What Does the Ecumenical Movement Say About Human Rights?

Bangor Theological Seminary
January 25, 2010 

There are lots of issues that we might have considered in these lectures.  One that, I suspect, is close to the heart of most people in Maine is ecological justice – environmental stewardship.  I am not going to deal extensively with this issue, but let me briefly suggest how I might if I did!  As far as I am aware, the first speech to focus on ecology (on a theology of creation) at a major ecumenical meeting was an address by the American Lutheran theologian, Joseph Sittler, at the World Council of Churches’ New Delhi Assembly in 1961.  “Is it possible,” asked Sittler, “to fashion a theology catholic enough to affirm redemption’s force enfolding nature, as we have affirmed redemption’s force enfolding history?  That we should make that effort is, in my understanding, the commanding task of this moment.” 

Why didn’t the ecumenical movement – why didn’t our churches – pay attention to environmental concerns prior to the 1960s?  For at least two reasons: 1) The ideology of the Enlightenment emphasized effort to subdue nature, to use it for human advancement.  This was seen not as a problem but as an inevitable, if sometimes regrettable, element of human progress.  2)  The theological tradition in the West focused on God’s redemptive activity in human history.  (This was Sittler’s point.)  Nature has been seen as a stage on which this human drama unfolded, but not as an object of God’s work of salvation.  We have had, said Sittler, a Christian theology of the moral soul and a Christian theology of history, but not “a daring, penetrating, life-affirming Christian theology of nature.”

By the way, while many Protestants in New Delhi were puzzled by Sittler’s address, the Orthodox were uniformly positive!  The Orthodox churches have not, for the most part, been shaped by the western Enlightenment, and their theological tradition is much more insistently trinitarian.  While Protestant confessions have historically begun with the second article of the Creed, God’s redemptive action in Christ, Orthodox theology begins with the first article – God, creator of heaven and earth.  And to this day, the Orthodox remain primary supporters of ecojustice work done through the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches. 

I hope this opening reflection has reminded us a) that theology matters (we are shaped by it, whether we realize it or not), and b) that any talk of human rights or human justice should finally be set in wider context.  But, having said that, it is human rights and what the ecumenical movement has said about them, that will be our focus in this second presentation. 

I must acknowledge at the outset that I have had something of a blind spot when it comes to this topic.  My anthology of the ecumenical movement, for example, published first in 1997, includes Sittler’s address and several essays on particular themes like racial justice, but nothing on human rights per se. So this invitation has given me a chance to think about new things. 

● ● ● 

First, a brief general introduction.  The idea of human rights starts with the conviction that the human person has inherent worth and dignity, from which stem rights that are inalienable, absolute, universal.  This means that limits or duties should be placed on public authorities in order to protect human worth and dignity. 

Of course, it is no surprise that human rights have been understood differently in different historical contexts.  Scholars sometimes speak of three generations of this evolving understanding.  In the 19th century, as part of the emergence of democratic government following the French Revolution, there was a focus on individual rights – the right of assembly and freedom of religion, the right to personal property and the accumulation of wealth free from government interference.  In fact, the role of government was seen in terms of a negative obligation – not to interfere. 

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in the face of the Industrial Revolution, the emphasis shifted to such things as the right to employment and fair working conditions, the right to health care and what we now call “social security.”  The debate was still focused on rights for individuals; but government was now urged (at least by many) to intervene for the good of the majority.  This was the argument made by the social gospel movement (associated with such leaders and as Walter Rauschenbusch) and by the Federal Council of Churches (predecessor of the NCC) which, at its full assembly in 1908, adopted a Social Creed which advocated such things as “the abolition of child labor” and “a release from employment one day in seven.”   

By mid-century, however, influenced by anti-colonial struggles, the emphasis shifted again; this time in the direction of collective rights - national self-determination and development, freedom from aggression, and, later, to the rights of future generations to live in a sustainable environment.  All of this, as you know, has raised a real tension between civil/political rights and social/cultural rights that continues to this day – a point to which we will return. 

Two other points of historical background:  First, the idea of human rights as an international responsibility gained support in the wake of World War II, becoming a pillar of the UN, which linked human rights with world peace in its famous Universal Declaration on Human Rights, ratified in December of 1948.  The Declaration rests on “the recognition that the inherent dignity, the equal and inalienable rights, of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.”  You can hear, even in this single sentence, how the Declaration sets on the cusp between the second and third generations. 

Second, not all scholars see human rights rooted in religious values, arguing that they are derived, for example, from the French Revolution’s “Rights of Man.”  They contend that it threatens the universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if it rests on the claims of one (or more) religious tradition to revealed truth.  But the churches obviously see matters differently, arguing that the modern notion of human rights reflects the biblical conviction that all humans are created in the image of God and, therefore, are of infinite worth.  The NCC’s Policy Statement on Human Rights (1995) puts it this way:  “Freedom, justice, and peace are central biblical themes.  While the Bible is not a catalogue of rights, these themes are critical.  Human rights are at issue as the scriptures reflect on the principalities and powers that seek to separate women and men from God … and to enslave them.  Human rights are implied as the scriptures express what it means to be assured of life in all its fullness.” 

● ● ● 

In thinking about ecumenical engagement with the issue of human rights, it seems to me that this history, too, can be summarized by looking at three particular moments. 

The first moment is from the Oxford Conference in 1937 through the WCC’s first assembly in 1948 – years when the WCC, like the UN, was being established.  The church leaders who gathered at Oxford on the eve of the Second World War saw the promotion of human rights as one way (a primary way) of spreading Christian values around the world, a way of providing a secular structure for the “responsible society” which they thought was intrinsic to the gospel.  Up to this point, the key ecumenical slogan was “evangelizing the world in this generation.” Leaders within the ecumenical movement now saw that direct evangelism would not win the world; but perhaps indirect evangelism – promoting Christian values under the banner of human rights – was a winning strategy.   

At Oxford, the focus was not on the individual but on the freedoms necessary for the church to fulfill its obligations to society – for example, protecting the rights of churches to worship, preach, found congregations, establish their own educational institutions, and the like.  The emphasis shifted in the direction of individual rights with the coming of the UN.  The American, Frederick Nolde, had a significant role in drafting Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that “every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,”  including the “freedom to change his [or her] religion or belief…”  The WCC’s  Amsterdam Assembly, working closely with the Federal Council of Churches, underscored the importance of religious liberty as the fundamental human right.  And, I am pleased to note, they stressed that no religious community should plead for its own freedom without active respect for the religious liberty of others. 

The second moment came at the WCC’s fifth assembly in Nairobi in 1975, and was prompted by the Helsinki Declaration on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  The Nairobi Assembly was the first time an ecumenical meeting spelled out a consensus on the content of human rights, including the right to self-determination and cultural identity, the right to participate in political decision-making and to public dissent, the right of minorities not be forcibly coerced by the majority population – as well as religious freedom. 

The previous period emphasized individual rights and the precedence of religious liberty.  Its theological starting point was the dignity of the individual created in the image of God.  Nairobi starts with the relational nature of human persons in the image of the triune God. Human dignity, said the delegates, is not to be separated from the well-being of the entire human family – and religious liberty is one among many fundamental rights.  (This, by the way, is still a point of contention.  Every time I speak out on behalf of persecuted Christians in Orissa or Malaysia or Egypt, which I do, I get letters from right wing Christians, or statements from the IRD, saying “That’s a first!  The NCC actually caring about religious freedom for Christians!” - because they think we have subordinated religious liberty to other rights.) 

I want to add, parenthetically, that the Roman Catholic Church had generally shied away from the language of human rights because in Europe, since the French Revolution, human rights had been juxtaposed to divine rights.  But the encyclical of 1963, Pacem in Terris, advocated for human rights (speaking a good deal about the freedom conscience); and this was a key theme of the Second Vatican Council, thanks in large part to the persistent efforts of the American Jesuit, John Courtney Murray. 

The third moment came with the WCC’s 1998 assembly in Harare, which offered a statement on the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  What is distinctive, aside from a new emphasize on the right to a healthy environment, is the discussion of globalization.  Economic globalization, said the assembly, erodes the power of the state to defend human rights and weakens the authority of the UN.  Thus, people look for other communities with which to identify, including ethnic groups and fundamental religion. 

Since that time, the new element is the “war on terror.” Do the requirements of national security justify a curtailment of an individual’s right to travel or have access to information?  The ecumenically-engaged churches have generally said no, but without much specificity.  I will come back to this briefly at the end. 

The National Council of Churches, I am pleased to say, issued a very substantial policy statement on human rights in 1995.  It defines human rights as a universal, wholistic concept, inclusive of economic/social and civil/political rights.  But, the policy argues, historical circumstances may require a particular emphasis. We must champion individual rights when these are threatened by unjust structures, and we must champion the rights of the majority when these are threatened by the tyranny of the few.   

The policy names requirements for the preservation of human rights, but there are tensions with each one that are not explored.  For example, human rights require peace – but is it ever appropriate to violate the peace for the sake of human rights?  Is there, in other words, such a thing as “just revolution”?  Human rights, says the statement, requires a sustainable environment – but there is a tension you know about in Maine between economic development and environmental protection, particularly at the level of the world church.  I vividly recall the WCC assembly in 1983 when delegates from the South said, in effect, “After you have killed your trees and dug up your land to build up your economy, you tell us not use our resources because it hurts the environment!” 

● ● ● 

All of this brings us to the key challenges for the ecumenical movement with regard to human rights.  I want to name three for us to consider.  They are difficult and, I think, very timely. 

1.                   The churches involved in the ecumenical movement have opposed proselytism.  A study document, produced in 1970 by the WCC and the Vatican, says that authentic witness “respects the right of every person and community to be free from any coercion which impeded them from witness to their own convictions.”  Yes, but this, you see, cuts in both directions.  What if your understanding of Christianity compels you to witness aggressively to everyone, including members of other churches? At the Fifth World Conference in 1993, where I was a consultant, Pentecostal participants objected to the fact that historic Protestant churches had evangelized in earlier eras, building up their communities, but now want to prevent Pentecostals from doing the same.  Which raises the question:  Do churches like the United Church of Christ really favor full freedom of religion, or do we actually advocate a form of religious tolerance that cuts against the grain of more evangelical churches?  This is where ecumenism gets hard:  Inclusivity means including those who aren’t open to our understanding of inclusivity, unless their exclusivity truly denies others’ universal rights. 

2.                   There has long been critique that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects western Christian values dominant in the UN in 1948 and, therefore, is not relevant or applicable to all cultures (even some where Christianity is now widely prevalent).  This is an important criticism, especially for US Christians who have at times confused western culture with Christianity, foisting off the “American way of life” on others as if it were universal truth.  But on the other hand, isn’t there a danger of succumbing to a relativism that won’t protect the neighbor?  Isn’t it wrong, everywhere and always, for example, to torture any child of God?  Recently, as you undoubtedly have read, Swiss voters decided to ban the building of new minarets.  But is such a thing really subject to democratic vote?  Isn’t this a violation of a freedom that is universal? 

gain, we find ourselves at a point of real tension:  How to affirm the diversity of cultures and religions, to be open to genuine otherness, while also affirming the universal principles on which human community has historically been grounded – a question raised repeatedly in recent years by Pope Benedict XVI in his frontal attack on relativism.  The most difficult discussion I witnessed during my decade as dean of Lexington Theological Seminary came when a local delegate to the Cairo Population Conference, speaking at a seminary convocation, denounced female circumcision (what many of us call genital mutilation) as a violation of human rights, only to be denounced in turn by (male) African students for her cultural imperialism. 

In this regard, the most controversial article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has always been the one dealing with religious freedom – and it has led to some astonishing ironies.  Last year, for example, I was invited to a high-level conference on interfaith dialogue, held in Spain but sponsored by the Saudi king.  How could I attend such an event, however, knowing that such dialogue could not possibly take place in Saudi Arabia?! 

3.                   And then, of course, the obvious issue:  Is the church (parts of the church) guilty of violating human rights when it refuses to ordain women or persons who are gay and lesbian or when it opposes such things as same sex marriage?  In an article on the Womenpriests Movement, Rosemary Radford Ruether contends that the failure to ordain women is spiritual violence.  Its deep roots are pure sexism, “a fundamental unwillingness to acknowledge women’s equal humanity … a hostility to women as full human beings as equally made in God’s image” – that is, a denial of basic human rights.  But fully a third of the member communions of the NCC do not ordain women, arguing that this is not discrimination but biblical fidelity, and that the aggressive promotion of women’s ordination by other members verges on a denial of their right to religious liberty.  Thousands of Christian leaders – Catholic, Orthodox, and conservative Protestants – have thus far signed what is called the Manhattan Declaration, released this past November, which stakes out three non-negotiable positions for which they are willing to engage in civil disobedience: a) the defense of life (by which they mean opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, and certain forms of stem cell research), b) sanctity of marriage (by which they mean – well, you know…), and c) (are you ready?) the defense of religious liberty.  You see the tension:  While other Christians maintain that the denial of a woman’s right to choose and a person’s right to marry the person of his or her choice is a violation of human rights, the signers of the Manhattan Declaration assert that public policy aimed at promoting these things is a denial of their human right to practice their faith as they feel led.  From the Declaration:  “It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships based around these practices be recognized and blessed by law – such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.” 

● ● ● 

All of this, as you know, creates nearly unbearable tension for councils of churches diverse enough to include churches on different sides of these debates.  There are two primary things that I try to keep in mind as I wrestle with this tension: 

1.                   I understand my role as General Secretary, in large part, to be that of holding the churches accountable to the commitments they have made to one another.  I am the thorn in the side of the churches, but a thorn placed there by the churches themselves through their own resolutions and policy statements. 

I sometimes am told, for example, that the NCC cannot speak on homosexuality because the churches do not have a common position; but this is not really true.  Our policy statement on human rights from 1995 acknowledges that “sexual orientation has been used, in many cultures and societies, as a basis for the systematic denial of human rights, including discrimination in housing and employment.  Additionally, persons who are or who are believed to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual are often the objects of violence and oppression.  The church must stand with those persons whose human rights are abridged or denied on the basis of sexual orientation.”  This, I take it, is common ground, and it is my responsibility to hold the churches accountable to this statement and to press them to reflect together on the implications of what they have affirmed.  No, they have not spoken a common word on same sex marriage – and, thus, it is my responsibility to hold open that dialogue, but always within the framework of what they have already said about discrimination. 

2.                   As a General Secretary who is first and foremost a Christian, it is also my responsibility to teach the gospel as I understand it (always respecting the understandings of others that may differ from my own).  This is tricky.  It would be disingenuous for me to say that at this moment I speak as General Secretary and at this moment I speak as Michael Kinnamon. But a general secretary is not simply a monitor of the churches’ conversation.  In selecting me, the churches are also expressing trust in my capacity to interpret the gospel with insight.  My role is ministry, not simply administration. 

As a result, several of my reports to the Governing Board have begun with reflections on my best dialogue partner for all of this, the Apostle Paul.  Paul, as I read him, could live with enormous diversity, as long as all partners recognize that they are undeserving recipients of grace.  But as soon as one party begins to claim that it has defined the boundaries of grace, then, for Paul, God’s gracious Yes! to the world becomes a resounding No! to our pretentions.  “Welcome one another just as Christ has welcomed you…” (Romans 15:17.  But such welcome is not simply tolerance; it is active, open embrace.  And it demands, therefore, that we say No to those ways of acting, those attitudes of mind, that do not welcome others as Christ has welcomed us – even when these actions and attitudes are presented as religious convictions. 

We are here at the heart of the ecumenical vision.  It is not an easy way to be Christian.  It does not answer all of our questions on issues of the day.  But it has led me to some hard-won convictions:  that we cannot stand above the fray in the name of a reconciling vision; that while we are “ambassadors to reconciliation,” it is possible to speak that word too easily and too early; that unity, if it is of God, is inseparable from justice. 

You see the importance of this.  By articulating my own faith convictions, I am attempting to model this for the churches.  You may disagree with one another, I tell them; but if you do, be sure to ground your convictions theologically.  It will never do for Christians to hurl politically-based opinions at one another, thereby dividing the body of Christ on human grounds. 

I want to end by speaking more directly about the NCC.  Our biggest problem with regard to the policy statement on human rights, or anything else for that matter, is practical implementation – follow through.  There are several reasons for this.  The NCC, like many councils, tends to dissipate its energy and resources on an almost-endless list of causes, responsibility for which is fragmented throughout the Council.  Our response to human rights (and other justice) issues has often been piecemeal and reactive, often failing to articulate a distinctive, theologically-grounded rationale for our work.  Concern for human rights has taken the form of statements and resolutions without adequate education in congregations.  They are, as one friend puts it, “cheap grace” pronouncements that involve little cost or effort. 

Having said that, the churches, through the NCC, are, for the most part, actively engaged in opposition to human trafficking (see Article 4 of the UDHR), in the promotion of immigration reform (see Article 13, which underscores the right of freedom of movement), and in opposition to any government policy that smacks of torture (see Article 5).  And the broad trajectory of ecumenical commitment is quite clear: In 1954 the Council spoke out in defense of civil liberties, denouncing the exploitation of fear to subvert basic rights in the era of McCarthy.  The government, we said, must not use fear of communism to stifle freedoms.  In 1966 the NCC spoke out in defense of public dissent regarding the war in Vietnam.  The government, we said, must not appeal to patriotism to stifle freedoms.  In 2005, the Council spoke loudly about human rights at the time when the Patriot Act was up for reauthorization.  The government, we said, must not use fear of terrorism to stifle freedoms. 

It is an important legacy.  And I am pleased for this opportunity to share it with you. 

Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches