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.
Labels: Essays
posted by Joel @ 8:27 PM
4 Comments:
God has definately created you with a beautiful mind my brother.
An intersting blog for sure. Perhaps you can help me set up something similar for my students. This being my first attempt to respond to a "blog" I'll do my best not to be inflamitory.
First, I must object entirely to the thought that the "industrial revolution" has widened the gap between rich and poor. The simple facts are that it has done just the opposite. But, I don't want to get side tracked with a different issue. Maybe we can come back to that one.
To the point at hand, I follow your thinking and appreciate your thoughts on this reflecting. You've worded your point very well.
Given the occation of our celebrations tomorrow, I thought it fitting to include the first couple of paragraphs of our Declaration of Independence and view what it had to say about "rights."
"IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
I think what you'll notice is that the "rights" Jefferson spoke of are devine in their nature. This is very different from the "human rights" so many speak of these days. The term "human rights" is (I believe) a very humanist term.
I'm curious as to where you are taking this arguement. One concern I have is that it might lead down a path I cannot follow. While I agree with the very Christian philosophy that we as believers are not our own and have to rights to anything, including possessions, it is entirely a different matter if you were to use that arguement as a tool of the government against Christians.
American Liberty is about freedom. I very much see this echoed in Christian Liberty, in that, the more we submit ourselves to him, the more freedom we have. However, we all surely recognize the oppression it would be for one intitiy to "force" this submission onto others. That is an issue between them and their God. God will direct them in their path and move them along as His timing would have.
Josh: Thanks for your encouragement, bro. I really appreciate it!
Robert: I will try to respond to each of your paragraphs in sequence. I found your thoughts stimulating, as always!
1) I would be glad to help you set up something for your students if you wish to do so. Just let me know. Please don't ever worry about being inflammatory. I don't think you've ever inflamed me yet. This is a safe place to be yourself; I might disagree with you, but you have my respect.
2) I do not have sufficient data to conclude whether the industrial revolution has in fact widened the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" people of the world. Please note that I did not state this; I said that the industrial revolution has "high-lighted" the gap between the rich and the poor; that is, brought the gap to the foreground of popular perception. You are certainly free to disagree with my statement, but I do think that what I'm saying is a bit easier to demonstrate. In modern Western society, industrialization and urbanization have been brothers, "growing up" together. I think anyone who has had experience in both industrial urban areas and rural agrarian areas would conclude that the differences between rich and poor appear much more stark in large industrial municipalities. The actual numbers may not be any different in the two places; however, there are more factors to level the playing field in an agrarian context. If you wish me to elaborate on this point to illustrate what I'm talking about, I will be glad to do so.
3) Thank you for your positive words!
4) Before I continue, let me offer this caveat; as an American citizen, I respect the Declaration of Independence. I wouldn't hold it on the same level of the Bible, but I recognize that it is a landmark document in the development of governmental systems in the world. Both the document and the men who wrote it are worthy of our attention and study when contemplating how men ought to be governed on this earth.
However, I contend that the document is not "Christian," in that it is not reflective of a belief system that includes a Triune God nor asserts that Jesus of Nazareth is that God. It is important to recognize, too, that to my knowledge neither the documents itself nor its writers ever claim it to be such. While I respect the document, I do not hold it to be absolute truth. As a Christian who is bound to the Bible, I do not agree with every statement that the Declaration propounds to be true.
I will refrain here from launching too deep into the epistemological assumptions that lie behind the writing of the text, although I am more than happy to have that discussion if you wish. Instead, I will sum up by saying that it seems to me that while the Declaration of Independence recognizes a personal divine Creator, there is nothing in the document that reflects a view of God who is involved in society and seeks relationship with humanity. It seems to me that this view of God aligns more with the traditional "deist" perspective than with a Christian point of view. To reiterate, The Declaration of Independence is a fine document, but I would not call it a Christian document (as opposed to the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds, for example, which are fundamentally Christian).
The Declaration holds that the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and a few others) are all rights that have been bestowed on humanity by the Creator. I would disagree with all three on the basis of the arguments I developed earlier. Again, if you wish to delve deeper here, I would be glad to do so. Note that the argument I put forth below comes to bear here as well.
It seems that you and I fundamentally disagree about the concept of "freedom" or "liberty." I suggest that this disagreement might be driving our somewhat disparate conclusions. In your final paragraph you bring the discussion back to this concept. Allow me to offer a different perspective as a counterpoint to yours.
I agree with you that Christianity is about freedom, but not freedom in the same sense as the term is used in regard to civil government and society. I believe that the biblical view of freedom as described in Scripture refers to freedom from sin. Paul says that we were once slaves to sin but have now been set free by Christ. But this is not all that Paul says. He goes on to say that Christ has now made us slaves to Himself. In this sense we are NOT free at all!!! Rather, we are slaves to righteousness, to God through Christ. This is the entire argument of Romans 6 (see vv. 15-23). Christ is our King, our rightful Master because He has bought us with His blood.
So I disagree with you that "American liberty" is echoed in (or is an echo of) "Christian liberty." It seems to me that the two concepts are fundamentally different. For example, when I place saving faith in Christ I am completely free from sin, regardless of whether or not I live under a government that allows me freedom to disagree with it. Conversely, no matter what a government does, it cannot free anybody from sin. Therefore, I see the political freedoms and Christian freedom as being separate things. What do you think, Robert?
Thanks again for your comments! I find your arguments refreshing...
Post a Comment
<< Home