contemporary divisions - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/44616/11/7 chapter...

||Concept Of Human Rights In Christianity|| Page 48

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


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.


(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|| 1

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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,


" 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


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 anti-

Semitism 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


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


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


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 inter-

relatedness 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


Moltmann says: "The human rights to life, freedom, community, and self-

determination 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


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


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-


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:


“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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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 Muslim-

Jewish-Christian Search Begins, ed. Joseph Gremillion and William Ryan

Washington, D.C.: Interreligious Peace Colloquium, 1978, p.166.


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.


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.

contemporary divisions - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/44616/11/7 chapter...

Documents