Human Rights are the validity condition for Christian faith-sentences

If we cannot understand a sentence, this sentence does not make sense. Within the grammar of language understandability is the validity condition for a sentence to make sense. The sense of the sentences determines the logical analysis of the sentence. Sentences that speak of faith, beliefs and religious convictions make sense if we can understand what they say (See my Post “Wittgenstein on religious belief”).

The logical analysis of sentences investigates the truth-values of what the sentences show, of what they say is the case. A two-valued logic is a method for determining the truth-values “true” or “false” of sentences. The two-valued logic is the logic for analyzing the sentences of empirical science. Philosophical or theological sentences do not fit the scheme of a two-valued logic, and a two-valued logic does not make sense for belief sentences, sentences expressing faith or world views. From the 1930ies onward, Wittgenstein develops the logic of language games of ordinary language for analyzing what sentences say and show. Language games permit one to deal with theological sentences and religions. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be able to demonstrate the coherence of faith-sentences. Believers must be able to engage in a philosophical discussion concerning the use and logical coherence of faith-sentences that make sense.

Vladimir Richter compares the logical structure of sentences in theology with the logical structure of sentences in mathematics, for which we do not have at our disposal a method for deciding the truth-value true or the truth-value false (Richter, Vladimir. 1964. “Logik und Geheimnis.” In Philosophische Grundfragen, theologische Grundfragen, biblische Themen. Vol. 1 of Gott in Welt: Festgabe für Karl Rahner 1, edited by Johannes Baptist Metz, Walter Kern, Adolf Darlapp and Herbert Vorgrimler. 188–207. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Richter interpreted the discussion of the tertium non datur - that is the classical philosophical principle that there are only two truth values and not three -, that was initiated by the intuitionist logic of Brouwer (See my Post “Sentences, sense, and logical truth”).

In Richter’s interpretation the rules of the language game that analyse the truth of sentences leave room for a third truth-possibility in the dialogue. Beside the two truth-possibilities of the affirmation “yes” and the negation “no” there is the third truth-possibility “I do not know”, following a concept of negation that accepts the possibility that no decision is possible and therefore turns to the negation of the refutation and the negation of the affirmation of the sentence in question as a third truth-possibility (Richter 1964: 206). It was very interesting for me to discover that Richter opened a way for assessing the logical legitimacy of faith-sentences.

If theology does not have at its disposal a method for deciding whether its belief sentences are true or false, the theologians must accept a third truth-value, namely the truth-value “I do not know,” that is I cannot empirically decide whether something is the case or not. From the use of this third truth-value follows the necessity to be able to demonstrate one’s awareness of the difference between deciding with a two-valued logic of true and false and the assessment of logical coherence with the help of the truth value “I do not know”. Refutation of the exclusivity of the truth-value true and the truth-value false calls for refutation of the positive demonstrability of claims to the truth-value true for problems that we cannot empirically decide. It is a good and necessary exercise for assessing logical coherence and thereby demonstrate intellectual credibility, to affirm that many concepts used by theologians are not language games with empirical concepts of positive science, but concepts of language games concerning beliefs and belief-sentences.

Faith-sentences do not describe persons and things; they do not say who Go’d is, they say what we think about Go’d. I use the sign “Go’d”, because we can say only what we mean but we cannot say who Go’d is. What we mean when we speak about Go’d and salvation, we must take from our belief system. The belief-system of Christians grounds in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, in whom Christians believe as their Lord. The New Testament, that is the four Gospels, the Letters, Acts and Apocalypse, give testimony to the belief-system of Christians. It took until 1966 CE that the Roman Catholic Church finally affirmed at the end of her reform effort of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1966) that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are testimonies of faith and not claims about empirical historical facts. The first chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum concentrates on Jesus Christ, who is Go’d’s revelation to us (Paul VI. 1965. “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum.” The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/), (See my Post “Commenting the text of Dei Verbum”). With Dei Verbum the Second Vatican Council sets the record straight that the talk about Go’d and salvation for mankind must be analyzed as a belief-system and not as talk about empirical facts of history. Dei Verbum avoids speaking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a fact of history, resurrection is a concept of faith. Dei Verbum Article 11 admits errors concerning the historic truth in the Sacred Scripture. The inspiration of the whole Sacred Scripture does not exclude these errors of history, it is up to the empirical sciences of archelogy, history, literature, etc., to identify errors of history and to confirm historical facts in the Bible.

Go’d’s economy of salvation - that is what Christians hope and expect from Go’d - is described within the history of mankind, where faith is a fact of free social choices to be believed or not believed, and to realize these choices. Go’d is invisible for Christians, just as for every woman, man and queer. Christians believe in Jesus Christ as Go’d’s revelation. Women, men and queer who do not know this revelation nevertheless have access to perceiving Go’d, as the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1,20: “Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been perceived by the mind’s understanding of created things” (Number 6 of Dei Verbum).

The second chapter of Dei Verbum Spoke of individual inspiration and not of a collective inspiration of the authors of the Scripture and stood by the claim that the Bible’s sentences constitute empirically true states of affairs concerning matters of faith and everyday life (Number 11 of Dei Verbum). We have to look at the individual author to see what they say. Luke speaks in the whole Gospel about his belief system. From the beginning to the end, Luke speaks from the point of view of his belief system that is his faith that Jesus lived, died at the cross, was risen by Go’d and “carried up to heaven” (Luke 24, 53). The historical fact of the life and death of Jesus is up for historical investigation. Resurrection is a concept of faith. The Gospels do not reconstruct the biography of Jesus. The authors of the Gospels give testimony to their religious belief and worldview. According to Luke the Gospel of Luke is a series of belief-sentences or faith-sentences expressing Luke’s faith that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the crucified and resurrected Son of man. The perspective of Luke is clear from the beginning, he gives “an ordered account” so that Theophilus may become a believer (Luke 1, 1–4). Luke writes as a Christian believer, he writes from the Christian faith perspective, or faith worldview. He is a testimony to that faith; he confesses Jesus Christ. We cannot say that the narrative of Luke is a series of speech-acts between Luke and Theophilus because we do not know about the reaction of Theophilus to his reading, studying and meditating Luke’s Gospel. For Luke we may suppose that the general condition of free speech was given to write his Gospel. Practically, freedom for an individual speech-act of at least two persons is necessary to realize the dignity of the performing persons. We do not know much about the social situation of Theophilus concerning his liberty of speech.

Luke at least presupposes that Theophilus is free to make up his mind about the Gospel. Luke wishes in Luke 1, 4 that Theophilus recognizes with certainty Jesus as the Christ, as the Messiah, the crucified and resurrected Son of man. The institutional situation that helps the social realization of dignity in speech-acts seemed to be given for Luke and Theophilus, but there is no speech-act documented that was performed by Luke and Theophilus. Apparently, Theophilus did not believe in Jesus Christ and was not confessing the crucified and resurrected Messiah. Luke wants him to “recognize with certainty” just as the disciples of Emmaus in Luke 24, 31 “recognized” Jesus. Luke uses the same verb for what he wants Theophilus to do and for what the disciples of Emmaus did. They “came to know” Jesus Christ as the one who was risen, they “had learned or found out”, they “acknowledged, understood and perceived” the crucified and dead as resurrected. In Acts Luke will continue confessing his faith and will speak of the suffering Christ that is the Messiah (Acts 26, 23).

To confirm the validity of a faith claim, the person confessing her, or his faith has to validate her or his faith-sentences in speech-acts under the general condition of language. Ideally, we have the condition of free speech for an individual speech-act of at least two persons to assure the realization of the dignity of the performing persons. The beginning of a step in the triad of the discourse theory is a speech-act and the result of a step again is a speech-act. Concerning my faith-sentences, I am not able to present an investigation into a discourse on the validity of my claims. A discourse needs at least two persons, a speaker, and a listener. I had been listening to the Gospel but there is no other listening person to give me feed-back on my thoughts and enter discussion to complete a speech-act. Nevertheless, I present my validity condition for discussion in discourse the legitimacy of my faith sentences. Human Rights are my validity condition for faith sentences and worldviews. The Gospel of Luke inspires to what we learned to call 2000 years after Jesus Christ Human Rights.

I studied and study, I meditate and pray the Gospel of Luke and confess Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the anointed of Go’d with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3, 22), the Son of man who lived, was crucified by men, and died at the cross and was risen to heaven by Go’d. I am claiming my faith by expressing faith-sentences and confession-sentences. By meditating and praying Luke’s faith narrative with the eyes of faith and openness of the heart, I hope receiving empowerment for my life, and the strength for social interaction. Looking at the narrative of Jesus withstanding the attraction of worldly power and presenting himself as a believer confessing, “You must do homage to the Lord your God, him alone you must serve” (Luke 4, 5–8), empowers my worldview and inspires my policies. The narration of the words and deeds of Jesus, of his teaching and having authority, of his resilience to challenges and of his maintaining his authority, his serving his words, his healings and powerful forgiving, nurtures my studies, meditation and prayer. Jesus Christ, who serves the Passover meal, who serves and teaches to serve (Luke 22, 27), who heals and exercises the power of healing (Luke 4, 39) and who forgives sins (Luke 5, 20–26) serves as hope for realizing my life. My faith in Jesus Christ procures a constant source of encouragement to try again and again after having fallen short again and again of realizing dignity and love. It is up for my reader to judge if I had presented my faith-claims with clarity and understandability. It is clear, I am not able to document a discourse according to discourse theory concerning my faith-sentences. Nevertheless, I spell out the steps of discourse theory for faith sentences.

A first step of discourse theory consists in the process of getting clarity about what is claimed by the sentence or sentences of a speaker A. The listening person B in this speech-act agrees in a second step with person A to a series of further speech-acts that try to explicate the claim to validity that A has brought forward. A and B must make sure that the claim to validity is clear. I am not able to present the speech-acts that would explicate and make clear my faith-claims. I can prepare for such a discourse with contemporary women, men and queer. Presenting my faith-sentences according to the criteria of understandability of ordinary language within the social institution of language was a first step in preparing for the discourse of my faith-claims with women, men and queer. I hope that the discourse will start with the publication of this text. Discourse theory spells out the rules for argumentation in the constitutional setting of language and culture. Discourse theory is a suggestion to deal with each other in language based on freedom, respect, tolerance, and the constitution of rational arguments.

To assess the understanding of arguments and the dignity of the persons who realize speech-acts, we must spell out the rules for argumentation in the constitutional setting of language and contemporary culture. The second step in the triad of discourse theory consists in describing the validity condition for my faith-claims of my faith-sentences. I want to demonstrate in discussion that my confession-sentences and the sentences describing my worldview are bringing forward valid claims. In a third step, the discourse must demonstrate that the validity condition for the claim is realized. I must show in a discourse that the claim of validity is met, that the validity condition is realized. Again, I must limit myself to the preparation of the discourse. Nevertheless, I must describe the validity condition for my belief and faith claims. The validity condition of the faith-claims of my faith-sentences consists in the claim that there are no privileged sentences, that the discourse partners are respected, that their dignity is realized in the discourse and not violated by restricting the freedom or liberty of a discourse participant. The faith-claims of my faith-sentences must get validated by the assessment of the realization of the equal rights of all persons, the freedom and liberty of speech and prohibition of any discrimination of arguments or persons. If the claims in the discourse respect and realize the equal dignity, liberty, freedom, and rights of the discourse partners the validity condition of the claims is met and the discourse partners may rightfully claim that the claims are assessed as valid.

In his faith narrative, Luke describes Jesus Christ as a person who does not discriminate other persons. Jesus was addressing his message of deeds and words to the whole people, not to some exclusive group of women and men. Luke repeatedly insists in his faith narrative that Jesus was coming for all. Already in the beginning of his Gospel he insists that the “angel of the Lord” announces to shepherds out in the fields a “joy to be shared by the whole people” saying: “Do not be afraid. Look, I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2, 10-11). A choir of angels praising Go’d for Jesus Christ who brings peace to earth (Luke 2, 13-14) follows the announcement of the birth of the baby Jesus (Luke 2, 12). Luke describes the scope of Jesus’ message at his entry into Jerusalem at the end of his life (Luke 19, 28–40) with the pictures of the prophet Zechariah (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. 27-38. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag), who characterizes the royal savior riding on a colt as the one who will proclaim peace to the nations (Zechariah 9, 9-10). Repeatedly Luke makes the enemies of Jesus assess that the people were listening and approving of Jesus. In contrast, the chief priests and the scribes “were looking for some way of doing away with” Jesus, “because they were afraid of the people” (Luke 22, 2). Already earlier they had wanted to kill Jesus but since “the whole people hung on his words” they “could not find a way to carry this out” (Luke 19, 48). The people are on the side of Jesus until Luke 23, 13, where they turn to the side of the enemies of Jesus, when Pilate summons them together with their leaders and chief priests before Jesus. Watching the crucifixion of Jesus, the people turn again to the side of Jesus (Luke 24, 48).

For Luke it is of great importance to assess the innocence of Jesus according to the Law of the Jews and according to Roman Law. Luke narrates Jesus’ trial according to the stages of a Roman process (Bovon 2009, 367). The accusers bring the accused before the judge and accuse, the judge interrogates the accused, the accused answers, the judge proclaims his verdict (ibid.). Luke lists three accusations: Jesus was inciting the people to revolt against the Romans, he opposed payment of the tribute to Caesar and claimed, “to be Christ, a king” (Luke 23, 2). Pilate’s verdict of innocence rapidly follows the short response of Jesus affirming that he is “the king of the Jews” (Luke 23, 3). In Luke 23, 4, it is the first of three times that Pilate acquits Jesus from a crime. In Luke 23, 14, Pilate declares Jesus innocent again. In Luke 23, 15, Luke assesses with Pilate that Herod had not found Jesus guilty of the accusations and in Luke 23, 20 and in 23, 22 Luke makes Pilate confirm again that Jesus is innocent and that he “desires to set Jesus free” (Luke 23, 20).

Already on his way to the cross, Jesus was no longer left alone by the people, “large numbers of people followed him” and “women” (Luke 23, 27). Again, Jesus addresses the whole people of Israel, the expressions “daughters of Jerusalem” (Luke 23, 28) and “daughter Sion” describe in the biblical tradition the collective of the people of Israel and the inhabitants of Jerusalem or the whole of Jerusalem (Bovon 2009, 455).

Luke insists that the Gospel concerns all people and nations by making a Roman pagan centurion the first testimony under the cross (ibid. 492): “When the centurion saw what had taken place, he gave praise to God and said, ‘Truly, this was an upright man’” (Luke 23, 47). Luke does not hesitate to describe the centurion praising God. The Roman pagan officer confirms the exceptional human quality of this man who died at the cross as “an upright man” (ibid.). Why does the centurion praise Go’d? I think Bovon is right supposing that the centurion does not have the juridical innocence of Jesus in mind (ibid. 493). It is in the line of Luke’s theology throughout his Gospel to interpret the centurion’s confession that Jesus “was an upright man” with the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah as the righteous suffering, as the suffering servant of Go’d and the Prince of Peace. The predicate “righteous” (in Greek: dikaiós) in the Hebrew Bible affirms the fact being party in Go’d’s covenant with his people and includes the predication of “innocent” (ibid.). Justice is the covenant of Go’d with Her people. The Hebrew term for this kind of justice is zedakah.

At the institution of the Eucharist the disciples asked who is greatest and Jesus tells them “Yet here am I among you as one who serves” (Luke 22, 27). At his arrest, Jesus refuses to fight with arms for his freedom and heals “the man’s ear” that was cut off by one of his disciples (Luke 22, 51). In the moment of Peter’s denial of knowing Jesus, Jesus turns towards Peter to relate again (Luke 22, 61); in Luke 23, 28, Jesus turns to the “daughters of Jerusalem”, the good thief crucified with Jesus confirms “this man has done nothing wrong” and Jesus answers him announcing he will find peace in paradise (Luke 23, 41-43) (ibid. 493). Suddenly, the people who watched the crucifixion are decisively on the side of Jesus again. Luke speaks of the “crowds” “beating their breasts” that is a sign of awareness of guilt and repentance and active atonement (Luke 24, 48) (ibid. 494).

At the end of his Gospel, Luke makes Jesus Christ resurrected give the last instructions to his apostles: “… in his name, repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be preached to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24, 47). The message of Jesus Christ is for the whole world without any discrimination. Luke wants to make his readers believe in Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Go’d for women, men and queer on this earth, as the queen of Sheba believed in the wisdom of Solomon and praised Yahweh for Her love, giving Israel a king who administers law and justice.

Jesus Christ again is a king who administers law and justice and again there is the connection with the Day of Judgement and Go’d’s love and mercy. Just as the queen of Sheba has no difficulty relating to Solomon, and as Jonah finally relates to the people of Nineveh, the Samaritan relates to the wounded and robbed man, and Luke shows that Jesus, too, had succeeded in relating to the lawyer (Luke 10, 29–37). The lawyer had been asking Jesus for eternal life, “Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10, 25). Luke makes Jesus join the justice function of the Law with life, just as the Rabbis claim that Go’d does not forget his creation and will do mercy in the final judgement and bring peace and justice for all times.

Luke expresses his belief of the cosmic dimension of the death of Jesus, of the end of the significance of the Temple in Jerusalem for his belief system and narrates the dying of Jesus Christ as a man, who lays his faith, hope, and love at the cross into the hands of the Father praying Psalm 31, 5. Psalm 31 is the prayer of a believer in deep distress and terrifying danger, who confesses his confidence and certainty about being rescued by Go’d’s saving justice and faithful love, about overcoming grief and overwhelming anxiety: “It was about the sixth hour and the sun’s light failed, so that darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. The veil of the Sanctuary was torn right down the middle. Jesus cried out in a loud voice saying, ‘Father into your hands I commit my spirit.’ With these words he breathed his last” (Luke 23, 44–46). As in the whole Gospel, Luke speaks in Luke 23, 44–46 from the point of view of his belief system that is his faith that Jesus lived, died at the cross, was risen by Go’d and “carried up to heaven” (Luke 24, 53).

The third step of the triad in discourse theory consists in the discussion that the validity condition of the claim has been realized. This discussion concerns the scope of the validity condition but also the investigation whether the claim effectively realizes the condition of validity.

The claim of validity of a claim equals the proof that the validity condition for the claim is realized. This discussion will involve many speech-acts. The compliance of the claim with the condition to validity is used as a regulative principle. The validity condition of my faith-sentences and of the faith-sentences of the Christian faith is the realization of the Human Right of the equal dignity, liberty, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer. Discourse must show that the claim to validity is realized. It is clear again that I am not able to present that discourse of speech-acts that is demanded in this third step of the triad in discourse theory.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is generally agreed to be “the foundation of international human rights law” (“Universal Declaration,” United Nations, www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/index.html). The UDHR proclaims the individual to be subject of international law and every individual, not only single states, was invited and empowered to make claims of human dignity (Leher 2018, 18). The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 reads:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world… Now, therefore, the General Assembly, proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction”. 

Equal dignity, liberty and rights of all women, men and queer, that is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, are the business of every individual on earth. Without peace there is no justice, no dignity, and no freedom. The claims to peace and justice by Christians do not contradict the claims to peace and justice by the UDHR. On the contrary, Jesus claims in the tradition of the prophets that the individual believer takes responsibility for peace and justice. Right in the middle of Luke’s Gospel we find the encouragement of Jesus telling the people that they are empowered to stand upright and work for peace and justice. Luke makes Jesus challenge the women, men and queer of the crowds who are listening “Why not judge yourselves what is upright?” (Luke 12, 57). Jesus Christ empowers his believers to claim their equal dignity, liberty, freedom, and rights. For Jews and Christians, it is clear, that in the end justice is a predicate of Go’d, justice is a faith term. Belief in a faith term does not impede working for justice and peace in the juridical sense of democratic constitutions and the UDHR. On the contrary, just as the UDHR demands from every individual to be a subject of the agency for peace and justice, the Christian faith demands concrete realizations and consequences of this faith in the world.

“Upright” is a concept of belief, a biblical concept and not a juridical concept of a modern democratic constitution or the rule of Human Rights law. The term “upright” is a central faith term in the Bible. In Romans 1,17 Paul claims on behalf of the Gospel: “for in it is revealed the saving justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: Anyone who is upright through faith will live” (The New Jerusalem Bible). “Anyone who is upright through faith will live” is a citation from Habakkuk 2:4. The Hebrew Bible uses the concept of “upright” as does the New Testament. Once again, we see that Abraham is the biblical father of all believers in Go’d.

Luke writes on Paul’s testimony of his conversion claiming that the Go’d of Abraham wanted Paul to see and hear “the Upright One” (Acts 22,14) as the New Jerusalem Bible translates the Greek words ton dikaion. For the Hebrew Bible it is clear and central that Go’d is the Upright One. Nobody has seen Go’d. For the Christians the “Upright”, the “Just One” or the “Righteous One” is Jesus Christ the Lord as we learn from Acts 22, 17-21. Luke makes confess the Roman centurion Jesus Christ as an upright man. “When the centurion saw what had taken place, he gave praise to God and said, ‘Truly, this was an upright man’.” (Luke 23, 47).