Dynamic Yet Consistent

In the past few months I have had several excellent conversations about the origin and inventory of human rights.  It seems most people agree with the idea that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” yet when it comes to specifics there is much disagreement.  For instance… does “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” refer to freedom or opportunity (put another way, are these things something all people should have, or have the option of having — the difference is substantial).

This discussion began when I compared universal education with universal health care and asked if both should be considered human rights.  My friend Aaron pushed back saying that rights exist individually apart from anyone granting them to you.  (Therefore if the government is the purveyor of universal health care, it cannot exist beyond them and thus cannot be a right). Desmond Tutu takes a different approach by saying human rights exist because we are created in the image of God.  Without too many specifics, he argues this means we should extend respect and care to all people.

As nice as it is to say that rights are inherent and/or God-given, it seems the facts of history do not support this.  Most would agree the freedom (from slavery) is a God-given right.  However, in the hundreds of years across which the Bible was written, this “right” was never extended or even articulated.  Heck, even our constitution, which is still a relatively recent document, did not consider this to be a right.

At the end of the day, societies are the ones who give rights, and this usually comes in the form of the government.  Put another way, rights can not be rights until they are extended by the authority of a group of people (government).  Freedom of speech, which is actually a relatively old idea, was first extended under Greek empire.  Before the powers that be articulated and defended that right, it did not exist.  Likewise, freedom from ownership was not a right to be extended until governments listened to the Abolitionists and began protecting people from slavery.

Rights may in fact come from God, but at the end of the day, it is up to governments (or other authoritative communities) to identify and codify these rights.  One thing is clear… Rights are not static, but are evolving.  In the last 250 years, Americans have come to generally agree on a slew of individual rights: right to bear arms, right to vote, right to practice religion, right to private property, right to a fair trial, etc.  While people may consider these to be God-given, they are all actually given by our constitution.

It is my belief that we as a society are moving towards a more civilized existence.  I am glad our constitution protects so many rights and I am also glad our nation has risen up to extend more rights (like voting and abolishing slavery).  I believe we have reached the point where we understand what things should not be done to people and are starting to understand what things should.  It is my guess that in 100 years, everyone will consider education, healthcare, clean drinking water, adequate food and shelter to be basic human rights that should be extended to all.  We should not fear the government extending these rights anymore than we should have feared the government banning slavery.  Change happens, and when it comes to governments extending rights, history has consistently shown this to be a good thing.

I few weeks ago I wrote a post discussing health care as a right.  Since then I have had several good conversations with people from across the political spectrum on what constitutes a “human right” and what the implications are of such a delineation.  Last night I came across a 1996 article by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a hero of mine) entitled Religious Human Rights and the Bible.  In just a few short pages he frames the question brilliantly by exploring how the Christian worldview calls us to understand the importance and dignity of each human being.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Tutu begins by acknowledging that religion (especially Christianity) has led to oppression and injustice.  Yet, he is quick to counter by pointing out the narrative of Scripture calls for a different view of things.  He bases his argument on the implications of the creation story where all humanity is uniquely created in the image of God.  He says:

The Bible claims for all human beings this exalted status that we are all, each one of us, created in the divine image, that it has nothing to do with this or that extraneous attribute which by the nature of the case, can be possessed by only some people… We must therefore have a deep reverence for the sanctity of human life… The life of every human person is inviolable a gift from God.

Being created in the image of God is not just about identity Tutu contends, it is also about calling and purpose.

The [Biblical Narrative] declares that the human being created in the image of God is meant to be God’s viceroy, God’s representative in having rule over the rest of creation on behalf of God.  To have dominion, not in an authoritarian and destructive manner, but to hold sway as God would hold sway–compassionately, gently, caringly, enabling each part of creation to come fully into its own and to realize its potential for the good of the whole, contributing to the harmony and unity which was God’s intention for the whole of creation.

When we understand ourselves and others in light of our connection with God, it requires a different response to questions about humanity and the rights of all persons.

[This understanding] imbues each one of us with profound dignity and worth… In the face of injustice and oppression it is to disobey God not to stand up in opposition to that injustice and that oppression  Any violation of the rights of God’s stand-in cries out to be condemned and to be redressed, and all people of good will must be engaged in upholding and persevering those rights as a religious duty.  Such a discussion as this one should therefore not be merely an academic exercise in the most pejorative sense.  It must be able to galvanize participants with a zeal to be active protectors of the rights of persons.

Even if we capture the depth and breadth of the implications of this understanding of God and his people, we are still faced with the fact that humanity was given the freedom to choose right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or rebellion.  We must not only understand who we are in light of our creator, we must also walk the delicate line of what it means to embody this reality.  Tutu explains:

We are created to exist in a delicate network of interdependence with fellow human beings and the rest of God’s creation.  All sorts of things go horribly wrong when we break this fundamental of our being.  Then we are no longer appalled as we should be that vast sums are spent on budgets of death and destruction, when a tiny fraction of those sums would ensure that God’s children everywhere would have a clean supply of water, adequate health care, proper housing and education, enough to eat and to war.

Tutu contends that it is only when we are willing to first understand ourselves and others in light of our relationship with God and our role as bearers-of-the-image-of-God, that we are truly able to to grasp the dignity, worth and inherent rights of all persons.  He concludes:

The biblical understanding of being human includes freedom from fear and insecurity, freedom from penury and want, freedom of association and movement, because we would live ideally in the kind of society that is characterized by these attributes.  It would be a caring and compassionate, a sharing and gentle society in which, like God, the strongest would be concerned about the welfare of the weakest, represented in ancient society by the widow, the alien, and the orphan.  It would be a society in which you reflected the holiness of God not by ritual purity and cultic correctness, but by the fact that when you gleaned your harvest, you left something behind for the poor, the unemployed, the marginalized ones–all a declaration of the unique worth of persons that does not hinge on their economic, social, or political status but simply on the fact that they are persons created in God’s image. That is what invests them with their preciousness and from this stems all kinds of rights.

Tutu’s analysis is poignant and thought provoking — especially for Christians.  It is not adequate to define human rights in terms of the constitution or any body of law.  Likewise, we cannot base our decisions on what is right on economic models or political ideologies.  Instead, we must ask a different sort of question. We must inquire as to how we can love and care for all people — all of whom are created in the image of God.

All marks of emphasis in quotations are mine. Religious Human Rights and the Bible was originally published in Volume 10 of the Emory International Law Review.  You can download the complete file here from The Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

We continue with day 2 of our 10 lists on 10 days.  Today, Beth and I have listed the 10 people we would most like to sit and have coffee with.  Of course the consumption of coffee is optional — surely it would make more sense to share a beer with a few of these folks, and others, I would rather talk with as we hiked through nature.  As always, these are in no particular order.

1. Martin Luther King Jr. — Surely no surprise here.  After all, my daughter Mikayla Lillian is named after this civil rights leader.  King is best known for his role in fighting for equal rights for minorities.  However, he was also a passionate pacifist.  He was as opposed to the Vietnam War as he was Jim Crow laws.  I would want to share a drink with him to ask him what issues he saw as most pressing?  Would he concentration on gay rights?  Would he address war and torture?  Would he shift his attention to international issues?For me, MLK embodies the concept of the prophetic imagination (a concept we will explore in a later list).  I still cannot hear his I Have a Dream speech without tearing up.
2. Desmond Tutu – Since we are talking about baby names, I must mention Desmond Tutu.  If our firstborn had been a male, I was advocating for the name Desmond.  Originally we were going to go with Douglas (my middle name), but I realized I would prefer my child to emulate him than me.  Tutu was instrumental in ending apartheid and symbolizes for me how a pastor can lead social change in the name of Christ.  His work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is awe-inspiring.  I want to know from him, how we can apply these concepts to our daily societal fissures.
3. Bono – I wouldn’t have a string of questions for the lead singer of U2 like I would with many of the others, but in terms of having a good time, hanging out, discussing the ebbs and flows of life, I would think Bono would be the man.  Plus, his lyrics are so deep and harmonize the secular and the sacred.
4. Peter Abelard – Perhaps the most obscure on my list.  Abelard was a tormented theologians in the 12th century (read about him here).  Theologically he is best known for going toe to toe with Anselm over atonement theory.  Abelard advocated for a Moral influence understanding over a substitutionary understanding.  He was quite eccentric and misunderstood.  Here is a paper I have written on him.
5. Henry David Thoreau – I love his unfiltered commentary on life and society.  In addition to his emphasis on self reflection and the awe of creation, he is always honest with his understanding of faith.  I also have been influenced by his thoughts on civil disobedience.
6. Stephen Hawkins – I have been fascinated by theoretical physics since I was in Middle School.  It is only a short jump from physics to philosophy and then to theology.  Hawkins not only provides an entryway into this crazy world, but the way he has approached life’s struggles epitomizes focus and direction.  As you will see in susequent posts, I am convinced quantum physics provides insights into truth.  Here is an approachable clip that will force you to reexamine your understanding of the world.  (Not Hawkins, but he works in the same areas.)
7. John Howard Yoder – deep down I am a Mennonite, I just have not admitted it yet (well except to Brett).  I have learned more from other theologians, but I have yet to find a person who such consistency in their life, faith, theology and philosophy.  Politics of Jesus should be required reading for… well… everyone.
8. N.T. Wright – There is not a simple person who has been more influencial in shaping my theology and understanding of the world and scripture than Bishop N.T. Wright.  I have listened to so many of his lectures I can hear him speak when I read his books.  I find so many of the concepts I regularly explain and rely on come from Wright.  I doubt I could keep up with him, but I would love to drink from the fire hydrant of his knowledge.  Plus, he has a that super cool British accent.  Here is a great resource for other lovers of his work.
9. The Tank Man – Bravery is not something that is planned.  It is not something that is sought out.  It is something that occurs when we stand up for what is just.  I am fascinated by the story of the Tank Man – the young man who stopped a whole line of Chinese tanks through a simply act of resistence.  There are a couple reason he makes my list.  First… I want to know who this person is (to this day, it unknown).  But more importantly, I am drawn to this person because they were able to change the world with simple acts without demanding fame or recognition.
   
10. Jesus – rounding out my list is the God-Man Jesus Christ himself.  I almost didn’t list Jesus.  That is not because I don’t think it would make for excellent conversation, or because I don’t have the ultimate respect, love, and devotion to Jesus.  Rather, it is because I realize I am way too like Peter (see below) and rather than sitting down with a whole list of questions, I would love simply follow Jesus as he navigated the world today.