant contribution to social
morality, because in fact these moral insights of reasonable people correspond
with traditional Christian values and teaching.67
Protestants often emphasize revelation over reason, but most do not
deny the possibility of knowing the good through reason. As C. S. Lewis
asserts, it would be disastrous "to present our practical reason as radically
unsound."68 Protestants argue that human rights are grounded in revelation, but
may be known through reason. Carl F. H. Henry writes:
On the basis of God's scripturally revealed purpose, evangelical
Christians affirm values that transcend all human cultures, societies, and
human rights constituting the norms of civilization. Objectively grounded
human rights are logically defensible on this foundation of the supernatural
creation of man with a unique universal dignity.69
Some Christians believe they should avoid human rights advocacy
involving humanists, who reject God's revelation in Christ but nonetheless
affirm human rights. However, Henry urges Christians to work with all persons
of goodwill in the struggle for a more just world order.
Christians also agree that all human rights are based on the divine right
of God. Bishop Helmut Frenz of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chile
asserts that "Human rights are the social execution of the divine rights." 70
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 72
Moltmann says: "The human rights to life, freedom, community, and selfdetermination mirror God's right to the human being because the human being
is destined to be God's image in all conditions and relationships of life." 71
Jacques Ellul argues that, because all human rights are divine rights, Jesus
Christ "alone has rights before God."72 Christians from East Germany affirm
that "the inviolability of life, dignity and property are not a constitutive element
of the human being," as these rights belong to God alone.73
Christians agree that human rights are rooted in the created order of the
world: "There is only the divine right. From the idea of creation Christians
understand the whole world as a sacred order, dominated by the idea that God
is bound to rights as a just God."74 In the words of James M. Childs, Jr., "the
basic freedoms and protections of human rights doctrine are divinely revealed
in and through the natural order of creation."75
Of course, Christians differ in the way they describe their particular
positions. Agnes Cunningham, Donald Miller, and James E. Will distinguish
Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed positions in their essay, "Toward an
Ecumenical Theology for Grounding Human Rights."76 These theological
differences are evident in ecumenical gatherings, such as the consultation
sponsored in 1980 by the World Council of Churches with the Lutheran World
Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and the Pontifical
Commission Justitia et Pax, which identified three theological approaches to
the justification of human rights:
The first approach proceeds from the creation and considers the source
for human rights to be implicit in natural law. A second approach insists upon
the experience of God's covenant with his people. The New Covenant in Christ
is the criterion for dealing with historically developed natural and human rights.
A third approach takes the event of the justification of sinners through the grace
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 73
of God to be the basis of freedom and from there proceeds to the responsibility
of persons for their neighbours.77
However, the consultation affirmed that "a common understanding does
exist in the basic doctrine that all theological statements on human rights derive
from the Christian anthropology of the human person created in the image of
God."78 This is the basis of the inviolable dignity of the human person.
Christians also agree that human rights are justified because of God's
redemptive acts. Ellul and Montgomery emphasize this point, but Moltmann
makes the same assertion on behalf of the Reformed Protestant tradition and
the statement of the Lutheran World Federation concurs.79 Roman Catholics,
too, assert that human dignity is not merely known in the created order but in
"the Christ-event,"80 for "it is in the meeting of God in the man Jesus Christ that
man fully discovers his dignity and the dignity of all others whom he must love
as his neighbors (Luke 10:36, Matt. 5:43-48)."81
Similarly, the Handbook of Doctrine of the Salvation Army asserts that
"man is more than a natural being . . . [in that] his spiritual endowments and the
revelation given by the gospel of redemption concerning his place in the divine
purpose, invest him with a dignity and value of his own."82 Salvationists believe
with Archbishop William Temple:
There can be no Rights of Man except on the basis of faith in God. But
if God is real, and all men are His sons, that is the true worth of everyone of
them. My worth is what I am worth to God; and that is a marvelous great deal,
for Christ died for me.83
Because Salvationists believe in the doctrines of creation and
redemption, they support human rights, for they know "what God thinks of
man, what He has done for man, [and] what with God is possible for man."84
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 74
Pablo Martínez provides a succinct summary of the Christian position.
He notes that human rights are not based on any notion of intrinsic goodness in
human beings, or on any human attribute, or on any human act of government,
but are grounded solely on the creation and redemptive acts of God. "God has
a 'right' over us for a double reason: because he made us and because he
ransomed or redeemed us. This act, moreover, increased the value and the
worth of every person before God."85 Thus, Christians defend human rights on
the basis of eternal principles: "There is no way that we can present our rights
independently of God, seeing that all we are and have comes from him and his
grace (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 5:18)."86 Christians affirm human dignity
by supporting human rights, because God has created and redeemed the human
person.
Max Stackhouse argues that logically all talk of human rights involves
at least the following two presuppositions: members of a society must believe
that there is a universal moral law transcending their own culture, society, or
period of history about which they can know something with relative clarity . .
. [and this] universal moral law must involve an affirmation of the dignity of
each person as a member, a participant, in relationship with others, in a
community that extends to all humankind.87
Similarly, Methodist theologian J. Robert Nelson asserts that "Concern
for the integrity, worth, and dignity of persons is the basic presupposition of
human rights."88 The shift in emphasis in Roman Catholic social teaching since
Pacem in Terris, from natural law to human dignity as a basis for human rights,
supports the same conclusion.89
However, it is important that human dignity be understood, as Nelson
suggests, in the context of Paul's vision of the corporate church. Only then will
it express the notion of the common good. Robert Bellah makes the same point
in arguing that human rights must be "grounded not merely in the self||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 75
preservation of the individual" but in the broader "religious context" of divine
justice.90 In the words of Richard Neuhaus, Christians affirm that only "a
transcendent understanding of the dignity of the person" will provide a
foundation for a Christian doctrine of human rights.91
Neither The Bible nor traditional doctrines refer to human rights directly,
but Christians derive human rights from both. Whether the emphasis is on
grace or covenant, creation or redemption, God's action calls for human
response. Christians accept as binding the commandments to love God and to
love their neighbors and to keep the Golden Rule. For many Christians today,
this means supporting human rights.
Thus, Christians affirm that human rights are derived from faith and
involve duties to God and one's neighbor. Rights are relational. The human
person does not have rights as an individual, but in relation to others in
community and ultimately in relation to God. The right to life is derived from
the value God gives to life, by creating and redeeming it.
Human rights are not only derived from divine rights but also constitute
duties toward others. Christians assert that because God loves all people, all
people have rights and the corresponding duties to respect the rights of all
others.92 This view of human rights is at odds with the notion of individual
rights that is central to the development of Western political and philosophical
thought. Christians urge concern not for the autonomous individual, and his or
her rights, but for the rights of persons in community and their duties as well
as their rights.93
For Christians, the content of human rights transcends political
ideologies and includes what have been described in international law as the
three generations of human rights.94 In the words of John Paul II, in his address
to the United Nations General Assembly:
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 76
“All these human rights taken together are in keeping with the substance
of the dignity of the human being, understood in his entirety, not as reduced to
one dimension only. These rights concern the satisfaction of man's essential
needs, the exercise of his freedoms, and his relationships with others.”95
These human rights may be listed, as in the recapitulation of Catholic
social teaching in Pacem in Terris, or they may be described more generally
as the conditions for human dignity.
Montgomery derives a lengthy list of human rights from the teachings
of The Bible, which include most of the rights associated with the three
generations of human rights law. Moreover, he affirms that The Bible in some
instances sets standards even higher than international law. He also argues that
The Bible supports the notion of a new international economic order, so long
as there is protection for freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.96
Both Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders point out that the human
rights supported by Christians are largely catalogued in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.97 John XXIII embraced the Universal
Declaration in Pacem in Terris,98 Paul VI made it the cornerstone of his work,
and John Paul II celebrated it in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Moltmann and
Stackhouse support the Universal Declaration,99 Walter Harrelson suggests
it offers "a marvelous set of guidelines,"100 and Orthodox Christians also
endorse it.101
Carl Henry sharply criticizes the Universal Declaration, because it
"does not identify the transcendent source of rights." 102 However, he does not
take issue with its content.103 Moreover, Bishop Frenz of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church goes so far as to affirm that:
“Through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Christ speaks much more
clearly than through some synodal proclamations. This proclamation is of
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 77
Christ's spirit, because it puts the concern for persons, the concern for their
dignity, in the center.”104
And Erich Weingärtner suggests that the Universal Declaration may be
understood as a modern "Ten Commandments."105
This focus on the Gospel’s call for human dignity is essential because
morality, in the narrow sense of imposing a system of ethical rules, fails to
inspire the majority of people to pursue the common good. It is this that makes
the theological and spiritual grounding of especially Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox and Reformed teaching, as outlined above, so important. It is in
communion with God, within the context of the human community, that we are
inspired to “explore more deeply” (John Paul II) the nature of human dignity.
In the words of the Reformed declaration on human rights, it “involves the
bonding of persons to others under God’s law, for God’s Kingdom, empowered
by God’s love.”
Gustavo Gutierrez stresses the need for all people to be free to drink
from their own respective wells, in contributing to the reservoir of values that
constitutes the nation.106 At the centre of human rights spirituality is, of course,
the notion of the freedom of religion. Can the church affirm the authenticity of
other faiths as well as a secular quest for life and truth, without undermining its
own contribution to a national ethic that unites a divided people?
Religious particularity was transcended in common experience, without
any particular religion being denied. In the process, greater differences emerged
between some people of the same religion and same race than between people
of different religions and different races. In November 1992 The Declaration
on Religious Rights and Responsibilities, adopted at a National Inter-Faith
Conference in Pretoria, has sought to build on this encounter between people
of different faiths.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 78
Christians are in substantial agreement today as to the content of human
rights advocacy that is justified. Christians affirm the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and covenants incorporating its basic principles into
international law. Jürgen Moltmann asserts that despite the tensions in the
ecumenical movement "the common faith" lives.107 Despite the differences
among Christians over matters of doctrine, there is a growing consensus today
in support of human rights.
It is striking that this consensus on human rights among Christians not
only bridges historic divisions in the church—between Roman Catholics,
Orthodox, Protestants and between different Protestant denominations. It also
bridges the new conflicts among Christians, which divide those who believe
The Bible is the inspired word of God from those who believe it is the inerrant
word of God. By a growing consensus on human rights I mean much more than
agreement that violations of human rights are evil and tragic. Christians agree
substantially about the justification for human rights advocacy, the content of
that advocacy, and its importance for the mission of the church.
Clearly, for many if not all Christians, human rights are central to
understanding both the gifts and the demands of the gospel. God has given
human beings dignity and thus calls all peoples to the responsibility of
protecting human rights, as the social conditions necessary for human dignity.
For Christians all around the globe, human rights are as clear as God's creative
and redemptive presence and as compelling as life itself. Today human rights
are at the heart of what Christians believe and affirm as their common faith.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 79
REFERENCES
1.
Bailey, Lee w. (ed.) "Introduction to the world's Major Religions CHRISTIANITY",
Vol.4, Greenwood Press, London, p.xx
2.
Ibid, p.xxi
3.
Ibid, p.xxi
4.
Ibid, p.xxi
5.
Ibid, p.1
6.
Alex Heidel, Chapter IV, "The story of the Flood" in Gilamesh Epic and old Testament
Parallels 1949; reprint Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1971, pp. 224-69
7.
The Jewish Publication Society in Philadelphia published a new authoritative English
version of the Tanakh in 1985
8.
Paul Achtheimer, ed., “The Harper Collin Bible Dictionary" San Francisco: Harper
San Francisco, 1996
9.
Burton Throckmorton, ed. Gospel Parallels, 4th ed., Nashville; Thomas Nelson, 1979
10.
Tewari, K.N., “Comparative Religion”,Motilal Banarsidass, Varanasi, 1993, p.132.
11.
Ibid, p.133
12.
Ibid, p.133
13.
Ibid, p.133
14.
Roth. John K. (ed.), "International Encyclopedia of ETHICS", London, Chicago, p.408
15.
Ibid, p.408
16.
Vicencia, Charles villa, "Christianity and Human Rights" Pub. by Journal of Law &
Religion- Vol. XIV, No.2, 1994-2000 p.579.
17.
Stackhouse, “Max, Religion and Human Rights: A theological Apologetic” in John
Witte and John Van der, Vyver, eds. "Religious Human Rights in Global perspectives,”
Martins Nijhoff, 1996 pp.485-492
18.
Harold J. Berman, "Law of Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal
Tradition", Howard University Press, 1983.
19.
Mac Intyre Alasdair, "After Virtue: A study in Moral Theory" Nortre Dame University
Press, 1984, pp.69-70
20.
Straus Leo, "Natural Rights and History" University of Chicago Press, 1953 p.128
21.
Vicencia, Charles Villa, article on "The State of Religious Human Rights in the world:
Religious and Legal Perspectives" International conference at Emory University
Atlanta, Geneva, 6-9 Oct. 1984
22.
Vicencia, Charles Villa, p.584.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 80
23.
Lactanius, 6 De Divinis Institutionibus, Patrological Latina (Paris 1844), quoted in
Brain Tierney, "Religious Rights: An Historical Perspective;” in Witte and Van der
Vyver, ed. "Religious Human Rights" pp.17-20 (cited in note 13)
24.
Ibid.
25.
Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Augustine and Christian Political Theology" 29
Interpretation 1975, p.258
26.
Brown, Peter "Augustine of Hippo" University of California Press, 1969 p.289
27.
Tierney, "Religious Rights: And Historical Perspective,” in Witte and Van der Vyver,
ed. "Religious Human Rights” (cited in note 13)
28.
Davis, R.H.C., "A History of Medieval Europe" Longman 1976; Brain Tierney, "The
crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 at 13” Prentice Hall, 1964.
29.
Peter Abelard's Ethics 55-57, 67, 97 Oxford University Press D.E. Luscombe, ed. &
trans. 1971, quoted by Tierney "Religious Human Rights: A Historical Perspective" in
Witte and Van der Vyver, "Religious Human Rights at 24" (cited in note 13).
30.
Decretales Geregori Papae IX Cam Glossis, 1624, quoted in id p.25.
31.
Tierney Brain, "Origins of Papal Infallability" E.J. Brill, 1988, pp.638-44
32.
An Princepts in Guillemi De Ockham Opera Politica, Vol.1 at 251, Manchester H.S.
officer ed. 1956-74, quoted by Tierney, "Religious Rights: An Historical Perspective"
in Wittee and Van der Vyver; "Religious Human Rights at 28" (cited note 13)
33.
Bieler, Andre, "The Social Humanism of Calvin" John Knox Press, 1964.
34.
Calvin John, "Institute of Christian Religion" IV xx, 3, Westminster Press, John T. Mc
Neill ed. 1960, p.132
35.
Littell, Franklin H., "The Free Church" Star King Press 1957 p.48
36.
Walzer, Micael, "The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical
Politics" Athenaum, 1976
37.
Witte John, "The South African Experiment of Religious Human Rights: What can be
learned from the American experience?" in 18:1 J for Juridical Scie. 1-30, July 1983.
see also, Stackhouse Max, "Creeds, Society and Human Rights: A study in three
cultures" Eerdmans, 1983 p.70
38.
Weingarten, Erich, "Human Rights" in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, WCC
1991 p.485.
39.
W.A. de Klerk, "The Puritans in Africa" Rex Collings 1975.
40.
Vicencia, Charles Villa, "A theology of Reconstruction: Nation Building and Human
Rights" John Hopkins University Press, 1992. pp.117-53
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 81
41.
Gort, Jerald D., "The Christian Ecumenical Reception of Human Rights", in Abdullah
A. An Na'im, Jerald D. Gort, Henery Jansen and Hendrik M. Vroom, eds. "Human
Rights and Religious Values: An Uneasy Relationship?" Eredman, 1995 p.204
42.
Paton M.ed. "Breaking Barriors Nairobi 1975" in WCC: Report on the Nairob
Assemble, S.P.C.K., 1975, p.134
43.
Weingarten, Eric, “A Decade of Human Rights in W.C.C.” An Evaluation" J.
Zalaquett, "The Human Rights Issue and Human Rights Movement" WCC 1981, pp.
484-88
44.
The Uppasala Report: official report of the fourth Assembly of the world council of
Churches, WCC 19687. p.130
45.
Webb. Pauline ed. "A Long Journey: The Involvement of the WCC in South Africa”,
WCC, 1994.
46.
WCC, 1-3, "Human Rights and Christian Responsibility" WCC-CCLA, 1975
47.
Pontifical Commission, Justitia et Pax, in "The Church and Human Rights" Vatican
city 1975, p.28.
48.
John Paul II, "Opening Address at Pueblo" in John Eagleson and Philip Scharper, eds.
"Pueblo and Beyond" orbis Books, 1979 p.63
49.
Langan John, "Human Rights in Roman Catholicism" Journal of Ecumenical Studies,
Sept. 1982, 18 pp.19-3
50.
"Orthodox Religious and Ethical Encyclopedia", in 4 Threskevitike Kai Ethike
Engkyklopaidea, Athan Mortions Pub. 1964 pp. 1218-21. quoted in Stanley, S.
Harakas, "Human Rights: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective, in 19-3, Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 18, 21 Summer 1982.
51.
Moltmann Jurgen, “A Theological Basis for Human Rights and of the Liberation of
Human Being”, in Allen O. Miller, ed, “A Christian Declaration on Human Rights”,
Ecrdmans, 1977 p.25-34.
52.
Ibid, p.32
53.
Langan John, “Defining Human Rights: A Revision of the Liberal Tradition”, in Alfred
Hennelly and John Langan, “Human Rights in the America”. Georgetown U Press,
1982, pp.69-70.
54.
Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Vienna. June 1993 p.14-25.
55.
Adopted by the Organization of African Unity in Nairobi, Kenya 27 June 1981.
56.
Lutheran World Federation, Theological Perspectives on Human Rights, Luthern
World Federation, 1977.
57.
Ibid, p.15.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 82
58.
Miller, “A Christian Declaration on Human Rights” (cited in note 44).
59.
Ibid, p.131.
60.
Ibid, p.130
61.
Todt Heinz-Eduard, “Theological Reflections on the Foundations of Human Rights”
24:1 Lutheran World, 1977 pp.45-46.
62.
Zalaquett J., “The Human Rights Issue and the Human Rights Movement”, WCC,
1981, p.11.
63.
“The Truth Shall Make You Free: Lambeth Conference” 1988, Church House Pub,
1988.
64.
Ibid
65.
Muslim Ali A. Mazrui observes, "The cross was a statement on human rights." Mazrui,
"Human Rights and World Culture," in Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights,
Paris: UNESCO, 1986, p. 247.
66.
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, "Philosophia, as One of the Religious Traditions of
Humankind: The Greek Legacy in Western Civilization, Viewed by a Comparativist,"
in Différences, Valuers, Hierarchie: Textes Offerts á Louis Dumont et Réunis par
Jean-Claude Galey, Paris: École des Sautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1984, p.269.
67.
Mooney Christopher F., S.J., Public Virtue: Law and the Social Character of
Religion, Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986, p.145.
68.
Lewis C. S., "The Poison of Subjectivism," in Christian Reflections, ed. Walter
Hooper, Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, p.79.
69.
Henry Carl F. H., "Religious Freedom: Cornerstone of Human Rights," Quarterly of
the Christian Legal Society 5, no. 3, 1984 p. 7.
70.
Frenz Helmut, "Human Rights: A Christian Viewpoint," Christianity and Crisis 36, no.
11, 21 June 1976 p.149.
71.
Moltmann Jürgen, On Human Dignity, p.17.
72.
Ellul Jacques, The Theological Foundation of Law, trans. Marguerite Wieser London:
SCM Press, 1960, p.49.
73.
"The Meaning of Human Rights and the Problems They Pose," The Ecumenical
Review 27, April 1975 p.143.
74.
Frenz Helmut, "Human Rights: A Christian Viewpoint," Christianity and Crisis 36, no.
11, 21 June 1976 p.149.
75.
Childs James M., Jr., "The Church and Human Rights: Reflections on Morality and
Mission," Currents in Theology and Mission 7 February 1980 p.15.
76.
In Soundings 67, no. 2 Summer 1984 pp.209-39.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 83
77.
"Introduction," Human Rights: A Challenge to Theology Rome: CCIA and IDOC
International, 1983, pp.10-11.
78.
Ibid. Trutz Rendtorff "the development of human rights in the modern age" in
"Christian Concepts of the Responsible Self," in Human Rights in the World's
Religions, ed. Leroy S. Rouner Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press,
1988, pp.33-45.
79.
Ellul Jacques, The Theological Foundation of Law, 42; John Warwick Montgomery,
"A Revelational Solution," Human Rights and Human Dignity, Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1986, pp.131-60
80.
McCormick Richard, S.J., quoted in Robert A. Evans, "From Reflection to Action,"
in Human Rights: A Dialogue Between the First and Third Worlds Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1983, p.245.
81.
Giblet Jean, "Human Rights and the Dignity of Man," Convergence, no. 2 (1979):2.
82.
Human Rights and the Salvation Army, p.5
83.
Quoted from Citizen and Churchman Eyre and Spottiswoode, 2. In Francis A. Evans,
"Human Rights and Divine Grace," in Human Rights and the Salvation Army London:
The Campfield Press, 1968, p.9
84.
Francis A. Evans, "Human Rights and Divine Grace," in Human Rights and the
Salvation Army, p.9.
85.
Pablo Martínez, "The Right To Be Human," Evangelical Review of Theology 10, no. 3
(July 1986) pp.271-72.
86.
Ibid., p.272.
87.
Stackhouse Max L., "Public Theology, Human Rights and Missions," in Human Rights
and the Global Mission of the Church Cambridge, Mass.: Boston Theological Institute,
1985, p.13.
88.
Nelson J. Robert, "Human Rights in Creation and Redemption: A Protestant View,"
in Human Rights in Religious Traditions, ed. Arlene Swidler New York: The Pilgrim
Press, 1982, p.1.
89.
Hollenbach David, Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human
Rights Tradition, pp.131-33.
90.
Bellah Robert, "Faith Communities Challenge—and Are Challenged by—the
Changing World Order," in World Faiths and the New World Order: A MuslimJewish-Christian Search Begins, ed. Joseph Gremillion and William Ryan
Washington, D.C.: Interreligious Peace Colloquium, 1978, p.166.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 84
91.
Neuhaus Richard John, "What We Mean by Human Rights, and Why," Christian
Century 95 6 December 1978 p.1180.
92.
Quoted in Linzey Andrew, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, New York: The
Crossroad Publishing Company, 1987 p.70.
93.
Sowle, Cahill Lisa, "Towards a Christian Theory of Human Rights" The Journal of
Religious Ethics 8, no. 1, Fall 1980 p.285.
94.
Weingärtner Erich, Human Rights on the Ecumenical Agenda: Report and
Assessment, Geneva: CCIA, World Council of Churches, 1983, p.11.
95.
Livezey, Lowell W., "US Religious Organizations and the International Human Rights
Movement," Human Rights Quarterly 11, no., 1 February 1989 p.81.
96.
Montgomery John Warwick, “Human Rights and Human Dignity”, pp.169-75.
97.
Quelquejeu, Bernard "Diversity in Historical Moral Systems and a Criterion for
Universality in Moral Judgment," trans. Francis McDonagh, in Christian Ethics:
Uniformity, Universality, Pluralism, ed. Jacques Pohier and Dietmar Mieth, English
ed. Marcus Lefébure, New York: The Seabury Press, 1981, p.52.
98.
Hollenbach, David Justice, “Peace, and Human Rights”, New York: The Crossroad
Publishing Company, 1988, p.91.
99.
Moltmann, Jürgen, “On Human Dignity”, p.30
100. Harrelson Walter, “The Ten Commandments and Human Rights” Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980, pp.192-93.
101. Harakas Stanley, "Human Rights: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective" in Human Rights
in Religious Traditions, p.24.
102. Henry, Carl F. H., "Religious Freedom: Cornerstone of Human Rights" Christian
Legal Society Quarterly 5, no. 3 1984 p.7.
103. Livezey, Lowell W. p.34.
104. Frenz Helmut, "Human Rights: A Christian Viewpoint," Christianity and Crisis 36, no.
11, November-December 1978 p.146.
105. Weingärtner Erich, Human Rights on the Ecumenical Agenda, p.10.
106. Gutierrez Gustavo, “We Drink From Our Own Wells” Orbis Books, 1984.
107. Moltmann Jürgen, On Human Dignity: Political Theology and Ethics, trans. M.
Douglas Meeks Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984, p.7.
||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 85