Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:36:49.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evangelicals and Human Rights: The Continuing Ambivalence of Evangelical Christians' Support for Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Joel A. Nichols
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The language and ideas of “international human rights” have become seemingly ubiquitous in modern times. Indeed, within the United States, even many prominent evangelical Christian churches and leaders have sparingly started to use the language of human rights despite earlier misgivings. While there has been important academic discussion concerning the foundational role of Christian theology for the modern human rights regime, and literature discussing the acceptance of human rights within Catholic, mainline Protestant, and even Orthodox Christian circles, gaps remain in the literature concerning the relationship between general human rights norms, language, and culture and evangelical Christian theology.

This Article suggests that evangelical Christians have a greater connection to human rights than is often acknowledged (and greater than they often acknowledge themselves). But, it ultimately appears doubtful whether modern evangelical theology is amenable to a robust and deep understanding of human rights. Nonetheless, the recent rise in the number of evangelical non-governmental organizations and the attendant rise in awareness of human rights within evangelical discourse potentially serve as signposts that the uncomfortable dance of evangelicals and the human rights movement may become slightly less awkward over the coming years.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 629 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hertzke, Allen D., Freeing God's Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2004)Google Scholar.

2. Pub. L. No. 105-292, 112 Stat. 2787 (1998) and amendments.

3. Hertzke, supra n. 1, at 6.

4. Matt 28:19-20 (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son aid of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”) (All Biblical citations are taken from the NRSV.).

5. See infra Part IV.1.

6. See infra Part IV.

7. See infra Part V.

8. As described more fully below, this Article limits discussion primarily to American evangelicals, and also to theologically conservative Protestants. There are some Catholics that would often designate themselves as “evangelical” (or who might be so categorized by outside observers on the basis of core theological beliefs), but the focus herein is on Protestant Christian evangelicals.

9. See e.g. Mark 1:1 (“The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God.”). For more on etymology, see Olson, Roger E., Pocket History of Evangelical Theology 8 (InterVarsity Press 2007)Google Scholar.

10. Id. at 13.

11. The following discussion applies primarily to current evangelicals within the United States. While there is some overlap especially with British evangelicalism, a more detailed analysis would likely yield even more tendencies within British evangelicalism toward more receptivity and involvement in human rights matters. Further, as Philip Jenkins and others have ably described, there has been an explosion of growth of evangelicals in the “global south.” That interesting discussion must necessarily lie beyond the scope of this Article. See Jenkins, Philip, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford U. Press 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jenkins documents that the rapid growth of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has strong elements of conservative Christianity—but also has elements of mysticism and even syncretism with traditional tribal customs that would be missing in American evangelicalism. See e.g. id. at 7-8, 121-132.

12. Johnston, Robert K., Evangelicalism, in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought 217 (Hastings, Adrian, Mason, Alistair & Pyper, Hugh eds., Oxford U. Press 2000)Google Scholar.

13. Kyle, Richard, Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity 13 (Transaction Publishers 2006)Google Scholar.

14. Noll, Mark A., The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind 8 (William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1994)Google Scholar.

15. Grenz, Stanley J., Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era 187 (2d ed., Baker Academic 2006)Google Scholar.

16. Id. at 345.

17. See Gushee, David, Evangelicals and Politics: A Rethinking, 23 J. L. & Religion 1, 9–10 (2007–2008)Google Scholar. See also Grenz, supra n. 15, at ch. 9 (discussing evangelicals' ecclesiology).

18. Johnston, supra n. 12, at 217-218.

19. Id. at 218.

20. Id.

21. Id.

22. Id. at 219.

23. Id.

24. Pierard, R.V. & Elwell, W.A., Evangelicalism, in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 406 (2d ed., Elwell, Walter A. ed., Baker Academic & Paternoster 2001)Google Scholar.

25. Collins, Kenneth J., The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion 45–46 (Baker Academic 2005)Google Scholar.

26. Larry Eskridge, Defining Evangelicalism, http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html (accessed Jan. 19, 2009) (referring to David Bebbington). See also Skeel, David A. Jr., The Unbearable Lightness of Christian Legal Scholarship, 57 Emory L.J. 1471, 1474 n. 1 (2008)Google Scholar (discussing very briefly the definition of evangelicals and citing David Bebbington as authoritative).

27. See Nichols, Joel A., Mission, Evangelism, and Proselytism in Christianity: Mainline Conceptions as Reflected in Church Documents, 12 Emory Intl. L. Rev. 563, 593 (1998)Google Scholar.

28. See Collins, Kenneth J., The Evangelical Moment: The Promise of an American Religion 41–61 (Baker Academic 2005)Google Scholar. See also Kyle, Richard, Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity 1–21 (Transaction Publishers 2006)Google Scholar; Stott, John, Evangelical Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness 21–33 (rev. ed., Intervarsity Press 2003)Google Scholar; The Variety of American Evangelicalism (Dayton, Donald W. & Johnson, Robert K eds., Intervarsity Press 1991)Google Scholar.

29. See also infra Part IV.5.

30. As has been well-documented elsewhere, particularly in political discourse, there are several phrases that evince common beliefs among evangelicals. For many, “born-again” might be one of those phrases. See e.g. Cochran, Robert F. Jr., Evangelicals, Law and Abortion, in Faith and Law: How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law 91, 93 (Cochran, Robert F. Jr. ed., N.Y.U. Press 2008)Google Scholar (describing the “two central beliefs” of evangelicals as “new birth in Christ” and “the authority of scripture”).

31. Matt 28:19-20.

32. Lausanne Covenant, ¶ 4.

33. For further discussion, see Nichols, supra n. 27 (detailing different understandings of evangelism for evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Christians).

34. In common Christian parlance, various terms are used for conversion—including “evangelism,” “missions,” “outreach,” or other terms. But the notion is the same—that the gospel message is being shared with non-believers. Legal terminology has frequently described such outreach as “proselytism”—although the use of the phrase proselytism has increasingly become seen as a moniker for improper evangelism only and not for other, proper, evangelism. See e.g. Uzzell, Larry, Don't Call is Proselytism, First Things 14–16 (10 2004)Google Scholar.

35. Manila Manifesto, ¶ A.3, reprinted in New Directions in Mission and Evangelization 1: Basic Statements (1974-1991), at 292–305 (Scherer, James A. & Bevans, Stephen B. eds., Orbis 1992)Google Scholar.

36. This sometimes causes problems, as it did in Russia when evangelicals wanted to “evangelize” native Russians after the fall of communism while the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) objected because it believed those persons who had been baptized as infants (all of them) were not proper candidates for evangelism by outside groups even if they were non-practicing Christians. The ROC thought, instead, that evangelicals should be assisting the ROC to bring those persons back into the ROC fold. See e.g. Nichols, supra n. 27, at 642-651.

37. A description of a connection between evangelicals and “human rights” rather than evangelicals and “social action” would be conclusory more than explanatory, given the hesitation that evangelicals have often experienced in adopting rights language for themselves. See e.g. Traer, Robert, Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious Traditions for a Global Struggle 56–59 (Georgetown U. Press 1991)Google Scholar (citing several conservative Christian authors' hesitations about using “rights” language).

38. Among much fine literature on point, see Hochschild, Adam, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves (Houghton Mifflin 2005)Google Scholar.

39. Id.

40. Drescher, Seymour, From Slavery to Freedom: Comparative Studies in the Rise and Fall of Atlantic Slavery 37–38 (N.Y. U. Press 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note that Drescher does not attribute theological/religious motivations for large scale evangelical participation in the British abolition movement, though. “If evangelicals participated actively in the earlier petition campaigns they participated as members of geographical rather than religious communities.” Id. at 38 (emphasis added).

41. As Christopher Leslie Brown points out, another strain of scholarship has treated evangelicals as “of marginal interest and limited consequence.” Brown, Christopher Leslie, Moral Capital: Foundations of British Abolitionism 379 (U. N.C. Press 2006)Google Scholar.

42. Anstey, Roger, The Atlantic Slave Trade and British Abolition 1760-1810, at 96 (Humanities Press 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Anstey contends that while evangelicals were “influenced by currents of thought of their age, their inspiration was essentially religious.” Id.

43. Brown, supra n. 41, at 388.

44. Id. at 335 (emphasis in original).

45. Id. (“The Evangelicals, it will become apparent, did not set out to become abolitionists. … What mattered to them was the promotion of Evangelical religion, both within the British Isles and across the British Empire.”).

46. Id. at 386. In but one illustration, Brown describes how “[f]or Margaret Middleton and the Teston circle, the antislavery impulse, therefore, did not spring from the logic of the conversion experience. Instead, it originated in frustrated aspirations to propagate the gospel in the British West Indies.” Id. at 351-352.

47. See also Delahunty, Robert J., Changing Hearts, Changing Minds: A New Evangelical Politics?, —J. Cath. Leg. Stud. 2–4 (2008) (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1119083)Google Scholar (discussing the connection of modern American evangelicals to Wilberforce's anti-slavery crusade).

48. Sheldon, Charles M., In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? (Advance Publg. Co. 1897)Google Scholar.

49. See Skeel, supra n. 26, at 1487-1488.

50. Noll, supra n. 14, at 165.

51. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Skeel, supra n. 26, at 1489.

52. See e.g. Wuthnow, Robert, The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II 173–214 (Princeton U. Press 1988)Google Scholar; Jacoby, Tamar, The Reagan Turnaround on Human Rights, 64 For. Affairs 1066 (1986)Google Scholar.

53. Cf. Gushee, supra n. 17, at 9.

54. See e.g. Cochran, supra n. 30, at 104-111.

55. See id. at 109 (contending “[a]ll human life, even dependent human life, is meaningful” and arguing that evangelicals should continue to work to provide state protection to those who are dependent (such as the widow and orphan, and the unborn)).

56. While much more can and should be said about the strength of evangelical opposition to abortion, including the ways in which evangelicals articulate this opposition as a “human rights” issue, to do so is beyond the scope of this current Article.

57. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For a fascinating history of the Universal Declaration, see Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Random House 2001)Google Scholar.

58. Michael Perry has helpfully pointed out that there is both a “morality of human rights” and also a “law of human rights.” See e.g. Michael J. Perry, Human Rights as Morality, Human Rights as Law, http://ssrn.comabstract=1274728 (accessed Jan. 19, 2009). As will become more clear in the following pages, evangelicals interact with these two norms in slightly different ways. They are quite skeptical of the “law of human rights” for mostly political and cultural reasons, and they are unable to fully align with the “morality of human rights” for some theological reasons.

59. See Perry, Michael J., Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law, Courts 4 (Cambridge U. Press 2007)Google Scholar. See also Habermas, Jurgen, Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity 153–154 (MIT Press 2002)Google Scholar (“In Asia, Africa, and South America, [human rights now] constitute the only language in which the opponent and victims of murderous regimes and civil wars can raise their voices against violence, repression, and persecution, against injuries to their human dignity.”) (quoted in Perry, supra n. 58, at 3).

60. Conde, H. Victor, A Handbook of International Human Rights Terminology 111 (2d ed., U. Neb. Press 2004)Google Scholar. Some scholars strenuously contend that the grounding for the morality of human rights must necessarily come from religion. See Perry, supra n. 58. Perry emphasizes that “human rights” means each person has “inherent dignity” and that such inherent dignity “has normative force for us” in that that “we should respect… the inherent dignity of every human being.” Id. at 5. “[A]nother way to state the conviction [is that e]very human being has inherent dignity and is ‘inviolable’: not-to-be-violated.” Id. See also Wolterstorff, Nicholas, Justice: Rights and Wrongs (Princeton U. Press 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61. For a summary of “the theological roots of human rights,” see Villa-Vicencio, Charles, Christianity and Human Rights, 14 J.L & Religion 579, 582–593 (1999–2000)Google Scholar.

62. See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 2 (Rev. 1): The International Bill of Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2,htm (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

63. The ICESCR entered into force on Jan. 3, 1976 and the ICCPR entered into force on Mar. 23, 1976, after each had the requisite levels of adherence by states parties. The United States is a party to the ICCPR but not to the ICESCR. To be sure, these Conventions were pushed by leadership from the Western nations, but the evidence points to significant influence and input from developing nations. See Glendon, Mary Ann, International Law: Foundations of Human Rights—The Unfinished Business, in Recovering Self-Evident Truths: Catholic Perspectives on American Law 317, 317–320 (Scaperlanda, Michael A. & Collett, Teresa Stanton eds., Cath. U. Am. Press 2007)Google Scholar (discussing a brief history); see also Glendon, supra n. 57.

64. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

65. See e.g. Fact Sheet No. 2 (Rev. 1), “The International Bill of Human Rights,” http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

66. See Basic Documents on Human Rights (Brownlie, Ian & Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. eds., Oxford U. Press 2002)Google Scholar.

67. Id.

68. See e.g. Ignatieff, Michael, The Attack on Human Rights, 80 For. Affairs 102, 112 (2001)Google Scholar (“Indeed, what makes human rights demands legitimate is that they emanate from the bottom, from the powerless.”).

69. For example, one recent book that purports to tell the history of human rights through the 1948 Universal Declaration contains no modern mention of religion in the evolution and development of the modern human rights regime, and speaks of religion only archaically—with respect to ancient Judaism and early (pre-Augustinian) Christianity. See Human Rights: The Essential Reference (Devine, Carol, Hansen, Carol Rae & Wilde, Ralph eds., Greenwood Publg. Group 1999)Google Scholar.

70. See Glendon, Mary Ann, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (Free Press 1991)Google Scholar. See also Loconte, Joseph, The United Nations' Disarray, Christianity Today (02 2007) (available at http:/www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=40657)Google Scholar.

71. Hertzke, Allen D., Evangelicals and International Engagement, in A Public Faith: Evangelicals and Civic Engagement 215 (Cromartie, Michael ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2005)Google Scholar. He further notes that “[f]ew in elite circles have noticed [this increased evangelical involvement], because evangelical Christianity remains widely caricatured in the news rooms and faculty clubs of the literati.” Id.

72. Id. at 215.

73. See e.g. Witte, John Jr., Law, Religion and Human Rights, 28 Colum. H.R. L. Rev. 1, 9–15 (1996)Google Scholar.

74. See e.g. Henkin, Louis, The Age of Rights 181–93 (Colum. U. Press 1990)Google Scholar; Henkin, Louis, Religion, Religions, and Human Rights, 26 J. Religious Ethics 229 (1998)Google Scholar; cf. Stackhouse, Max, The Intellectual Crisis of Good Idea, 26 J. Religious Ethics 263 (1998)Google Scholar.

75. Elliott, Mark & Deyneka, Anita, Protestant Missionaries in the Former Soviet Union, 12 Emory Intl. L. Rev. 361, 364–367 (1998)Google Scholar.

76. See e.g. Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, , Gospel and Culture, in Proselytism and Orthodoxy in Russia: The New War for Souls 66, 73 (Witte, John Jr. & Bordeaux, Michael eds., Orbis 1999)Google Scholar (decrying the influx of missionaries into Russia and stating that they “came with dollars, buying people with so-called humanitarian aid and promises to send the abroad for study or rest”).

77. Hertzke, supra n. 1, at 26-27.

78. See Shea, Nina, In the Lion's Den: A Shocking Account of Persecution and Martyrdom of Christians Today & How We Should Respond (Broadman & Holman Publishers 1997)Google Scholar; Marshall, Paul, Their Blood Cries Out: The Worldwide Tragedy of Modern Christians Who Are Dying for Their Faith (Thomas Nelson 1997)Google Scholar.

79. See generally Hertzke, supra n. 1. In short, after a conference in 1996 by the National Association of Evangelicals, Richard Cizik (NAE Director of government affairs) worked closely with Michael Horowitz (a Jew) and Nina Shea (a Catholic) to formulate a Statement on Conscience and recommendations for government action. That summer, Congress responded with a resolution calling for a State Department report on religious persecution abroad. Id. at 187. The resolution was followed in 1997 with the introduction of the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act (the “Wolf-Specter Bill”), which drew support from the NAE, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Religious Broadcasters, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, and evangelical figures such as Charles Colson, Bill Bright and James Dobson. Id. at 194-195. By 1998, the coalition was able to marshal its resources and gather even broader bipartisan support to push through legislation (albeit different from the Wolf-Specter Bill) protecting religious freedom. Backers were able to celebrate victory on this front in October 1998. Id. at 234.

80. See Pub. L. No. 105-292, 112 Stat. 2787 (1998).

81. See Hertzke, supra n. 71, at 225.

82. For a good description of the International Religious Freedom Act, see Gunn, T. Jeremy, A Preliminary Response to Criticisms of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, BYU L. Rev. 841 (2000)Google Scholar.

83. Witte, supra n. 73, at 12 (quoting Georg Jellinek).

84. Hertzke, supra n. 1, at 68. See also Gunn, supra n. 82; cf. Danchin, Peter G., U.S. Unilateralism and the International Protection of Religious Freedom: The Multilateral Alternative, 41 Colum. J. Transnatl. L. 33 (2002)Google Scholar (criticizing U.S. unilateralism with respect to religious human rights).

85. Hertzke, supra n. 1, at 68-69.

86. Id. at 6.

87. In Hertzke's 2004 book, he details a fourth “headline”: “Missionaries expose North Korean abuses, champion refugees.” Id. at 39.

88. See infra Part V. An interesting unpublished Ph.D. dissertation came to my attention quite late in the process; it also addresses some of these issues and others pertaining to evangelicals and human rights. See Stumpf, Amy Rachel Timmons, A Study of the Relationship Between American Evangelicals and Human Rights (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Loma Linda U., 12 2007)Google Scholar.

89. One theological difficulty not detailed in the text below had substantial traction as evangelical leaders tried to gain support for religious human rights around the world. As Hertzke documents, many evangelicals believed (and many continue to believe) that persecution of Christians is not necessarily a bad thing, for it builds stronger faith and helps the church to grow in difficult situations. While I would posit that this theological problem lingers in some more conservative circles, Hertzke seems to be correct that it has waned to some degree.

90. See I Pet 3:15(b) (“Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you.”).

91. World Relief, What We Do, http://www.wr.org/whatwedo (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

92. Church of Christ Disaster Relief Effort, Inc., Statement of Purpose, http://disasterrelief.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=36953 (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

93. Rheenan, Gailyn Van, Missions: Biblical Foundations & Contemporary Strategies 42 (Zondervan 1996)Google Scholar.

94. There are some quite (though too often isolated) expositions of some of these positions in evangelical writing. But such writings have not pervaded the overall theology of the evangelical churches to the extent they might have in other Christian denominations.

95. Sider, Ronald J., The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience 64 (Baker Books 2005)Google Scholar. Sider carries out this concept by describing that “there is so much more to a biblical understanding of salvation. Christ not only forgives us, he also changes us.” Id. This “change” leads to a process of sanctification—both of the believer's own life and of the larger world as the believer lives out his or her faith in that world. Id. at 62, 64-65.

96. Children's answers about questions often yield great insights into their own faith, and (not infrequently) into the theology of those who have been teaching them. I find that I am always challenged and encouraged by teaching children and have done so in several different churches, of varying sizes, in various regions of the United States.

97. Omitted from the text above is yet another, alternate narrative that might lead to a more robust understanding of human rights—that of salvation as a pattern of God's intervention on behalf of humans, freeing them from bondage and providing for their needs at hard times. That narrative cycle is repeated over and over in the Old Testament.

98. Cf. Stackhouse, Max L. & Roberts, Raymond R., The Mainline Protestant Tradition in the Twentieth Century: Positive Lessons and Cautionary Tales, in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy 77 (Sider, Ronald J. & Knippers, Diane eds., Baker Books 2005)Google Scholar; Kristen E. Heyer, Insights from Catholic Social Ethics and Political Participation, in id. at 101.

99. Gen 1:27 (“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”).

100. National Association of Evangelicals, For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility (2004) § 5Google Scholar, reprinted in Gushee, David P., The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center at App. 1 (Baylor U. Press 2008)Google Scholar.

101. An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in An Age of Terror (2007) §2.4, reprinted in id. at App. 3.

102. See Stott, John, Issues Facing Christians Today 197–200 (4th ed., Zondervan 2006)Google Scholar.

103. See e.g. Sider, Ronald J., Justice, Human Rights, and Government in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy 163, 167 (Sider, Ronald J. & Knippers, Diane eds., Baker Books 2005)Google Scholar.

104. See Gushee, supra n. 100.

105. Cf. Introduction, in Toward an Evangelical Public Policy 9 (Sider, Ronald J. & Knippers, Diane eds., Baker Books 2005)Google Scholar, (“Evangelicals do not have the kind of sustained, theologically grounded reflections on social and political issues that shapes some other Christian traditions.”).

106. There is some evidence that this might be changing with the younger generation of evangelicals and within the “emerging church” movement. See e.g. ‘Heroic Conservatism’: A Conversation with Author Michael Gerson, http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=160 (accessed Feb. 23, 2009) (describing how many young evangelicals describe Bono as their model for social engagement); Dan Cox, Pew Forum: Young White Evangelicals: Less Republican, Still Conservative, http://pewforum.org/docs/?DoclD=250 (accessed Feb. 23, 2009) McLaren, Brian, A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan 2004)Google Scholar.

107. See e.g. Perry, supra n. 59; Does Human Rights Need God? (Bucar, Elizabeth M. & Barnett, Barbra eds., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publg. Co. 2005)Google Scholar; Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives (Witte, John Jr. & der Vyver, Johan D. Van eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1996)Google Scholar; Traer, supra n. 37.

108. See e.g. Pope John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963__pacemen.html (accessed Feb. 23, 2009) (“[Human] nature … is endowed with intelligence and free will. As such [each human] has rights and duties, which together flow as a direct consequence from his nature. These rights and duties are universal and inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable.”); The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/_hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html (accessed Feb. 23, 2009); and Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html (accessed Feb. 23, 2009), among others. As Charles Villa-Vicencio points out, post Vatican II theology has provided a hearty “Christocentric focus” that has contributed mightily to human rights thinking well beyond the bounds of the Catholic Church. See Villa-Vicencio, supra n. 61, at 592-593 (quoting Pope John Paul II: “Thanks to the Gospel, the Church possesses the truth about the human being. It is found in an anthropology that the Church never ceases to explore more deeply and to share.”).

109. See Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission (Colson, Charles & Neuhaus, Richard John eds., Word Publg. 1995)Google Scholar. See also Noll, Mark A. & Nystrom, Carolyn, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Baker Academic 2005)Google Scholar.

110. There are also a strong strain of thinking by mainline Protestants, expressed through documents of the World Council of Churches, that details commitments to human rights. See Villa-Vicencio, supra n. 61, at 591-592 (citing WCC sources).

111. Cf. Cochran, supra n. 30, at 100-104 (discussing differing approaches within evangelicalism for civic engagement).

112. See Marshall, Christopher D., Crowned with Glory & Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition 109 (Lime Grove House 2002)Google Scholar. See also id. at 107 (quoting Jurgen Moltman: “Human rights mirror the right of the coming God and the future of humanity.”).

113. Id. at 110.

114. As discussed in the following section, another way to describe this phenomenon historically is to look to the “other-worldly” qualities of dispensationalism. Historically, this also engendered a certain distrust for governmental structures, especially inter-governmental structures. While this seems to be waning (at least in America as it regards the Left Behind series ideas) in recent times, it remains worthy of serious discussion. Cf. Tomlin, Gregory, Analyst: Evangelicals ‘Here to Stay’ in Foreign Policy, Baptist Press (09 12, 2006) (available at http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=23959)Google Scholar (drawing a distinction between fundamentalists, who are more likely to withdraw from the world and from political engagement, and evangelicals).

115. One possible characterization of evangelicals' involvement in human rights might be precisely the opposite, interestingly. Evangelicals seem to be more involved in human rights activism than they are generally given credit for, but they lack a well-developed theory of human rights. That contrasts to the human rights movement, which often is thought to have a fairly robust theory of human rights, but falls short (at least institutionally) on implementing those rights.

116. Loconte, supra n. 70. See also Bridges, Erich, Worldview: Thugs run Caesar's realm, not God's (Baptist Press, 09 13, 2007) (available at http://www.bpnews/net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=26428)Google Scholar (joining in decrying the “hug a thug” mentality expressed by Loconte).

117. See Smolin, David M., Church, State, and International Human Rights: A Theological Appraisal, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1515, 1535 (1998)Google Scholar. See also Smolin, David M., Will International Human Rights Be Used as a Tool of Cultural Genocide? The Interaction of Human Rights Norms, Religion, Culture and Gender, 12 J.L. & Religion 143 (1995–1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118. Cf. Sider, supra n. 95, at 62-69 (emphasizing the underdevelopment of sanctification in evangelical theology).

119. Cf. Perry, Michael J., Christianity and Human Rights, in Christianity and Law: An Introduction 237, 247 (Witte, John Jr. & Alexander, Frank S. eds., Cambridge U. Press 2008)Google Scholar (“Whatever one thinks about the propriety or utility of moral-rights-talk, legal-rights-talk is undeniably proper and useful.”).

120. See Smolin, Church, State, and International Human Rights, supra n. 117, at 1534.

121. See e.g. Kidder, Tracy, Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, the Man Who Would Cure the World (Random House 2003)Google Scholar (describing an approach to health care in Haiti that began with private provision of medical services rather than governmental provision and protection of “rights”). But even this example illustrates another possible point of departure for evangelicals, for there is often reluctance to call access to health care a “human right” in the sense that civil and political rights are human rights. See Loconte, supra n. 70, (“When human rights are confused with social or economic goals, human dignity is debased—and basic rights become more politically tenuous.”).

122. See Gushee, supra n. 17, at 9-10 (describing the weakness of evangelicals' ecclesiology).

123. Cf. Guthrie, Stan, The Evangelical Scandal, Christianity Today 70–73 (04 2005)Google Scholar (interviewing Ron Sider, who agreed that “a good chunk of the blame” for weak theology about salvation is attributable to “American individualism”).

124. See e.g. For the Health of the Nation, supra n. 100, at § 5 (decrying the “creation” of rights to ‘“same sex marriage’ and ‘the right to die’”).

125. It should also be mentioned again at this point that evangelicals are often not welcomed by the mainstream human rights movement precisely because of their theological beliefs. Thus, obstacles to cooperation are not completely one-sided.

126. About Us, https://www.ijm.org (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

127. Gushee, supra n. 100, at 320.

128. Supra n. 126.

129. Id.

130. Who We Are, http://www.ijm.org/whoweare (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

131. Gushee, supra n. 100, at 104.

132. Hertzke, supra n. 1, at 319.

133. Id.

134. See Who We Are, http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=49 (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

135. Along with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture and the Minnesota-based Center for Victims of Torture; Lobe, Jim, Anti-Torture Campaign Wins Influential Backers, Inter Press Service (06 25, 2008), http://ipsnews.net/wap/news.asp?idnews=42971 (accessed Jan. 23, 2009)Google Scholar.

136. Id.

137. See http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=106 (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

138. For example, Daniel Heimbach of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary denounced the Declaration for being “18 pages of posturing” that fail to sufficiently identify the boundaries of torture and “exactly where right turns to wrong.” Roach, Erin, Ethicist: NAE Torture Declaration ‘Irrational’, Baptist Press (03 15, 2007) (available at http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=25190)Google Scholar. Heimbach instead supported government application of coercive force within just war boundaries. Id. See also Pavlischek, Keith, Human Rights and Justice in an Age of Terror: An Evangelical Critique of An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture, Christianity Today (09 2007) (available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/features/webexclusives/ept24a.html)Google Scholar. Cf. Land, Richard, First Person: Why I am not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto, Baptist Press (05 13, 2008) (available at http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=28047)Google Scholar.

139. Among its stated goals are “[t]o strengthen evangelical understanding of and commitment to a biblical understanding of human rights,” “[t]o articulate a compelling biblical case for a zero-tolerance stance on torture,” “[t]o gain evangelical support for the concrete policy measures necessary to prevent the employment of torture,” and “[t]o build and strengthen alliances with other religious and secular human rights organizations in order to advance the cause of human rights more effectively.” Mission Statement: Goals of Evangelicals for Human Rights, http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=48 (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

140. Skeel, supra n. 26, at 1518-1525 (discussing the unlikely combination of influence by Bono, Bob Geldof, Senator Jesse Helms, and others in promoting debt relief).

141. See e.g. Dr. Rick Warren Convenes Government, Business, NGO and Public Health Leaders to Purpose to Work Together to Fight HIV/AIDS; Pastor Warren and Senators Brownback and Obama Publicly Test Negative for HIV in Global Summit on AIDS and the Church, PR Newswire (New York, 12 4, 2006)Google Scholar.

142. See e.g. Gerson, Michael, An AIDS Victory Up Close, Wash. Post A15 (07 30, 2008)Google Scholar (describing the “legislative and moral victory” of the reauthorization and expansion of President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and also the President's Malaria Initiative).

143. President Bush's personal evangelical faith commitment makes a study of the human rights achievements (and failures) of his Administration an interesting case study. Such a case study would largely support the themes of this paper (a high level of support and attention for religious human rights, a willingness to allow faith-based groups to participate in human rights funding on an equal basis, a focus on a few issue-specific human rights cases like AIDS, and a general unwillingness to cooperate on broad scales with many major non-governmental organization). It must be stated, however, that because of the complexities of politics and so many other value judgments embedded in the Bush Administration's actions, such a case study highlighting religion or theology alone would certainly be too simplistic, at best.

144. In fact, the opinion details that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is reasonably construed to exempt World Vision from a religious nondiscrimination provision in the applicable statute. See Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/worldvision.pdf (accessed Jan. 19, 2009).

145. See sources in Savage, Charlie, Bush Aides Say Religious Hiring Doesn't Bar Aid, N.Y. Times (10 17, 2008)Google Scholar.

146. See e.g. http://www.usaid.gov/zm/hiv/hiv.htm (accessed Feb. 23, 2009) (describing AIDS relief from USAID in partnership with World Vision, Salvation Army, Catholic Relief Services, and others); http://www.worldconcern.org/aboutus/wcdo/index.htm (accessed Feb. 23, 2009) (describing World Concern Development Organization and its work with USAID).

147. See http://usa.viva.org/casa-viva.htm (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

148. See http://www.compassion.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009); http://www.worldvision.org (accessed Feb. 28, 2009); http://www.wr.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009); http://www.worldconcern.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009); http://www.fh.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

149. See http://www.ijm.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009); http://www.wv.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009); http://www.viva.org (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).

150. See e.g. http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jul08/Art_Jul08_02.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2009) (describing Rick Warren's PEACE effort—“aimed at [combating] the ‘global giants’ of spiritual emptiness, lack of servant leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic diseases, and illiteracy”).

151. See http://law.pepperdine.edu/clinical/human_rights.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2009).