Between Word and Spirit: A Methodological Consideration of Human Rights Genealogies

In English Public Theology , Joan O’Donovan retrieves a robust account of the public foundation undergirding the English Reformation's rich scriptural tradition. From this vantage point, O’Donovan unfurls both a sweeping diagnosis and a scathing critique of the modern liberal natural rights tradition. However, what remains unclear is to what extent O’Donovan's historical narration succeeds, especially in contrast to alternative historical accounts that trace a central role for inherent human rights within the broader Christian scriptural tradition. This article poses two questions. First, how should these competing histories be evaluated? Second, must a theological account of rights solely rest upon scriptural grounds? I argue that theological interpretations of human rights history need not capitulate to rational or historical reductions, or even a certain Christological reduction wherein the value of rights-talk is made to hinge on either its secular or scriptural genealogy. This article begins with a methodological consideration of O’Donovan's ‘Christological’ interpretation of church tradition. Then, as a counterexample, I will examine Wolterstorff's intentionally ‘loose’ coordination between his philosophical and scriptural grounds for inherent rights. Lastly, I will suggest that Hans Joas’s affirmative genealogy of human rights provides a helpful methodological supplement to Wolterstorff's scriptural reasoning.