I suppose that how we answer the question, "Are human rights Christian?" would depend on the context in which it was asked. Most of us celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, that symbol of totalitarian communism. We hoped that this would lead to a human-rights respecting, democratic govern­ment for former communist countries. Do we not enjoy, and celebrate, the freedom to worship according to our conscience, to freely express our opinions without fear of oppression, and to make individual choices about our occupations and lifestyle? If pressed to explain this freedom, we probably would point to the Judeo-Christian heritage on which our system of government and society is based.

Many of us, however, have also found ourselves in discussions where positions that we could not agree with were being defended on the basis of human rights. Gay and lesbian activists, for example, argue that it is on the basis of human rights that they should receive employment benefits, marriage rights, and adoption rights with their partners. Defenders of pornography also argue that it is an individual right to make their own choices about reading and viewing material, and that it is dangerous to allow governments to legislate on the basis of morality. After all, if Christians in power would censor pornography, would not the same logic justify non-Christians who consider various scriptural passages homophobic and sexist from censoring the Bible or other religious materials?

It can be difficult to counter arguments about human rights, especially as they are being interpreted today. It was recently said that "everyone seems to have rights, except Chris­tians." What does this comment imply? Is it that Christians should line up with every other group and seek to have their rights recognized? Or is it that Christians have a special right to "impose their religion and morality" on the rest of society, as the accusation is so frequently made?

In this and subsequent articles in The Messenger, I would like to deal with the question of human rights. I would argue that it is essential to be both biblically and historically literate on this subject, if we are to speak effectively as Christian citizens to some of the challenges of our day. We recognize that theories of human rights are complex and many volumes have been dedicated to this subject, so several short articles can at best provide a simplistic overview of some of the issues.

As a preliminary comment, it is important to distinguish between human rights as they regard our relations within society (civil rights) and human rights as they affect our relationship to God. In the latter case, we have no rights to assert. We are created by God and "shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:20) It is true that mankind has been created to be image bearers of God, and as such, has dignity and is the crown jewel of God's creation. It is also true, however, that fallen man has alienated himself from his Creator and has only the right to eternal perdition as the just reward for his sin. When we speak of human rights, we are not speaking of any rights that man has towards God, but rather of civil rights as they affect human relationships.

Biblical Context⤒🔗

Our modern notion of rights finds some of its historical roots in the Protestant Reforma­tion. Luther's emphasis on Christian freedom and Calvin's focus on the immediacy of God's rule over human beings, were significant concepts which contributed to the development of democracy. A biblical defense of rights usually turns to the creation account. Humans are created in the image of God, thereby possessing a dignity unlike any other creature. We were created male and female, as help­meets for each other, indicating that we are social beings for whom "it is not good to be alone." We were also given dominion over the earth, and called to be faithful stewards of the creation, indicating that the extreme notion of environmental rights ("a tree is a dog is a boy") advocated by some today is totally contrary to scriptural teaching.

The important conclusion which must be drawn from the biblical account of creation is that man is created with a purpose — to glorify God. Subsequent discussions about rights in Scripture must be understood against that backdrop. For example, there are many pas­sages throughout Scripture that speak of our responsibility to defend the rights of others. There are also passages that speak of our equality before the law and in the sight of God (cf. 1 Peter 1:17, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:1-9). The biblical notion of rights stems from our origin (we have a dignity as an image-bearer of God), our rationality (we have the ability to make decisions and choices), and our responsi­bility before God (our rights are not entitlements owing to us, but duties for which we are accountable to God).

Reformational Origins←⤒🔗

The modern notion of human rights, however, is more a response to historical developments than the application of biblical thinking. The Middle Ages were a time when absolute authority was vested in the king or in the church, with the papacy and monarchy fighting for supremacy. Feudal lords had absolute control over their subjects and at the whim of his master, a slave's life could be taken.

There were no "human" rights, but only the exercise of power, privilege, and position. This was not only true in the economic realm, but also in the religious realm. Citizens were deemed to belong to the church chosen by the political authority, and failure to agree could result in death. Bloody massacres and wars were fought in the name of religion.

It is against this backdrop that the consequences of the Protestant Reformation need to be understood as they affected sixteenth-century Europe. For Luther and Calvin to articulate the biblical principles of sola fide, sola gratia, and sola scriptura was not only a profession of biblical religion; it was a revolution against the authorities of the day. The impact of these biblical truths were not only felt in spiritual life; they overturned the entire status quo of medieval affairs. It was a civil court at the Diet of Worms, under the leadership of Emperor Charles V, that called Luther to account and asked him to recant his views. It is no surprise that the spiritual descendants of the Reformers, including the Puritans, were at the forefront of constitutional developments that incorporated the notion of human rights in the centuries that followed.

The Influence of Liberalism←⤒🔗

This history is, however, incomplete and ignores another significant and influential source that has shaped the modern notion of human rights. It is the classical liberal philosophy which was developed through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and was a very immediate influence on the development of democracy. The most prominent names associated with the development of liberalism are those of Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, and Paine. There are significant differences between them but there was a commonality to their thinking which is among the distinguishing features of "the enlightenment" or "classical liberalism."

The Enlightenment was a movement motivated by a rejection of Christianity and an elevation of human reason as the ultimate authority. In practical terms, this meant that stealing was wrong, not because of God's law revealed in Scripture, but because logic (and experience) told us that a society could not function smoothly without laws against theft. Reason was the ultimate authority and basis for action. Individuals have the right to make their choices and follow their own reason.

This, of course, poses difficulty in establishing "rules" to govern our lives together. The answer, according to the liberal theorists, was that the authority of government is obtained from individuals, who consent to give up certain of their rights for their own benefit and protection. The crucial aspect of this "social contract" was that government could not exert more power or authority than had been given to it by individuals. Rights, in the context of civil society, meant protecting individuals against the state and treating men equally. One must understand that these ideas were formed within a culture where both the church and the state claimed absolute authority over all of life.

Clash of ideas←⤒🔗

While the development of liberalism has been termed "the enlightenment," it was vigorously opposed by Christians of the day. They rightly recognized this movement as a rebellion, not only against the absolutism and tyranny out of which it was born, but also against Scriptural teachings of man, his nature, and his purpose in life. At its core, the Enlightenment was a declaration of war against the authority of God and a proclamation that man was the ultimate authority and measure of all things.

We recognize that it is fundamentally a spiritual divide, but the social consequences are also immense. The liberal acknowledges only two authorities: the authority of the individual and the authority of the state. The authority of the state is a derived authority from individuals through a social contract. The individual is the ultimate authority and accountable to no one higher.

This clearly contradicts Scriptural teaching. Man was created not to serve himself, but to worship God. Man was also created as a social being, with responsibilities for his fellow man. We were created as help-meets and commanded to "love God above all and our neighbour as ourself." Liberalism knows no such generosity of spirit.

That is why liberalism, with its social contract and majoritarian principles, so easily runs roughshod over minority rights. Whereas the Scriptures assigned different responsibilities to nonstate structures such as the family and the church, liberalism knows of only one authority outside of the individual —the state. The state derives its authority from the self-interest of the people it governs, since no authority exists outside of the individual. So therefore, anything can be justified in the name of the majority.

A Mixed Marriage←⤒🔗

The organization of the modern state is in many ways a marriage of both biblical and liberal ideas about human rights. While that appears unlikely given the obvious philosophic divide between them, it is understandable given the historical context in which our constitutions were originally formed.

The reason for this marriage is that on many of the practical issues of the day, Christians and liberal theorists found themselves advocating similar solutions. They may have arrived at these solutions through very different (and antithetical) lines of reasoning, but we need to understand the formation of our countries and the context of the common enemy which both Christian defenders of human rights and liberals faced. Their minds were still fresh with the abuses and tyranny of absolutism and, conse­quently, they formed a constitution designed to resist that evil.

The liberal was concerned with the protection of individual rights, and sought the freedom from oppressive structures. The Christian was concerned with individual freedom to worship God without oppression. The common enemy was absolutism and hence, the modern tradition of human rights and individual freedom was developed in a cooperative way by liberals and Christians. It found expression in constitutions of countries like Canada and the United States.

In many ways, the democratic experiment proved relatively functional as long as there was a common moral consensus which served as a limit to behaviour. It is worthwhile to note in this regard that the need for this consensus was even recognized by liberal theorists. John Locke argued that an atheist could not be a good citizen as there would be no force to ensure "that his promises, contracts, and oaths could be kept." The presumption of the modern state is a moral consensus which acts as a restraint to man's sinful nature and enforces a substantive interpre­tation of human rights.

Perhaps the best example of this "mixed marriage" can be found in the opening lines of the American Declaration of Independence (1776). It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The liberal saw in this statement the elevation of the individual's "inalienable rights." The Christian saw a recognition of what God had given to man as His image-bearer, and the freedom to worship God without the interference of a tyrannical government, or church structures.

But what happens when a society no longer holds it is "self-evident" that there is a Creator? What happens when men no longer seek the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but instead the right to choose death, the license to do whatever one wants without any regard for moral standards, and to abandon any purpose or meaning in life? Were the constitutional guarantees of human rights, and the processes established to protect them, designed to deal with the issues that we are confronted with today?

It is obvious that the notion of human rights as a protection against absolutism and the freedom to worship God is a very different notion of human rights than presented in our newspapers today. This brief overview of the historical circumstances contributing to the development of a theory of human rights provides a backdrop for us to look at human rights as they are understood and being interpreted today.

Biblical teaching about man's origin, rationality, and responsibility before God provide a basis for advocating human rights within a society. Applying these arguments to the political questions they faced, Christian leaders of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found themselves resisting the absolutism and tyranny which had characterized public life in their societies. In this, they found common ground with liberal theorists, although the motivations were very different. As such, the theories of human rights which were incorporated into the constitutions developed during this period, were the result of a "mixed marriage" of Christian and classical thinking.

History is not stagnant, and there has obviously been considerable development and evolution in the understanding and application of human rights within western society since the drafting of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 or Canadian Confederation in 1867. It would be a mistake to idealize the past and suggest that it was some sort of "Christian golden age." There are many dark pages of injustice, as the rights of various groups and individuals were often ignored during this period. Yet, there is a sense in which citizens enjoyed an unparalleled measure of freedom. Most citizens could, without fear of retribution or reprisal, exercise freedom of religion, speech, conscience, and association. While the pace was slow, steady progress was made in overcoming the prejudice and discrimination faced by visible minorities within society. When compared with absolute standards of God's Word, it was as any other age — an evil, sinful age filled with injustice. But when compared relatively to the other era's in human history, it was one of the brighter chapters.

Many refer to this "golden age" with a sense of nostalgia. This contrasts with a hesitancy and defensive attitude many Christians feel about our present age. While we believe that human rights are a good thing (particularly when we contrast our society with regimes around the world who ignore human rights), many of the causes defended on the basis of human rights are clearly in defiance of God and His revealed Word. Hence, some are inclined to conclude that perhaps the theory of human rights, which was championed and promoted in the past several centuries by like-minded Christians, is misguided and mistaken. How else does one explain what is happening in the name of rights in our society?

There are at least three developments that we must consider in understanding the prevalent concept of human rights in our society.

1. Changed Concept of Truth←↰⤒🔗

In describing the development of the theory of human rights, we observed that the discussions about human rights and the separation of church and state took place in the context of a moral consensus. While the Enlightenment has rightly been characterized as a rebellion against Christianity and its emphasis on revealed truth, enlightenment leaders did not argue that there was such a thing as truth. From the birth of the modern state until the recent past, virtually all citizens in society agreed that there was such a thing as truth; they just differed on what that truth was.

The past few decades have seen a social and cultural change in western society where the very concept of truth has been turned on its head. The notion that there is an absolute truth is a notion that many reject. Instead, we hear statements like, "That may be true for you, but it is not for me." From a Christian perspective, that statement is nonsensical. Either something is true or it is not. The impact of this has been devastating in the public arena because the only measure of public policy is functional — whether something works or brings the desired results.

Applied to rights, this has meant that protecting fundamental rights/freedoms (for example, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) were no longer adequate. Historically, these rights were protected because there was a consensus on the truth of these rights. While citizens were free to exercise these rights in a manner that reflected different religions (or to be irreligious) or morality (also immorality), there was a common understanding within society on what these freedoms meant and on their fundamental importance.

Today that consensus has been lost. Society no longer agrees on what these freedoms mean. Hence, we can no longer evaluate public policy by what is right or wrong. (Right and wrong depend on a concept of truth which we no longer agree exists.) Yet, we recognize that a civil society requires some order (we are not anarchists). Therefore, there is an assent to the language of rights, although the terms have come to mean something totally different.

An example of this is the various pieces of employment equity legislation being passed by governments. Individuals belonging to visible minority groups are being judged, not on the basis of the inherent equality and dignity that is the right of every individual, but on the basis of outcome. Only if a certain percentage (quota, target) are hired, do we consider the rights of minorities to be respected. The measure of rights is a particular outcome.

2. When Everything is a Right←↰⤒🔗

It is not surprising that if rights are measured by outcomes, then any desired outcome can be argued to be right. While the concepts may appear somewhat abstract, the consequences are all too familiar and, at times, absurd. It seems that anytime anyone disagrees with anything, a claim is made that a right has been violated. One example is the lady in Los Angeles who recently won a significant damage award because a hot cup of McDonald's coffee spilled in her lap. She claimed a legal right to be informed of the dangers of hot coffee, and since McDonald's was negligent in informing her, a damage award was granted by the courts.

Some point to the 1948 United Nations sponsored World Conference of Human Rights as a significant event in changing the concept of human rights. The declaration issued by that conference was silent on the traditional basic rights (freedom of religion, association, press, etc.) but affirmed a "right to development" and the "right to periodic holidays with pay." This trend introduced the notion of "reproductive rights." In reality, these newly-defined rights are not so much rights as positions on the political issues of the day.

Canadian Supreme Court Justice, Beverly McLachlin, expressed the consequence of these trends when she observed, "Today, it is not to religion or the community that society looks to regulate and remedy its evils — it is to the law, primarily the criminal law." Everything is legalized and political.

This trend has resulted in all rights being trivialized, because the notion of rights has lost its cutting moral edge. There is a powerful appeal in an argument that any person, regard­less of their religion, has the right to believe and express that religion without state persecution. Whether or not one accepts the validity of the right to development, periodical holidays, or reproductive rights, it is difficult to make the argument that these belong on the same plane as freedom of conscience, speech, or association. There is an evident difference between the quality and character of the notions being discussed.

3. Rights or Entitlements←↰⤒🔗

In addition to demeaning the value and significance of all rights, the addition of categories of economic, social, and cultural items as matters of rights has changed the very notion of rights. As we observed in the previous instalments, the development of the modern notion of rights came as a response to tyranny and absolutism in which the state (often in the name of Christianity) attempted to force religious beliefs and conduct upon its citizens. Both Reformed and liberal thinkers, albeit for different reasons, agreed that such coercion was an inappropriate use of state power and, therefore, drafted constitutions that ensured human rights over against the state.

These new categories of rights, however, are not matters from which individuals need protection over against the state; they are benefits that are expected from the state. For example, the recent Cairo declaration on "reproductive rights" is understood by its advocates to mean that the state must not only legalize, but also provide abortion services within their medical system (which is also considered to be a basic right). Canadian readers will be familiar with the present ongoing debate about Canadian social programs, and will recognize that some are advocating that Canadian social programs (including unemployment insurance, state-subsidized tuition rates at universities, and universal health care without user fees) cannot be changed because that would violate basic Canadian rights. The idea of rights has changed from something that an individual has to protect him/herself from the coercive powers of the state to something that an individual is entitled to.

Conclusion←⤒🔗

This overview of both the historical notion of rights and the contemporary understanding of rights, does not by itself provide easy answers that "solve" the policy questions we face in our day. Many will still accuse Christians who speak out against "gay rights" or "abortion rights" as "wanting to impose their morality on the rest of society."

As we enter these debates, we must be conscious of the presupposi­tions on which our discussions are based. Based solely in the context of the modern notion of human rights, Christians have an impossible argument. Arguing that rights are to be understood within a moral consensus and value system makes no sense to those who believe that all values are relative and there is no absolute morality. Arguing that rights should be seen as a protection from state coercion will have little validity in the eyes of those who see the state as a dispenser of entitlements. And arguing that gay persons should not be singled out for special rights rings hollow when almost everything has been elevated to the status of a right.

It is important to place our discussions on human rights in the context of biblical teaching. The biblical notion of rights stems from our origin, our rationality, and our responsibility before God. While communicating this in the language of the public square can prove a challenge, it is possible to make a convincing case that many who do not share the Christian faith will agree with. History makes a compelling case that a society ordered under these principles can be among the most prosperous and free.

In the entire discussion of rights, however, it is important to maintain perspective. We recognize elements in the historic notion of rights that correspond with Christian principles and, with God's blessing, has resulted in prosperous and free societies. We ought to promote the awareness and basis of the Christian heritage which both Canada and the United States enjoy. In a time when that heritage is being eroded, we can point to the troubling and worrisome effects of the new ethic that is being put in place. The philosophic basis for this is anti-Christian and the prospects of a society based on this are bleak. We must be diligent in exercising our responsibilities as Chris­tian citizens, especially in this time, or the Lord may ask of us as he did with the unfaithful servant, what we have done with the "talent" of freedom which we have been given.

We must resist the temptation to identify any human system of government as the ultimate manifestation of biblical principles. God's kingdom is not built on systems of government or concepts of human rights. Even if western government and civilization fades, as so many previous great civilizations have done, Christians ought not to be despondent. While we do not know what the pages of providence have in store, we trust in an eternal, omnipotent God who does.

We understand that ultimately these matters are not mere differences of philosophy and approach to govern­ment but fundamental differences in our understanding of man and his purpose and place in creation. Thomas Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God?" We ought not to be surprised that in a society where many have rejected the very notion of truth and God, our liberties are also being eroded.

In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to "pray and work" and to understand our times. This work begins with the confession and proclamation of Him who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." That proclamation must not only take place through the preaching of the Gospel, but also in the witness of our lives. Every aspect of our being must be infected with the claims of God's truth, also our citizenship.