| About
Jones
Book Contents
Bibliography
Essays
Postings
Readings
Responses
Contact |
Human
Rights and the Mission of the Church:
An Examination of Moltmann's Case
by
Timothy M. Hiller
[Mr. Hiller, a Lutheran student, is a graduate of Hendrix
College, and is in the MAR program at Yale Divinity School. Essay here
was written in May 2006 for the Seminar on Political Theology at YDS is
the spring semester of 2006 taught by Joe R. Jones, then Visiting Professor
of Theology. Used here by permission. Copyright©Timothy M. Hiller]
This essay investigates the question as to whether the Church should support
human rights. This question cannot be answered without a robust notion
of the Church’s proper mission.[1] Thus, the essay will begin by
investigating the role of the Church and argue that its primary purpose
is to witness to the Triune God. As witness to the Triune God, the Church
must be a distinct community of disciples, set apart from the sinful world;
as a witness to the one God of creation, the Church has a universal mission
to love and serve all. Do human rights accord with this mission? To answer
this question, the essay examines the theological defense of human rights
formulated by Jürgen Moltmann. For Moltmann, human rights not only
accord with the Church’s mission, but are essential to it. Moltmann’s
argument, however, distorts the Christian grammar, equivocates on the
usage of ‘liberation,’ and thereby denies the Church’s
distinctiveness. Through exploring and critiquing Moltmann’s position,
it becomes clear that if the Church defends human rights qua human rights,
it fails to maintain its dialectic relationship with the world. While
rights are thus not a part of the distinctive Christian discourse, following
Yoder’s discussion of the Christian witness to rulers, I contend
the Church can nevertheless appeal to human rights in defending the neighbor.
Thus, for the Church, human rights are always a foreign discourse that
produces problems if equated with its own grammar; yet, the Church can
appeal to rights in holding all nations accountable to treating their
citizens humanely.
I. The Church as Witness to the Triune God
The Church’s primary mission is to witness to the Triune God, considered
both in Godself and in God’s interactive relationship with the world.
This witness supplies the content for the Church’s engagement with
the world. Because God created humanity for community and restores this
community through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the
Church must exist as an ekklesia, an assembly called out to witness to
the New Creation in Jesus. Because God is the mother of all humanity,
the Church cannot merely turn inward, but must always be actively engaged
in loving the world.
The New Testament attests that the Church’s duty is to witness to
the Triune God. In Acts, Jesus proclaims that the Church’s mission
is to witness to him throughout the entire world. In his last words immediately
prior to the Ascension, Jesus proclaims that the disciples “will
be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends
of the earth” (Acts 1:8). In Matthew, Jesus describes this witness
as having a Trinitarian focus.[2] Christ’s followers are to “Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them
to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). Paul
reinforces the importance of witnessing to God for the Church. In 2 Corinthians,
in exhorting the Corinthian congregation to donate money for the Jerusalem
offering, Paul declares that stewardship proves one’s “obedience
to the confession of the gospel of Christ” (2 Cor. 9:13). As one’s
loving acts are done on behalf of the confession of Christ, the confession
has precedence. In 2 Timothy, Paul commands Timothy “to fight the
good fight of fight of the faith,” which, like Jesus’ confession
before Pilate, includes a confession of faith (1 Tim 6:12-13).[3] For
Paul, the confession centers on “Jesus Christ, and him crucified”
(1 Cor. 2:2), the Father who raised him (Gal. 1:1), and the Spirit of
God (Rom. 8:9, 11). According to the New Testament then, the Church aims
to bear witness to the Triune God, incarnate in Jesus Christ.[4]
The Church’s witness must both attest to God’s Triune life
considered apart from the world and to God’s interactive life with
the world.[5] To understand the witness and the Church’s mission,
we must examine the Christian God. The Trinity considered apart from the
world exists in perfect communion and love in the Trinitarian relations
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This divine communion centers on divine
gift exchange and mutual indwelling: each person gifts the others with
divine glory and in return receives divine praise. Gregory of Nyssa writes,
“You see the revolving circle of the glory moving round from Like
to Like. The Son is glorified by the Spirit; the Father is glorified by
the Son; again the Son possesses glory from the Father; and the Only-Begotten
becomes the glory of the Spirit.”[6] Each divine person gifts the
others with perfect praise, while receiving equal glory.
The Triune life of perfect community overflows with love and out of this
abounding love, God creates the world. God loves the creation and desires
fellowship with it and thus creates humans in God’s image. As created
in the image of a divine being who is perfect community, we fundamentally
are created for communion with God, with each other, and with the world.[7]
The necessity of community is grafted into the threads of nature: God
does not create completely separate, isolated beings, who at some later
point form communities; rather, God creates a world radically connected
and interdependent on each other.[8] As such, humans only fully exist
in God’s will when they live in communion. L. Gregory Jones writes,
“We are created for communion. Hence, we can only fulfill our created
purpose and destiny when we fulfill our God-given capacity to love, to
live with the pattern of God’s creation.”[9] This desire for
communion between God and the creatures extends to all created beings.
Because there is only one God and one Creator, all things in this world
receive their existence as a gift of love from God. As such, God’s
will is not merely for a select few to know God, but for all persons to
join in this communion (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Through human sinfulness, this communion has been broken. Instead of living
in the mutual embrace of love, humans exploit, terrorize, and abuse themselves,
others, and nature. Jones writes, “The musical harmony of God’s
self-giving communion is transmuted into the cacophony of voices competing
with one another for access to power, to material resources, and to a
self-validating identity.”[10] Fundamentally created for communion,
humans now fundamentally exist in a state of brokenness and separation
from God, called Sin.
Sin, the fundamental state of estrangement from God, from others, and
from the world, manifests itself in particular sins. These violations
pervade our existence and shape the social structures we live in: in individuals,
these evils become habitualized to the point of necessity; in transpersonal
relations, these evils become deeply enmeshed into the very structures
of society.[11] Because of the pervasiveness of evil and its molding powers,
all persons daily embody Sin. Because Sin and evil are so essential to
who we are and to our world, humans cannot restore communion with God
or each other by an act of the will.
The triune God who creates out of love and desires communion with the
world does not withdraw from the world once Sin and sins enter; rather,
“the God who gives became the God who forgives.”[12] The God
characterized by communal love enters in an interactive life with the
world through electing, liberating, and covenanting with Israel.[13] Through
divine choice, God listens to the cry of the oppressed Israelites and
liberates them from the bondage of slavery (Exodus 6:5-7). This liberating
act does not merely set the Israelites free from bondage, but frees them
for communion with God through the covenant (Exodus 19-24).
For the Church, God decisively reveals Godself through the life, death,
and resurrection of Christ and thereby calls all nations to join in God’s
communion. In Christ, God took on a full human life and called humanity
back to right relationship with God, the world, and each other. [14] To
reestablish this relationship, Jesus declares God’s forgiveness
prior to any action we take, proclaiming that through God’s forgiveness
humanity can enter into new communion. This call for forgiveness and new
communion, however, requires radical discipleship. In Matthew’s
account of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ calls his disciples to be the
salt and light of the earth, so that their works shine before all persons
(Matt. 5:13-14). He intensifies the commitment to God through claiming
that true worship consist not merely in pious actions, but in a conformed
heart which aims to be perfect like the Father (Matt. 5:21-48). Far from
stripping persons of responsibility, Christ calls his followers to live
fully before God with single-minded obedience (Matt. 6:19-34).
Because Jesus’ radical message and life opposed the sinful cultural
norms and powers, humanity rejected him and sent him to the cross. On
the cross, Jesus bears the judgment of the humanity that rejected him.
Following Barth, Jones argues that on the cross, in our rejection of Christ,
God judges us. The judgment that we cast on Christ, comes back towards
us. Instead of attributing our sin and evil to us, however, God allows
Christ the true Judge to be judged in our place. In Christ’s death,
God places our sin and our deserved judgment upon Christ and declares
a decisive ‘No’ towards it. Though we rejected Christ, Christ
accepts this judgment for us.[15] Christ’s acceptance of this punishment
does not excuse sin; rather it displays and confronts it in all of its
cruelty. Jones writes, “God confronts sin and evil in all of its
awfulness. In so doing, God exposes our wounds, both those that have been
inflicted on us and those we have inflicted on others and on ourselves.”[16]
In accepting our punishment and judgment, our sins are not merely judged
and condemned; rather, in the moment of passion, the Triune God opens
Godself towards the enemy and re-invites all of humanity into the life
of God. Volf elucidates, “On the cross the dancing circle of self-giving
and mutually indwelling divine persons opens up for the enemy; in the
agony of the passion the movement stops for a brief moment and a fissure
appears so that sinful humanity can join in.”[17] Because the cross
reestablishes the communion between God and humanity, God’s judgment
is not purely condemnatory, but it is a judgment of grace. God’s
condemnation of sin and our judgment of Jesus are not the last word; rather,
God judges and condemns in order to reestablish fellowship with humanity.
Christ’s work on the cross invites all persons to join in fellowship.
According to Paul, through his death, Christ broke down the walls between
Jews and Gentiles, such that the gifts and benefits of being God’s
chosen people in Israel are now available for the entire world. Paul writes,
“He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances,
that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two,
thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body
through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it”
(Ephesians 2: 15-16). Christ’s death redeems all humanity and thus
all are called to embody this new Creation.
If on the cross we judge Jesus, and God judges the world’s judgment,
in the resurrection God exalts and vindicates the Judge who was judged
in our place. In the resurrection, God decisively displays the forgiving
grace and love that allows us to enter into new communion with God. Jones
aptly summarizes the event, “Christ’s resurrection is the
Father’s verdict, by the power of the Holy Spirit, confirming the
efficacy of the cross as a judgment that brings forgiving grace that we
do not deserve and cannot earn.”[18]
Just as Christ on the cross received God’s judgment on Sin and sins,
in the resurrection we were raised with Christ to a new life. In the letter
to the Romans, Paul writes, “If we have been united with him like
this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”
(Romans 6:5). The self that capitulated to Sin and sins is freed through
the power of the Holy Spirit to live in communion with God, the world,
and creation. Instead of sin determining our actions and our lives, we
are a new creature in Christ, and now live in God. Volf writes, “Being
a new creature, redeemed from sin, is in this regard similar to being
a creature as God originally created us to be. It’s to live in Christ
and to have Christ live in us. United with Christ, we live in God, and
God live in us.”[19] We are now free to live in the communion for
which God created us.
This new communion occurs through the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ,
the Church. The Church, a forgiven community, bears witness to communal
life offered through the Holy Trinity. Through the ritual practices of
baptism, the Lord’s supper, hymns, prayers, and homilies, the Church
molds, disciplines, and creates persons marked by forgiveness and repentance,
reestablishing the communion for which God created the world. Being grafted
into this community in Baptism, sustained by Christ’s body broken
in communion, and admonished by the corporate Church, individuals, with
community aid, are empowered to be the New Creation of Christ (2 Corinthians
5:17).
This communion necessarily separates the Church from the world. As the
world fundamentally exists estranged from God in Sin, a community that
reenters communion with God in discipleship actively opposes the sinful
structures of society. Because the Church must stand apart from the world
in following Christ, its members must unlearn the world’s sinful
practices and discover how to be disciples (Romans 12:2). Hauerwas compares
this process to acquiring a skilled craft, such as brick-laying. Just
as the brick laying requires learning a new language, practicing under
the tutelage of a master, and developing correct habits of judgment and
discernment, so too becoming disciples requires embodying a new language
and practice, unlearning the sinful habits of the world, and being in
a community that teaches discipleship.[20] In following Christ, the Church
must therefore be distinct.
Yet, the Church cannot merely turn inward, for it fundamentally exists
for the world. In witness to the God who “makes God’s sun
rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and
on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5.45), to the Triune God who is the One
Creator of all, to Christ who calls all to follow and who breaks down
the walls between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 3:11-22), the Church must actively
be for the world and for the enemy. Wolfhart Pannenberg writes, “Christian
ethics addresses all human beings as creatures of the one God; all are
involved in the fall of Adam, and all are called to reconciliation with
God, liberation from the bondage of sin and death, and final glorification
in communion with God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[21] Because
of the God it serves, the Church has a universal mission towards the world.
Thus, the Church as witness to the Triune God has a dialectical relationship
with the world: in witnessing to the Triunity of God and the God who creates
and restores humanity to communion in Jesus through the Holy Spirit, the
Church necessarily exists as a community separate from the world of Sin;
yet, in witnessing to the one God who creates and loves all and opens
up the riches of God’s grace to all in the Cross, the Church works
on behalf of the entire world. The Church is only the Church by following
Christ as a distinct community of disciples; yet, the Church only follows
Christ, by loving and serving the neighbor, the enemy, and the whole world.
If the Church has a dialectical relationship with the world, do human
rights accord with this mission? To explore this question, the essay now
turns to Jürgen Moltmann, who offers a paradigmatic and influential
Christian defense of human rights. Through exploring and critiquing Moltmann’s
position in the next two sections, it becomes clear that if the Church
defends human rights qua human rights it fails to maintain its dialectic
relationship with the world.
II. Moltmann’s Christian Defense of Human Rights
In “A Christian Declaration on Human Rights,” Moltmann argues
that the Church must struggle for liberation based on God’s liberating
acts with Israel and with Christ. The Church does this by respecting the
image of God present in all people, a respect that has definite social
implications.
For Moltmann, the Church’s duty to struggle for human rights is
found in its Scriptures. In the Old Testament, God liberates the Israelites
from slavery, establishes covenant with them, and gives them rights and
duties to follow within the covenant. God’s choosing to liberate
and covenant with Israel decisively reveals the dignity of human beings.
By liberating, God reveals the rights to human freedom; by covenanting,
God reveals the rights to community; by interacting, God reveals human
dignity. Moltmann observes, “The human rights to freedom, to community,
to dominion, and to the future are inseparable constituents of God’s
claim upon human beings and the whole creation; they make up the inalienable
dignity of human beings living in a covenant relation with God.”[22]
The New Testament further witnesses to the God who liberates and establishes
human rights. In the Incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus,
God liberates humans from sin, law, and death. Christ’s work breaks
the vicious cycle of evil and grants humans rights and duties as children
of God. Moltmann elucidates, “Liberation through the vicarious death
of Christ, the new covenant in his blood, and the new rights and duties
of the fellowship which is composed of “slaves and freemen, Jews
and gentiles, men and women” (Gal 3.28) are the basic content of
the biblical witness of the New Testament.”[23] Through Christ humans
are recreated in the image of God and re-receive the human dignity that
firmly establishes human rights.
For Moltmann, when Christians reflect on the biblical witness to liberation
and God’s claim on human life, they discover the need for liberation
today. “The biblical witness to liberation, covenant, and God’s
claim leads to a corresponding Christian practice and theology.”[24]
By seeing that God liberates Israel from oppression, the Church sees that
it too must struggle for and with those currently suffering oppression.
By recognizing Christ’s restoration of human dignity, the Church
struggles to ensure that dignity is respected today. Meditating on God’s
liberation leads the Church to struggle for human rights.
For Moltmann, this struggle for human rights focuses on restoring the
image of God to persons. As humans were created in the image of God and
through God’s final liberation will have this image fully restored,
the Church participates in God’s work now by striving to renew human
dignity through human rights. The defense of human rights thus expresses
the eschatological hope of being remade in the image of God. He writes,
“Human rights mirror the claim of the coming God and of his future
upon human beings.”[25]
If the Church accords with God’s work by defending human rights,
what exactly are these rights? Moltmann defines human rights as “those
rights and duties which belong essentially to what it means to be truly
human, because without their being fully acknowledged and exercised, human
beings cannot fulfill their original destiny of having been created in
the image of God.”[26] Human rights thus are rights possessed by
humans in virtue of being human, require recognition and implementation,
and aim at restoring the image of God. For Moltmann, these rights are
universally valid, inalienable, and indivisible.
Moltmann traces four ethical consequences from this understanding of being
created in the image of God. First, being created in the image of God
determines all of our relationships to others. Because we are created
in God’s image, all human activities are performed before God and
are responsible to God. As God grants all humans these rights and responsibilities,
the rights are unassailable. Consequently, political institutions must
adopt limited governance which respect basic human rights and allow for
freedom of conscience and self-determination. As these rights are unconditional
and exist prior to the state, the state exists to ensure the rights of
individuals are recognized. He contends, “Human beings do not exist
for the sake of rule; rule rather exists for the sake of human beings.”[27]
Because all humans have rights and the state exists to respect these rights,
all political, economic, and social powers must be democratized. As the
rulers and ruled are equally human, they require equal status under the
law; state constitutions therefore must recognize and secure this. As
the image of God requires democratization, it calls for the creation of
liberal democracies. Moltmann writes,
"The human rights and duties, implied in the image of God concept,
are honoured in history through the constant, open, and incessant process
of democratizing the shaping of the people’s political will. The
control of the exercise of rule through the separation of powers, the
limitation of the mandate to rule to a stipulated period of time, and
the extensive self-rule and participation of the people are the historically
developed means for honouring the image of God present in human beings."[28]
Second, being created in the image of God requires that humans live in
community. Because God created male and female together, humans are naturally
social. As the sociality is essential to being created in God’s
image, rights apply not only to individuals but to social groups. For
Moltmann, social groups have the right and responsibility of creating
a just society, that is, a society that respects the rights of individuals.
As human rights can only develop in a just society, a just society guarantees
the preservation of human rights. Moltmann writes, “The freedom
of the individual can only be constituted in a free society, and a free
society can only be constituted on the ground of individual freedom. Human
liberation is liberation for community and human community is community
in freedom.”[29] For Moltmann, these social rights maintain the
same inalienability and indivisibility as individual rights.
Third, being created in the image of God requires that humans respect
the earth. The Christian narrative attests to God’s love of creation
and the responsibility of humans to care for it. As the earth has a right
to existence, humans must not unjustly plunder or exploit it, but lovingly
manage it. The earth’s rights have deep implications for how humans
structure societies. As the duty to manage the earth is given to all humans,
all have a right to share in its fruits. Unjust concentrations of power
and goods in the hands of the few desecrate the image of God given to
all persons. Humanity must share the earth’s good and structure
their economic systems in line with ecological provisions.
Fourth, being created in the image of God requires that humanity recognize
the rights of future generations. As beings created by God, humans are
fundamentally in relation with all of life. Because their true future
is life with God, others, and the whole creation, humans must act today
with a view towards the perseverance of future generations. That is, the
rights of the future ought to shape our current commitments. For Moltmann,
the primary way to respect the rights of future generations is through
ensuring the right to self-determination. By protecting this right for
future generations, we concordantly protect the rights of persons now.
He argues, “There are no human rights in the present without the
right to self-determination and one’s own responsibility in the
face of the future.”[30]
The liberation effort Christians participate in depends upon human rights.
While recognizing these rights illuminates abuses and provides motivation
for restructuring society, rights are only effective insofar as people
behave humanely towards each other. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs.
Moltmann observes that instead of respecting rights, most people violate
human rights by behaving unjustly towards each other, by hording wealth
and resources while millions suffer, and by plundering the goods of the
earth.
Because the world is steeped in sin, human rights can only occur through
a renewed humanity. He asserts, “Human rights can only be realized
when and insofar as the justification of unjust human beings and the renewal
of their humanness takes place.”[31] The requirement for a new humanity
occurs through the justificatory actions in Jesus Christ. In Jesus, God
took the human form, judged it, and through the Holy Spirit, renewed and
continues to renew it. By reconciling humanity, Jesus restored dignity
to all persons. Wherever this gospel is told, therefore, human dignity
and rights are established. Moltmann declares, “Where this human
dignity is revealed [through Christ’s acts], fundamental human rights
are also made to come in force. Their realization is made possible and
becomes therefore an undeniable commitment.”[32] Christians thus
have a special task in striving for human rights. In liberating persons,
Christians must proclaim the Gospel and practice grace, for by doing so,
they testify to human dignity and display human rights. Moltmann writes,
“By proclaiming God’s justifying justice they proclaim the
dignity of human beings. By practising the right of grace they practise
basic human rights. The Christian faith therefore does not excuse us from
the struggle for the recognition and realization of human rights, but
leads us into this very struggle.”[33] The Church witnesses to these
rights by being a community in which human rights are respected.
For Moltmann, human rights are necessary because they bear witness to
God’s liberating actions with the world. The rights are universal
and inalienable; they determine our social, ecological, economic, and
political relations; and they are only fully realizable through a restored
and reconciled humanity. The Church aids the struggle for human rights
by preaching the Gospel message. As such, it appears that the Church must
support human rights; yet, Moltmann’s account of human rights has
deep grammatical difficulties.
III. The Problems with Human Rights
Moltmann, while appearing to establish human rights within Christianity,
subtly but significantly distorts Christian discourse, equivocates on
the usage of ‘liberation’ and Sin, and undermines the distinctiveness
of the Church. As human rights do not adequately accommodate distinctive
Christian discourse and practices, they fail to maintain the Church’s
dialectical relationship with the world, and are therefore theologically
unsatisfactory. Because of these flaws, the Church ought not to defend
human rights qua human rights.
Moltmann’s employment of rights language subtly but substantially
distorts Christian grammar. By employing rights language to describe God’s
interactions with the world, Moltmann strips these actions of their giftedness
and grace. For example, for Moltmann, God’s act in liberating Israel
reveals that humans have “an inalienable dignity” that establishes
human rights. Based on God’s liberation of Israel, all social groups
are revealed to have the right to freedom. If all groups have a right
to freedom and rights apply universally, Israel too had a right to freedom.
Since Israel had a right to be free and all rights imply duties, the grammar
surrounding God’s activity with Israel shifts from God freely electing
to liberate Israel to a grammar in which God obligatorily recognizes Israel’s
rights and dutifully frees them. Similarly, by declaring that Creation
has a ‘right’ to exist, Moltmann diminishes the profound sense
in which creation is a gift of the Triune God. Instead of viewing everything
that exists as a gift of grace given through the freedom and love of God,
the emphasis on rights depicts the world as possessing a moral right.
The language of rights thus requires a change in the grammar of God’s
life with the world—instead of a free, loving, gifting God, rights
depict a respectful God. The language of rights thus distorts the Christian
grammar.
While distorting the grammar, Moltmann’s argument for the Church’s
engagement in human rights is based on an equivocation. As we have seen,
Moltmann argues that because God liberates Israel from slavery and because
Christ liberates humanity from sin, death, and the law, Christians today
must engage in the task of liberation by defending human rights. The term
‘liberation’ here, however, has two distinct senses: the first
can be demarcated as ‘liberation for.’ Here, the direct object
is central to the term’s meaning; that is, if a person is liberated
for x, her liberation cannot be understood without referencing x. The
second construction can be demarcated as ‘liberation from.’
Here, the focus is on the past event; as such, ‘liberation from’
does not specify what humans are freed for. In the Scriptural witness,
while God certainly liberates Israel from slavery and humanity from sin,
death, and the law, God primarily liberates for restored communion. For
example, after freeing the Israelites from Egypt, God declares to Moses
that the Israelites are now God’s “priestly kingdom and a
holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). The Israelites are liberated to become
God’s own people. In overcoming death, Christ liberates humanity
in order to restore communion with God, each other, and the world. Echoing
Hosea, Peter writes that because of Christ’s acts, “Once you
were not a people, but now you are God’s people” (1 Peter
2:10). God’s liberating acts do not merely liberation from impediments,
but they liberate for communion with God, which occurs in the Church.
While Moltmann recognizes that God liberates persons for covenant and
claims that Christians struggle for human rights, human rights only establish
‘liberation from’ bondage. That is, human rights ensure the
freedom of conscience, freedom for self-determination, freedom of religion,
and freedom from coercive powers; they do not, however, liberate persons
for any particular end. Because God always ‘liberates for’
communion, human right’s open-ended ‘liberation from’
is not the same, and ought not be equated with, God’s. In fact,
the differences may be incompatible, as can be seen by replacing terms.
God does not liberate Israel from slavery to grant them freedom of religion;
quite the opposite, God frees them to make Israel God’s people (Exodus
20:1). Conversely, if Moltmann defends ‘liberation for’ communion
with God, he would no longer be defending universal human rights, but
defending Christian faith. As human rights and Scripture have a different
meaning of liberation, Moltmann’s argument that God’s liberation
requires the Church to struggle for human rights fails.[34]
This misuse of ‘liberation’ arises because Moltmann does not
separate human Sin, understood as fundamental estrangement from God, from
human sins, the particular manifestations of this estrangement. Human
rights center on restoring and overcoming the sins of society, yet they
do not and cannot address the fundamental issue of overcoming estrangement
from God. In limiting his purview to sins, Moltmann sees the necessity
of ‘liberation from;’ by ignoring Sin, he misses the importance
of ‘liberation for’ community. Human rights thus fail to address
the fundamental problems of humanity, estrangement from God.
These difficulties point to the major problem with human rights: when
the Church adopts human rights as its mission, it fails to maintain the
necessary dialectical relationship with the world. By equivocating ‘liberation
from’ with ‘liberation for’ and by ignoring Sin for
sins, rights language overlooks the need for a distinct community shaped
by God’s love. By not seeing that humans need to be ‘liberated
for’ communion and not just ‘from’ impediments, human
rights eradicate the distinctive community of the Church.
How does this occur? For Moltmann, as we have seen, God’s creating
humanity in God’s image means that humans have rights. These rights
are only properly respected and instantiated through creating communities
where rights are respected without interferences (liberation from). Consequently,
the true community is merely a just society in which rights are respected.
This conception of society however lacks true communal features (liberation
for): noticeably absent from it are notions of a shared common good, seeking
and giving to the other, and a robust fellowship. If the Church ought
to embody the ideal community, and this ideal community merely acknowledges
the rights of others, the Church’s truly embodies the ideal community
by respecting rights. A community that merely respects the rights of others
in a liberal democracy, however, becomes indistinguishable from the larger
culture. [35] Instead of providing a counter-polis shaped by discipleship
in effort to resist Sin, the Church’s politics mirror the cultural
politics. Instead of providing a fundamentally different life, the Church,
at best, provides a better democracy. Because the Church becomes indistinguishable
from society, the Church’s distinctiveness disappears.
The loss of distinctiveness results in the Church losing its ability to
discipline and shape its members. If the Church merely functions as an
exemplary respecter of rights, and rights, by nature, do not supply a
vision of the good life, the Church loses its motivation to substantively
transform persons. If the primary function of the community is not to
follow Christ but respect rights, the Church no longer lovingly disciplines,
but respectfully encourages individuality. The Church as merely a respecter
of rights thus cannot form disciples in the light of Christ’s call.
Daniel Bell argues, “The modern discourse of rights is not capable
of supporting… character-building formations…Even when it
is remade in theological form, such discourse [cannot] create the bonds
of friendship necessary [to resist sinful system].”[36]
This loss of particularity, for Moltmann, however, is welcome. In “Human
Rights, the Rights of Humanity and the Rights of Nature,” he argues
that because human rights are imperative to the survival of this planet,
particular religions must subordinate their own distinctiveness to human
rights. He contends,
"Because present life and the future survival of humanity depend
on the observance of human rights, the rights of humanity and the rights
of nature, the world religions will also have to subordinate themselves
to the world’s preservation…This also means that they have
to subordinate their own legal codes—the Torah, the Sermon on the
Mount, the laws of the church…to the minimum demands of the rights
of men and women humanity and nature."[37]
This stripping of particularity, however, does not accord with the mission
of the Church. If the Church is only fully the Church by being a distinct
community called into communion by Jesus Christ, and if human rights strip
the Church of this particularity in the name of some other end, then human
rights impede the Church from being the Church. When the Church embeds
human rights into its own discourse like Moltmann, and when human rights
become a primary duty of the Church, the Church loses its distinctiveness.
As this is a primary mission of the Church in witness to the Triune God,
defending human rights cannot be a primary duty of the Church.
While seeming to present an imperative for the Church, Moltmann’s
defense of human rights neither accurately reflects God’s liberative
activity nor adequately accounts for human sin. It subtly changes the
grammar of Christian faith and denies the mission of the Church. Should
the Church defend human rights qua human rights? If it wants to be the
Church, it should not.
IV. The Proper Use of Rights Language
Though rights cannot be central to Christian discourse, can the Church
ever appeal to them? That is, are rights an absolute wrong for the Church?
Following Yoder, I contend the Church can appeal to rights in holding
political authorities accountable to their own pronouncements. In doing
so, the Church must clearly distinguish that the rights discourse is not
its own. Nevertheless, the Church can use this language in defending all
persons.
In “The Christian Case for Democracy,” Yoder investigates
the question as to how the Church should relate to political authorities.
To answer this question, Yoder turns to Jesus’ political discourse
in Luke 22:25-26. In response to the debate over who is the greatest in
the coming Kingdom, Christ distinguishes earthly rulers from the leaders
in his Kingdom. Whereas earthly rulers lord their power over their subjects
and allow “themselves to be called benefactors,”[38] Christ’s
followers are to serve as Christ serves. Whereas earthly rulers govern
by power, kingdom leaders serve and take up their own crosses. The politics
of the rulers are thus fundamentally different than the politics of the
kingdom.
For Yoder, this distinction between earthly powers and Christ’s
kingdom results in contrasting semantics. As earthly powers allow themselves
to be called benefactors, their discourse depicts their actions as being
performed for the benefit of humanity. According to the rulers’
own semantics, every action they execute serves the common good. Contrastingly,
the faith community in its own internal discourse exhorts persons to service.
According to the faith community’s semantics, every action it takes
it takes for the sake of the Cross.
Though the Church’s servant discourse is fundamentally different
than the ruler’s self-justifying language, the Church is still able
to morally engage the powers. The Church does this through holding the
powerful accountable to their own claims. Because the rulers depict themselves
as benefactors, the Church can question every action they take on their
own terms. If a ruler claims to be humane, the Church can ask if her policies
are humane; if a ruler claims to be compassionate, the Church can ask
if his policies reflect compassion. Yoder writes, “If the ruler
claims to be my benefactor, and he always does, then the claim provides
me as his subject with the language I can use to call him to be more humane
in his ways of governing me and my neighbors.”[39] The Church can
appeal to the rulers thus by using the rulers own language.
In doing so, however, the faith community must recognize that this discourse
is fundamentally different than its own. In holding the powers accountable,
the Church does not translate or dilute its own language into the ruler’s
language; rather, it speaks to the rulers on their own terms. Yoder argues,
“The language of his moral claims is not the language of my discipleship,
nor are the standards of his decency usually to be identified with those
of my servant hood. Yet I am quite free to use his language to reach him.”[40]
By recognizing that the language belongs to the ruler and not to the church’s
servant discourse, the church preserves its own distinctive language;
yet, in holding rulers accountable to their own beneficent pronouncements,
the Church works for social betterment.
This model for holding rulers accountable provides a way for the Church
to employ human rights language. As many of the world’s nations
adhere to the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
Church can appeal to these rights when a member nation violates the oppressed.
When rulers declare that their actions are furthering human rights, but
in actual fact are perpetuating abuse, the Church can decry the rulers’
inconsistencies based on the rulers’ language. To defend the poor
and the oppressed, the Church can hold up the rights as a means of protection.
In so doing, the Church does not confuse the rights language with its
own language, for, as we have seen, rights language distorts Christian
discourse; neither does the Church translate its own particular discourse
into alien categories of ‘rights;’ rather, it merely holds
the world accountable on the world’s own terms.
Why should the Church hold the world accountable to itself? In appealing
to rights, the Church fulfills its mission to witness to the Triune God:
in defending the poor and outcast through invoking human rights language,
the Church witnesses to the One God who gives life as a gift to all entities
and calls all humans into fellowship through Christ. By holding nations
accountable to their own beneficent claims, the Church helps protect others
and ensure their safety. In separating its own discourse from the discourse
of the world, however, the Church recognizes that its duty to these persons
is not exhausted by human rights. Rather, in witnessing to the God who
creates and calls all humans back into communion through Christ, the Church
works to bring all persons into loving relationship through Christ. It
defends rights as a way to protect; it loves in service to Christ.
Should the Church support human rights? By adopting human rights language
as its own discourse, the Church perverts its distinctive language and
loses its dialectical mission to the world. Human rights, therefore, should
never be viewed as central to the Christian witness. On the other hand,
in keeping nations accountable to their own declarations, the Church can
employ rights language to hold the nation’s powers accountable to
their pronouncements. Thus, the Church can defend human rights, just never
on rights own terms.
Endnotes
[1] Based on many of my readings, it seems most Christian discussions
concerning human rights have overlooked and implicitly assumed an understanding
of the Church. By ignoring the church, the discussions slip into liberal
democratic rhetoric and strip Christian ethics of an authentic Christian
witness.
[2] While the full orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not fully developed
in the New Testament, Attridge correctly points out that the Trinity is
implicit throughout it and is not merely a fourth century development.
[3] Paul here refers to the attributed author of the text and perhaps
not the apostle.
[4] I used Joe R. Jones, A Grammar of Christian Faith: Systematic
Explorations in Christian Life and Doctrine (Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield,
2002), 601 to look up Scripture references.
[5] I depend heavily on L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A
Theological Analysis, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) in this brief
Christian narrative. I developed a similar account, though for a different
use, in a paper on forgiveness for Miroslav Volf.
[6] Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium quoted in Daniel F. Stramara
Jr. “Gregory of Nyssa’s Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis”
Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 52, No.3 (Aug., 1998), 260.
[7] L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 114.
[8] Joe R. Jones, A Grammar of Christian Faith: Systematic Explorations
in Christian Life and Doctrine, (Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield, 2002),
255.
[9] L. Gregory Jones “Crafting Communities of Forgiveness”
Interpretation. 54.02, 123.
[10] L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness, 115.
[11] ibid, 115-117.
[12] Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture
Stripped of Grace, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 141.
[13] Joe Jones, 182.
[14] L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness, 120
[15] ibid, 123.
[16] ibid, 145.
[17] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration
of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1996), 129.
[18] Jones, Embodying Forgiveness, 124.
[19] Volf, Free of Charge, 149.
[20] Stanley Hauerwas, After Christendom? How the Church is to Behave
If Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation Are Bad Ideas (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1999), 101-111.
[21] Wolfhart Pannenberg, “When Everything is Permitted,”
First Things 80.01, February 1998, 29.
[22] Jürgen Moltmann, “A Christian Declaration on Human Rights,”
in Semper Reformanda: World Alliance of Reformed Churches, accessed
online, http://www.warc.ch/dt/erl2/01a.html, April 22, 2006, 3. (The article,
unfortunately, does not have page numbers. My page numbers are based on
a printed transcript).
[23] Ibid, 3.
[24] Ibid, 3.
[25] Ibid, 4.
[26] Ibid, 5.
[27] Ibid, 5.
[28] Ibid, 5-6.
[29] Ibid, 7.
[30] Ibid, 10.
[31] Ibid, 12.
[32] Ibid, 12-13.
[33] Ibid, 13-14.
[34] This point was aided by Hauerwas’ argument that Gutiérrez’s
defense of liberation resembles Kantian freedom more than Christian freedom.
See Hauerwas, 50-56.
[35] Daniel M. Bell, Jr., Liberation Theology After the End of History:
The Refusal to Cease Suffering (New York: Routledge, 2001), 124-125.
Bell applies these critiques to liberation theology.
[36] Ibid, 125-126. Bell’s sinful system is capitalism.
[37] Jürgen Moltmann, “Human Rights, the Rights of Humanity
and the Rights of Nature” in The Ethics of World Religions and
Human Rights, Ed. by Hans Küng and Jürgen Moltmann, (Philadelphia:
Concilium/Trinity Press International, 1990), 133-134. This notion that
rights outstrip distinctive practices is shared by many defenders of human
rights. I also find it a bit odd to claim: (1) human rights are found
in the Christian narrative and ethical codes and (2) Christian codes must
subordinate to human rights.
[38] John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel,
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 156.
[39] Yoder, 158.
[40] Ibid, 158.
|