On Human Rights

So I know this is a radical idea, but please hear me out until I've finished. But pretty much all the concepts that run through my head are unconventional...and they're all still in process.

I don't think there is such a thing as human rights.

OK, let me explain. To be more specific, I think what are commonly called "human rights" are, from a Christian perspective, not human "rights" at all. This is simply a term used to describe some of the practical aspects of the character of God. I'll unpack this a little bit more, then explain why I think this distinction is important.

A simple definition of the English word right is "a just claim or title." To defend my view, I ask the simple question, "As a Christian, to what do I have a 'just claim?'" At the basest level, sociologists would argue that I have a right, a just claim, to my own body and mind. I understand the argument. No other person on earth can occupy the same space that my body occupies. And I certainly have a "claim" to my own thought processes, considering that it is impossible for anyone else to actually think for me. With all of these things I heartily agree when considered in the context of human-human relationships.

However, as a child of God, my primary relationship is with God through Christ, and this relationship necessitates a total change in every aspect of life. In making his theological case for maintaining sexual purity as a Christian, the apostle Paul argues on the basis of the ownership of one's own body. Listen to it, from 1 Corinthians 6:13-20:

"Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'the two shall become one flesh.' But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (NASB)

What a strange twist! Paul couldn't state it any clearer. As a Christian, my body does NOT belong to me; but it belongs to God. I have no ownership of it, God does! And if I am not the owner of it, how can I have any "just claim" to it? Furthermore, this is the foundation of Paul's entire argument in Romans 9 (which is probably the most difficult passage of Scripture for me to accept). God is the potter; we are the clay. Therefore, God chooses what He will do with us, and it is His right to do what He wills with us. Here is the capstone of his argument, found in Rom. 9:19-21...

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

These are difficult truths. So it seems on the basis of these passages that we often call human rights are not really human at all, but rather divine rights. Let us take one example, the "right to life." I think most people are agreed that murdering another person is one of the most, if not the most, heinous crime one cannot commit against another human being. Why? Because of the other person's right to exist, to live, and to do so as long as their body is able to sustain their life. I understand this argument and it is a sound one, except that I still have trouble calling life a "right." It seems that humans do NOT have a just claim to their own life; the life of a person is not really in their own hands, is it? If it were, wouldn't people live forever? I mean, we all finally succumb to death; so how can life be a human "right?" Again, I'm not against the concept in and of itself; it's just that I think we have settled on an improper term for it. Life is not a human right; it's a divine right. God decides when we are born and when we die. Life is His right to give and take away.

So then I'm left with this question: if human rights are somewhat of a misnomer, then what term should we use instead? Again, I'm not arguing against the concept of humans rights, per se; only that the term we use to describe such things is flawed, at best - at worst, downright inaccurate. Human rights issues essentially touch on morality. But, in my opinion, morality is finally based on a view of good and evil that transcends the human condition. Without this metaphysical realm, it seems to me that morality finally devolves into mere self-interest and total relativism (I can still make a case that doing what is "right" is in my best self-interest, but without a compass to anchor it, self-interest is, in itself, left to each individual to decide for oneself -- it's a vicious cycle). But morality still does not fill the void left by the removal of the term, "human rights," since the term is meant (I believe) to describe the motivating factor for the idea represented by the term. So I move to the next step...

What motivation is left? And this is where I turn back to God. Why shouldn't I take the life of another person? Because God doesn't, for starters. God does NOT treat us as our sins deserve, and allows us to continue to live because of His mercy and grace, despite our sinful condition and need for judgment. It's God's GRACE that provides the proper motivations for the issues surrounding "human rights." We ought to provide food for starving people because doing so illustrates the character of Yahweh -- His grace and mercy and love. We ought NOT to indulge in slavery because it fundamentally offends the idea of God's image in us (Gen. 1:26-28); the imago Dei, to use the theological term. The same argument applies to women, too; women are people and not property.

So what difference does it make? Why did I go through all of this? Here's why: it seems to me that human rights has become a hot topic in modern society, and rightly so. People have been treated terribly in recent history (e.g. - the proliferation of slavery of a few centuries ago, the Congo rubber terror, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, etc.), and the industrial revolution has highlighted the differences between the rich and the poor around the globe. If humanity has any compassion at all, I would expect that "human rights" would be a natural result of these events. And I think that this issue offers us as Christians a good opportunity to engage the world in dialogue about it. If human rights are genuinely based on the character of God, then we have a window to point others toward Him. People want, even need, a reason to believe what they believe. We as Christians can ask questions about why people believe what they believe; if we do so enough, it seems that we will eventually reach a point with another person where they will be faced with a choice to either acknowledge God as the source of these "rights" or disavow Him. And that, to me, is a good goal for which to strive in conversing with individuals, especially unbelievers.