The Ethic of Reciprocity
July 19, 2010
John H. Armstrong
ACT 3 Weekly
July 19, 2010
The Ethic of Reciprocity
John H. Armstrong
In a previous article I mentioned the German experience and the blatant denial of human rights in Nazi Germany. The church plainly failed to understand its mission when the German state assumed too much power and then systematically abused it. The German church had lost all meaningful connection to the biblical story and the practice of the early church. When this loss of faith transpired the people of the light, and the people of the darkness, were so blended together that German patriotism became more important to most Christians than prophetic fidelity to the gospel. Eventually it was hard to tell any significant difference between a Christian view of human rights and a Nazi German view. Because of this tragic compromise the church (on the whole) failed to save the lives of the weakest and most vulnerable in society. The result was a virtual loss of all credibility to the mission of Christ.
The Modern Notion of Human Rights
To remind the reader briefly of what I’ve already stated I am using the term human rights in its most normative sense; i.e. “the rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.” In the abstract this concept has been the subject of major philosophical debate. The modern concept took shape in the aftermath of the German experience. Following a number of traditions, which developed over many centuries and from both religious and non-religious sources, the United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 1 says:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Freedom
Closely associated with the whole discussion of human rights is the concept of freedom and liberty. Modern liberal social philosophy couples the notion of freedom with what is sometimes called positive liberty. By this means all political entities, or modern governments, are urged to promote freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable diseases and oppression. This is where a great deal of the modern debate lies between political conservatives and liberals. How precisely are these “freedoms” promoted, privately, by government, or by both in some reasonable synthesis?
Classical (liberal) political philosophy (the word liberal has a very different meaning today than in the past) did not understand freedom this way. Liberty never meant the “ability to do what I want” or the power to have every wish (or need) satisfied, especially by the state. The famous Friedrich Hayek noted that such ideas of freedom consistently abuse the word freedom to the extreme. Hayek, and others who followed classical liberalism, argued that freedom was the absence of coercion whether it was of a single person, or of a minority of persons, by either another person or by a majority of persons.
Karl Barth
The famous theologian Karl Barth wrote in his book Ethics (1928) that true human rights must be Christologically based. Barth said “rights” may belong to human law but for the idea of “rights” to have any objective meaning it needs to be rooted in “God’s self-revelation in Christ.” Simply put Barth moved the discussion away from natural law into biblical revelation.
I believe Barth rightly resisted grounding human rights (exclusively or primarily) in natural law because he believed this elevated human reason to the place where persons could create an authority higher than God’s authority. The clear example of what he had in mind came a few years after he wrote these words when Adolph Hitler, with his brand of German Christianity, exalted nationalism to a place higher than the authority of Christ.
One of Barth’s greatest insights was that human rights are not first my own (personal) rights but rather “the organized defense of all others against my possible encroachments.” Because God loved all people then all people were elevated to a place higher than anything subjective human reason could establish.
Barth insisted that Christ’s coming “illumines, establishes, asserts, and protects God’s questioned, obscured, and threatened right to man and therefore to man’s own human right, his right to life, which is negated apart from God’s own right as Lord and King (Church Dogmatics, “Thy Kingdom Come,” quoted in Global Dictionary of Theology, 410).
For Barth the justice that the reign of Christ brings to the world is “the right order of the world.” Praying the Lord’s Prayer obligates us to seek justice for others as a part of our kingdom faithfulness. This is the context in which Barth spoke so eloquently for the right to life and human dignity. For Barth, concepts like worth, dignity, freedom, peace and joy are all actualized in Jesus Christ.
Simply put, Christians accept that the redeeming work of Jesus Christ has revealed that human beings have true dignity. Following the eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1998 the conclusion of the gathering was remarkably clear: “As Christians, we believe that God created every person infinitely precious and endowed with equal dignity and rights.” The assembly was influenced by twentieth century theological developments and grounded their statement in both the doctrine of creation and the Christological theology of Karl Barth. Barth may have gone too far in rejecting natural law entirely but in the process he corrected some serious problems that existed in properly relating Christian faith to this issue.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed, like Karl Barth, that all life came about through God’s creation. But Bonhoeffer argued that all human rights come about through the gift of God as well since we are given life by him. And he argued that rights come before duties when they are understood properly. “Duties are intrinsic to rights.”
Bonhoeffer, much like Barth, centered this understanding of human rights in the incarnation. The meaning of bodily life “never revolve[d] around being [as] an intrinsic means to an end.” By this he meant there was a basic human right to bodily joys, to a home, to eating and drinking, to clothing, relaxation, play and sexuality. “The first right of natural life is the protection of bodily life from arbitrary killing” (cited in Global Dictionary of Theology, 411). This is why abortion is clearly a human rights issue and not simply an issue of personal freedom and free choice.
God has implanted dignity in every human person. This dignity is reaffirmed in the incarnation and redemption of Jesus Christ. Let me develop this theology a little further.
The term “image of God” refers to all people in a universal sense. The church fathers stressed that there was a difference between being made in the “image” and the “likeness” of God. The word “image” had a powerful meaning that is often lost when we only speak about our “likeness” to God. Likeness refers to the original relationship that we had with God, which has been defaced by sin and broken. Image refers to something created and still fully present. Likeness was thus associated with the renewal of persons by the grace of God and had a more Christological orientation.
The 1998 assembly of the WCC was thus right to affirm the universality of human rights, a modern concept. It said, “These rights are rooted in the histories of many cultures, religions and traditions, not just those whose role in the UN was dominant when the Universal Declaration was adopted.” But the Harare Declaration then added: “We reject any attempt by states, national or ethnic groups, to justify the abrogation of, or the derogation from, the full range of human rights on the basis of culture, religion, tradition, special socio-economic or security interests” (D. Kesler, ed., Together on the Way: The Official Report of the Eight Assembly of the World Council of Churches, 1999, 193).
The Ethic of Reciprocity: The Golden Rule
Barth and Bonhoeffer, as well as the framers of the Harare Statement written at the assembly of the WCC in 1998, contributed another important Christian insight to the development of human rights. In reading seminal thinkers like Barth and Bonhoeffer there is a real danger of top-down theologizing. This can lead us to promote deep thought about human rights without identifying personally with the very people whose rights are threatened. We must guard against this problem.
The Principle of Reciprocity
Question: Do all people have equal dignity before God? What about the homosexual? What about the prostitute? What about the adulterer? Is there really a human right to equality before God and human law? If so what is it? Jesus said, “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12, NLT). Minimally this means that we should recognize the basic needs of other persons. It further means that we who have been deeply loved should love in return, both God and our neighbor. This is what has been rightly called the principle of reciprocity.
The Christian has been released from bondage to the power of sin thus the believer can freely choose to become the servant of all. We have been empowered by the Holy Spirit to serve others and to promote their well-being, even when they have made sinful choices that we believe God will ultimately judge. Besides avoiding a judgmental spirit we must avoid selfish autonomy and the law of reciprocity will guide us to this place. “We are your servants for Christ’s sake,” the apostle wrote. I believe this means that people who live on the margins of society do not have to earn our love, or gain our agreement, to be granted their human dignity. They are already loved and possess inherent dignity because of creation. Sin has defaced all the creation but it has not removed the love of God or the reality of his image. The proof of this has been revealed to us in the incarnation and sacrifice of our redeemer.