THE SACRAMENTAL LIFE -
BALANCING RIGHTS AND DUTIES
The Rev. Harold Shepherd, CD, M.A., S.T.M., LL.B., LL.M.,
Ph.D.
For I do not want you to be ignorant
of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were
all under the cloud and that they all passed through the
sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in
the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the
same spiritual drink; for they drank fro the spiritual rock
that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their
bodies were scattered over the desert.” I Corinthians
10:1-5
In writing to the Corinthians, Paul was responding to
problems that had been reported to him. Some were engaging
in immoral conduct or were participating in religious
feasts dedicated to Greek gods. In response to the
criticism of these practices, the people relied on the
assurance that they had been made right with God by his
grace that had been appropriated by faith. In addition,
they participated in the sacramental life of the Church on
a regular basis. Through fellowship with Christ and
forgiveness of sin, what did it matter if they wanted to
retain much of the same lifestyle that they had before
converting to Christianity. In responding to this problem
in the Corinthian Church, Paul made reference to Israel in
the Sinai Desert under Moses. When the people were hungry,
God supplied manna. When they were thirsty, God told Moses
to strike the rock at Horeb out of which water would flow.
Paul interprets this in light of the Eucharist. The manna
represents the bread and the water represents the wine. In
both cases, God provided bread and drink through Christ. In
addition, he interprets the crossing of the Red Sea as
symbolic of baptism. The point that Paul was making is that
Israel benefited from baptism and Holy Communion, but that
this did not spare them from death in the desert. Although
a sacramental people, their rebellion against God had
consequences. In this way, Paul contrasts two
characteristics of the people of God- one sacramental and
the other moral. The first represents privileges that
attach to group membership, and the second on obligations
of those that are members. Rights cannot properly exist
without responsibilities. This is what the Corinthians did
not understand.
Political traditions around the world have long wrestled
with the need to balance rights with responsibilities. One
criticism of Western culture is that we put too much
emphasis of individual rights and not enough on duties owed
to others. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
of the United Nations’ General Assembly contains
both. In addition to basic individual freedoms from
unjustified state coercion, there are also positive rights
to education, adequate health care, employment, a minimum
standard of living, and the like. When an international
convention was being developed by the UN Human Rights
Commission , agreement could not be reached on how to
balance individual rights with group rights. Western
countries wanted to restrict the convention to individual
rights, whereas the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact
countries wanted the emphasis to be on social rights.
Eventually, a compromise was found when two separate
conventions were developed- the International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both were open for
signature in 1966 and came into force in 1976. Whereas
individual civil and politics rights are protected by the
Human Rights Committee with an individual complaint
procedure, economic, social and cultural rights are treated
differently. These rights are not binding in the way civil
and political rights are. State parties to the convention
undertake to make best efforts to progressively put them
into practice. Country reports are considered by a
committee, but individual complaints are not permitted.
This type of debate can also be seen other human rights
instruments. Western-based human rights treaties and
legislation focuses attention on individual rights and
freedoms to act without state intervention. African and
Latin American systems, however, consider this to be too
narrow. For example, the African Human Rights
‘Convention balances individual rights with
“peoples” (i.e. collective) rights. The same is
true of the American Human Rights Convention of the
Organization of American States. The Western political
traditions that focus attention on individual rights
developed in response to European feudalism and the
absolute rule of monarchs. Political philosophers like John
Locke and Rousseau taught that all human beings are created
equal with innate and inalienable rights. The legitimate
exercise of political control must have the consent of the
governed. By adopting the concept of the “Rule of
Law,” the English common law tradition emphasized the
point that individual liberties could only be constrained
by legislation from a freely elected Parliament that is
accountable to the governed. Socialism, on the other hand,
considered that individual freedoms that protect the
interests of those with money and influence are inadequate-
the more important values are social equality, universal
health care, the right of every person to employment, and
other social rights that justify central state control at
the expense of individual rights. For Paul, Christians
cannot enjoy individual privileges of the Kingdom of God
and assert personal freedom to act outside of the context
of responsibility to promote the best interests of all.
Rights cannot be divorced from responsibilities.