Human Rights or something better - what am I missing?

[Daniel L Heck]

I'm not sure what "not equatable with kingdom work," means. I think that the work of Civil Rights is Kingdom work. It isn't all of it, to be sure...Kingdom work is absolutely not reducible to Civil Rights! And to be sure, we haven't even achieved equal rights, in practice, by a long shot. What's more, even where rights are being respected, with an understanding that this has been accomplished through the grace and power of God, the nature of rights is such that these are only the very first, faltering steps toward the "beloved community." (A community of friendship.)

At the same time, when I help my daughter learn to walk, I think that this is Kingdom work. That doesn't mean that Kingdom work is reducible to this! And if I were to mistake these sweet, faltering steps for the end (even the very proximate end of walking), that would be a major problem. I think something analagous has actually happened with the CRM. If I became so obsessed with these faltering steps that I just kept trying to reproduce them, and looked back on them as "the good old days" that we needed to get back to, that would also be all wrong. If she were injured and became unable to walk, that would be a tragedy, but it wouldn't be an argument against helping children learn to walk. (And by the same token, rollback of the CRM is hardly an argument against it!) Even if it were the case that walking had played a role in my daughter's injury, that still wouldn't be a general argument against children learning to walk.

So I'm totally with you, in not wanting to hail CRM as any kind of ultimate victory. Still, I think it was a battle won, and we do need to celebrate when battles are won. Then, we need to advance. However, I don't see how a critique of human rights helps us advance at all...and it also doesn't look like a tactical retreat to me. It just reads like apologetics for the Old South, or Franco's Spain or celebration of the 20th Century's "Catholics gone stale." (And my Hitler reference should totally be read in the context of Taube's interactions with Heidegger and Schmitt. This is high-brow Hitler! But seriously, if we're talking Barth, I do think we do need to lay out some of the various efforts to reckon with the catastrophes of German nationalism.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=4ZLCAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=catholics+gone+stale+taube&source=bl&ots=yvSZtzXst1&sig=4dKxM28KxxqW09wkyh25g6Nf4ko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5M9AVZ3wOMeuggTfloHwCQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=catholics%20gone%20stale%20taube&f=false

[Daniel L Heck]

As to Barth: you're the real Barth scholar. I'm passingly familiar with him.

I was talking about Barth's warnings against the early Barth of Romans, though, to be clear on the reference. I was cribbing from this discussion: https://dogmatics.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/barth-on-revelation-and-history/

To be perfectly clear, my reference to Barth as a liberal gnostic modernist was entirely meant as a joke. I am not at all familiar with the narratives about Barth...I just figured something like that must exist, because that's the kind of thing some humanities scholars would say. (I did take GER 801, Advanced I'm Rubber You're Glue.)

More seriously, I'd like to work through Barth's views of history and creation, as they relate to revelation! Any suggested reading on that, in an introductory way, for a total Barth noob?

[Michael Raburn]

Let me be clear, I am a huge fan of the CRM. I shoe horn "Letter from Birmingham Jail" into any class I can (last fall I used it in a "Critical Thinking" class which was perhaps the biggest stretch yet). And from all my study of the CRM, I don't think MLK would call what they accomplished a victory. That is not the tone of the sermon the night before he was killed. They made a good beginning, but it was like prep work, clearing brush, digging footers, setting up form boards. They were just getting to laying an actual foundation when the whole thing got short circuited and coopted. When it came time for more substantial reforms, specifically economic and housing equality, they found resistance much more persistent and resilient. I am in no way pining for any 'good old days,' there is no lie like nostalgia. I am saying the work of the CRM has to be carried on and redone and probably will always need attention precisely because it cannot address the evil that lies in the hearts of humans because this is not kingdom work, it is world-improving work. Worthwhile work. Good work. But not work that brings the kingdom in.

I do have recommendations on Barth, including a free book you can download: http://mikeraburn.com/2009/05/16/free-book-for-you/

[Billie Hoard]

 I was really struck by a bit of this conversation a little back, where y'all were still discussing the relationship between friendship and rights models. It seems to me that a very real (and I think generally admitted) aspect of, at least, negative rights is the humility of their claim. Negative human rights seem to function as a pragmatic lowest common denominator for human interaction. Agape Friendship on the other hand functions as an infinite ideal which we are being called to.

During my time as a confirmed libertarian (which this conference has recently called into serious question - thanks folks), I liked to point out that the great strength of libertarianism as a political movement was the humility of its claims: Most libertarians don't think that their political programme would achieve utopia even if it were perfectly implemented - persons would have to do that out of their voluntary decision making. Instead Libertarians see the strength of their position as a supreme defense of the lowest common denominators (and therefore most fundamentally necessary) of human interaction.

I am still fairly sanguine in my conviction that Libertarianism (classical-liberalism) in its essentials may represent the best political system the world (empire?) is able to offer. My question is whether, as those who are committed to The King and His Kingdom, we should be paying attention to an LCD or should we be reaching for the Not Yet. Are the two mutually exclusive? (I'm guessing @Daniel L Heck thinks not). It looks to me like the CRM did bring the Kingdom a little more "on earth" than before, but also (as a current Baltimore resident) the Kingdom is definitely not yet "now" in our society.

So what would be lost if we gave up the language of human rights in favor of a language of agape friendship?

Does real friendship towards all allow for any evil that human rights models would prevent?

On a personal level, it has struck me these last few days that my heart has been moved far more for the suffering of the people and city I love (with my imperfect agape) than by the identifiable abuses of human rights. That is only to say that agape friendship seems to have more motive, and affective, power over me than human rights.

A little ramble-y there at the end, but I really appreciate this conversation.

[Daniel L Heck]

Very cool. Thanks Michael! I'll read that and Church Dogmatics today, and get back to you by the early afternoon.

[Daniel L Heck]

@Bill Hoard

I think you're at least partially right about the affective effectiveness of "love" and "friendship" language. At times, it is more effective at mobilizing people. However, in general, the violation of rights (and the defensive reaction it evokes) is much more effective. I can get into the individual and group psychology of this, if you like...but I also suspect that isn't really what you're after.

What I would say is that a sincere pursuit of love will always also integrate respect for rights. If respect for rights is seen as an impediment to real friendship, or love is used as a substitute for rights, then I think it becomes suspect to claim that friendship or love are actually on the table at all.

For example,here are some Old South apologetics: "Slavery was instituted out of paternal love for slaves. They were better off without rights, and the affective bonds between master and slave were a true model of Christian love. We were friends in Christ. But then, those grasping, greedy slaves were mislead into upsetting this Godly order of things with their selfish, grasping demands for rights...and ended up worse off for it. Everything would have been better if we had sustained the "beloved community" of the Old South, instead of overthrowing it with all of this modern, secular humanist, liberal nonsense about "human rights." We would've gotten to a more advanced state for the Negro in good time, if he had been allowed to mature according to his own natural limitations..."

What's wrong with this picture? I would say that, in part, the problem is that the appeal to love is total bullshit. And one of the tells is that it is paired with a critique of rights...rather than a recognition of the role of rights as a boundary condition for authentic friendship.

(Also, I think it gets the maturation story exactly backwards. I think that the church, and especially the black churches, have been teaching our state and our culture the basics about being a decent society that doesn't assault the inherent dignity of God's image-bearers. We have been slow and stubborn students.)

[Jon Stovell]

I've been enjoying the back-and-forth between @Michael Raburn and @Daniel L Heck here. I wonder if the following might be useful for addressing a couple of the significant points of difference.

First, it may be helpful to distinguish clearly between (a) the morally intuited sense of "what ought (or ought not) to be done to another human being" that the term "rights" is meant to denote and (b) the modern, Western, theoretical construction/explanation of what "rights" are and how they work. It seems to me that Dan is primarily concerned with safeguarding the place and role of the former, whereas Mike's concerns and critiques are aimed at the latter.

Second, I wonder if the relationship between human rights (for which an adequate description appears still to be pending) and the kingdom of God might be likened to the relationship between a support beam and a house. By itself, the beam is just a big plank of wood. It is only as it is incorporated into the house that it comes to have a role within the house. One could, however, instead try to integrate it into some other structure, or wield it as a clumsy but deadly bludgeon to cave in the skull of one's enemy. But if the carpenter does include this beam in the house, it fulfills a vital and necessary role in the house. Indeed, if the carpenter doesn't include this beam in the house, he will need to go out and find some other object with the same length, width, thickness, weight, and tensile strength as this rejected beam so that he can substitute it into the beam's place.

If I am right, then @Michael Raburn is right to insist that the wooden beam is not the house, nor even necessarily part of the house. It could as easily be a murder weapon or a plank in a nearby mansion's poolside deck. Furthermore, this particular plank in front of us (i.e. the modern, Western concept of human rights) might be flawed and unable to bear the load it needs to as a support beam in God's house. At the same time, @Daniel L Heck is right that the house needs a support beam here, and if the one in front of us is flawed then we need to find another that will fit the required dimensions closely while providing equal or superior strength. One can't just declare it flawed and unnecessary and leave it out. Some object has to be in that place, doing that job, or else the structural soundness of the house as a whole will be compromised.

[Daniel L Heck]

Thanks for the helpful mediation, Jon. I think Michael and I probably agree on a lot of the substance here, underneath...at the same time, I think there are implications to some of this language that are important to work through.

Here's how I'd put my claims into your metaphor, Jon: if friendship (or a community of friendship) is like a house, then rights are part of the foundation. If someone tells you, "We need houses, not foundations!" I'd say they must not understand how good houses are made, or they aren't sincere about the house-building.

If they go on to say, "Look around your house. How often do you think about the foundation?" I'd say: exactly. If a house has a good foundation, you almost never think about it. If they say, "The foundations were laid poorly!" I'd say, "Yes. That's an argument for laying good foundations. It isn't an argument against foundations." The same holds if they say, "The foundation is being destroyed." And if they say, "You can't live in a foundation," or "Foundations aren't enough" or "Foundations aren't the ultimate end," I'd say: exactly. You live in the thing that is built on the foundation. None of these are arguments against foundations, or a reason to critique or negate them. However, they may be a necessary critique of people who have misunderstood the role of a foundation.

So if anyone is simply saying that rights, alone, aren't enough to arrive at the "beloved community," I'm with them 110%. If they want to go on to say that any relatively "beloved community" before the end of history is not the Kingdom of God, I'm also with them 110%. But I would say that in history, relatively beloved communities reflect, anticipate and take part in some aspect of God's plan to fully restore humanity. In this way, they are "already" taking part in the Kingdom...it is already there, in their midst, to the degree that the beloved community actually exists. Rights are a foundational aspect of this.

And I think that in the new heavens and the new earth, humans will still bear the image of God, with all of the rights, entitlement and authority that implies. Rights, in their redeemed sense, will remain part of the foundation of the Temple of Creation, filled completely with God's Spirit. In fact, I think it is the laying down of rights (and our bodies) that is a temporary measure...eternity is not crucifixion. It is resurrection. Heaven is not a boot stamping on a human face forever.

(And yes, I'm focused on rights in sense (a). Although I think (b) actually contains some pretty good theories of (a). It isn't an arid wasteland of empty abstractions, built on deistic assumptions. That is, I think, a drastic mis-characterization of (b)).

[Michael Raburn]

I want to go back to how Dan narrated the Old South because I think that highlights my point better. It is historically not the case that modern secular human rights brought about an end to slavery in the United States. In fact, the founding documents were steeped in just that sort of Lockean rights language (and I think that is an adequate beginning for giving a definition of human rights and I did link the UN statement above as well) and yet slavery was baked into the institutions founded on human rights logic.

It was the radical revivals of the Great Awakening that set the U.S. on an inevitable path to the

Civil War and the end of slavery. Prior to the GA, it was illegal to share the Gospel with slaves. But the early Methodists and Baptists broke those laws and preached to slaves anyway. This led to revival among the slaves, the beginning of 'The Invisible Institution' (slave churches meeting in secret), and the abolitionist movement. Yes, by 1850 Southern churches had accommodated themselves to slavery and widely preached it as a good, but that spin control was too late, and only served to prolong the war since both sides were convinced they had a divine mandate.

My point is, modern human rights did not effect an end to slavery in the United States, it found a way to legalize and normalize it (the deistic tendencies of the complicit Anglican church helped a lot too and are wrapped up in this narrative - and should serve as a warning to us). What brought about an end to slavery was the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in the form of the Great Awakening revivals that radically reshaped the religious and moral landscape of America. That is the work of the kingdom of God. And it is not work that modernity can emulate.

[Billie Hoard]

Quick note, your point here @Michael Raburn really resonated with me. I have often pointed out to my students that standard end-run move when individuals want to get around human rights, is the re-definition of "human" and/or "person". This works for them because a definition of "human" or "person" has to be brought to rights discussions from without. Agape on the other hand, moves from the love of God to the love of that which God loves and makes no space for exceptions based on definition. Agape is just less "lawyerable" than rights.

[Daniel L Heck]

@Michael Raburn

(I've cleaned up this post substantially)

The basic point I'm arguing here is that emancipation from slavery is necessarily an extension of human rights. I think that this is a definitional question before it is even a historical question. What we mean by emancipation must be an extension of human rights, if "emancipation" is to mean what we normally mean by it. To suggest that emancipation, insofar as it happened, didn't involve human rights is a contradiction in terms, just like "we need friendship, not rights" is a contradiction in terms. (I'd also note that the definition of modern human rights as secular rights is in dispute here. See Wolterstorff.) And so suggesting that "human rights didn't effect an end of slavery," is like saying, "hydrogen doesn't effect water." It is a basic category mistake, which suggests some basic empirical mistakes may also be going on as well. (As does a statement like this: We need water, not hydrogen!)

Still, let's discuss the actual history of opposition to slavery, prior to emancipation, as well. Insofar as revival gave rise to abolitionism, this was an opposition that integrated human rights discourse at a basic level...and there were a lot of people who were part of this movement who weren't influenced by revivalism in any kind of obvious way. For example, Thomas Paine was hardly a revivalist...he was about as secular and humanist as they came, and he was also an advocate of human rights and an early opponent of slavery. Moving on from there, Frederick Douglass was hardly a critic of human rights or natural law, although his vision was deeply religious. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frederick-douglass/#NatLaw. In their embrace of human rights, I don't think they were exceptional abolitionists...they were typical. And in possessing divergent religious views, they were also "typical" of abolitionism. What really united abolitionists was opposition to slavery, and across the spectrum, this opposition was clearly and consistently connected to human rights.

So at minimum, the historical picture is way more complicated than "secular modernists who appealed to secular human rights were the pro-slavery people (like Locke!), and Christian revivalists who opposed secular human rights were the anti-slavery people." I'm not even confident that these tropes reflect general trends, let alone a satisfying total account of events. Even Locke's own position on slavery is highly ambiguous, and a matter of dispute...and his religious views are also, similarly, highly debatable. For example, some of Locke's arguments that get him flagged as a "deist" are basically Thomistic arguments. The nexus of "Locke-secularism-humanism-deism-human rights-slavery," is itself highly contested and rather dubious at each point...even before we go on to ask things like, "How much influence did Locke even have on the American Revolution?" Once you start asking whether abolitionists were critics of human rights, or advocates for them, I think the narrative implied by the claim that "human rights didn't bring an end to slavery," falls apart. Human rights were a big part of what people in, and cooperating with, the black churches were advocating. To set them against each other is a total false dichotomy.

But more narrowly, of course, I'm not saying that "human rights ended slavery." I don't think "human rights" are a historical agent. Rather, the end of slavery was itself a recognition of human rights. This is what it was, as a matter of fact, and it was also how the people who enacted it understood it. This was accomplished through a historical process in which the action of people, empowered by the Holy Spirit, played an important role. And all truth is God's truth, so God is the ultimate author of any good that was accomplished at all. I believe that God is the ultimate author of human rights, independent of any causal role played by revivalism. (God's actions are certainly not constrained to revivalism!)

So to say, "the founding documents were steeped in just that sort of Lockean rights language..." doesn't really reflect the complex dynamics here. Rights language was also integral to abolitionism. Your arguments here seem to imply that it wasn't. If that's what you're saying, I think this gets the history wrong.

At any rate, my illustration of Old South rhetoric was simply intended as an illustration of how the appeal to love and friendship, paired with a critique of human rights, actually worked in Old South apologetics. None of the point I was making with that example depends on these broader historical questions. (Although they are germane to the broader discussion!) Instead, the illustration is designed to help us discern why those kinds of arguments seem appealing (to those who don't want change), mirror some of what I'm hearing now, and are total b.s. My point is that "you need Christian friendship and love, not human rights," was, precisely, one of the arguments used to justify slavery. My critique of this argument is that it represents a misunderstanding of friendship and love, which creates a smokescreen justifying the violation of rights. A proper understanding of love must include respect for human rights.

[Michael Raburn]

You can misuse either Christian teaching or human rights logic to justify all sorts of atrocities. History is full of examples of both.

My point was that the game changer, what reshaped the moral landscape in a country that had been okay with slavery since its inception, was the Great Awakening. Neither status quo Christianity nor the crafting of founding documents that included serious national conversations about human rights moved the needle at all against slavery. What made the difference was the sovereign work of God and the in-breaking of God's kingdom. Human rights focus doesn't get us that. Sadly, neither does Christian theology most of the time.

[Daniel L Heck]

I'm glad to re-engage this conversation

What I'd say is that the history of the Great Awakening is too ambivalent for me to accept that this particular movement was "the difference." Just a few counter-facts to complicate the story: George Whitefield advocated the re-institution of slavery in Georgia. The movement here was actually backwards. Presbyterians were one of the main denominations impacted by the Great Awakening, but they were hardly champions of abolitionism...while the Quakers weren't quite part of it (in my understanding), but were a center for abolitionism. This isn't to deny that the establishment of Black churches in the Great Awakening played an important role in abolition. But as a theological-historical matter, this is the question I bring to the discussion: "Was the revivalism of The Great Awakening _the_ means by which God made a difference, or did God use other means as well?" I'd need a lot more convincing to get there, based on the little that I know about the period, and the general complexity of historical causation / difference-making. I'm pretty sure a whole lot of things made essential differences, because that's how history works. Still, if other things also mattered, and even if they mattered far more than revivalism, that doesn't suggest to me that God's sovereign activity was any less important.

The other main focus of my critique can simply be summarized like this: "The Kingdom and human rights aren't in opposition. On the contrary, I think they're aligned." The rest is an elaboration on why I think that is, and why I think it is important.

[Michael Raburn]

Well, I'm glad you left some role for the sovereignty of God. Always good to give God a cookie when we can.

Alignment is too strong a word. All the human rights in the world doesn't bring in the kingdom of God. I thought we had learned that from the failure of Protestant liberalism.

[Daniel L Heck]

On the contrary, from where I sit, it looks like you're the one making too little room for the sovereignty of God!

Rather than alignment, I think it might be better to say, "is entirely taken up within." But then, alignment is to weak a word. If anything is diminished here, it isn't God, but revivalism. Insofar as it seems the other way, I think it is because revivalism has been conflated with God.

Insofar as "Protestant liberalism" is a meaningful phrase, I would map your discourse onto it, not mine. It is  deism that rejects God's activity throughout Creation, as if it were a separate domain. Insofar as it seems like I'm brushing crumbs to God, it seems to me that there must be some assumption that the Created order is somehow distant from God, creating a separate, secularized domain. Your post-liberal Protestantism is still too liberal and Protestant for me!

At any rate, I don't think I've said at any point that human rights bring the kingdom of God. That is not, at all, remotely, even a little bit, kind of sort of, what I'm saying. Rather, when the Kingdom of God comes, human rights are respected ... but much, much more than that happens as well.