Public Theology as Practicing Theology from Below: Looking for the Right Sense of the ‘Human’ in Human Rights

Abstract

Christian beliefs and values have played an important role in the formulation of modern human rights. However, this influence does not hide the delays and some difficulties that Christian churches have experienced in this area. A cultural evolutionary framework is proposed to make sense of this ambiguity. In this sense, Christian anthropology is presented as both an evolving body of ideas and a wisdom based on empirical experience. Such a model makes it possible to deal better with the issue of human rights, which is subject to evolutionary pressures and seeks to adapt to new challenges and contexts. Christian anthropology, after a conscious interaction with real experiences and challenges, could favour to provide insights and discernment for this development following some minimal criteria, such as avoiding harmful effects, increasing well-being, and becoming a reference for sociality and vitality.

1. Introduction: Human Rights as Theological Rights?

There is little doubt about the Christian roots and inspiration of contemporary human rights, as many studies have shown (Villa-Vicencio 2000; Wolterstorff 2011; Witte and Latterell 2015; Moyn 2015; Shah and Hertzke 2016; Hertzke and Shah 2016). What is more confusing or intriguing is why Christian churches and theology took so long to produce a similar code or a moral or legal system that could be assimilated to this programme. Several cases become quite striking on this defect or failure, such as the lack of respect for several forms of freedom, with religious freedom as the most important one,; or the difficulty to overcome slavery, or to reconcile human dignity—as man is created in the image of God—with a strong censure against human abuse. The list of missing rights, which we now take for granted, could be extended to include several neglects concerning women.

The thesis defended in this paper is that contemporary human rights are the result of a co-evolution between the Christian anthropological tradition and the modern Enlightenment mentality, a clear case of constructive entrenchment mutually correcting each other through an exercise of empirical testing and historical contrast, a form of “conjunctive thinking”—as some experts have recently proposed (Finnegan et al. 2023)—and a case of “theology from below” or building from reality and experience. Rather than a mutually exclusive programme within a secularising model, human rights have emerged from a conjunction of both sides, a joint effort, rather than a secularising move or “cultural appropriation” of Christian values, as Loewith long ago denounced (Löwith 1953). We are now counting on better theoretical models to analyse and follow this process and to overcome simple or reductive views that are unable to take into account the complexity and richness of the factors involved in most cultural evolutionary processes.

Another point to consider in this context is that human rights are an evolving programme, and as such, they are subject to time and cultural conditions that affect the way a society judges what is right and what is wrong. This process is reflected in the emergence of “new generation rights” and the many debates about which rights are justifiable as new demands arise in our social and cultural environment. It is obvious that theology can take part in these discussions, provided that it respects the rules of the conversation and that it can offer an original or interesting perspective. In this sense, theology needs to refresh its anthropology as a condition for offering the best criteria and discernment. In this sense, human rights should be seen as deeply dependent on an updated anthropology.

The main point of this proposal is the need to develop a better theological anthropology, based on concrete human experiences, needs, and capabilities, in order to provide a better basis and orientation for human rights research. Without a good sense and meaning of the human condition, it becomes difficult to develop appropriate human rights strategies. However, such development implies assuming a model of cultural and religious evolution that can be applied to this special area. Then, some historical issues need to be reviewed in light of this model. The third step in this proposal displays a theological programme that is more attuned with contemporary culture and sensibility while trying to remain critical and discerning at the same time. The ultimate issue we need to address is to what extent theology can offer a positive contribution to human rights and its discernment.

2. Cultural Evolution and Christian Theology

The topic of cultural evolution has undergone considerable development in the last decade, introducing a new framework for better understanding many processes in the history of ideas and in the configuration of values, legal systems, and even religious expressions. The Christian faith has developed over a long history, following patterns of cultural evolution that can be described in terms of its successive steps and adaptations to new social and cultural environments. Such variability may surprise those who are used to a more static and stable model of traditional religions, where there is little change over the centuries. This uneasiness will increase if we consider a consistent theological tendency which, in the twentieth century, has pointed to strategies of “resourcement”, or looking back to our origins and to the first Christian sources in order to find inspiration and to cultivate fidelity, as the main clues for renewal (Flynn and Murray 2014). In other words, for this style of theology, the only conceivable revival and progress consisted of re-enacting the origins, or in repeating as closely as possible the ideas, values, and forms characteristic of that original and normative time; subsequent expressions could be considered suspicious of deviating from the original model and therefore much less inspiring and useful for adapting to new times.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that religions—and Christianity is no exception—have evolved and changed over historical periods. The testimonies in the historical record are so numerous; the contrasts between the different periods are so obvious; the new challenges and conditions of adaptation are so pressing that to pretend that the Christian faith has not changed and is the same as it was in the time of the apostles or in the period of its formation in the first centuries means to ignore a consistent body in the history of so many ways of understanding faith and its moral application. Those who are more convinced of a model of stability and fidelity to the origins should look at the profound changes and how Christian churches and their theologies have dealt with the treatment of slaves and its moral justification, how we have adapted to reject the death penalty, how human rights become normative in these churches, the acceptance of democracy, or the role of women. The point is that even if the basic doctrines remain the same as they were when they were established around the fourth century, the practical consequences that can be drawn from them have changed greatly to adapt to new conditions and views. As an experiment, we can look at the Catholic Syllabus of Errors of 1864 and compare it with what most Catholics and theologians think today to see how much evolution we can see in just 160 years1.

The problem is not to accept this evolution as a fact, but to explain how it happens, what factors drive these changes, and what their long-term effects are. To begin, we can count on a body of multidisciplinary research that has tried to cover this evolution. It brings together different traditions and frameworks, which is worth recalling (Oviedo 2024). One starting point is evolutionary biology, which provides a standard model that governs such developments, following a dynamic of variation and selection of the fittest or more adapted, and reproduction, which gives rise to new variations; the same process happens for living beings and for cultural or religious expressions. The second framework is the cognitive, which analyses how the human mind interacts with cultural repertoires in search of better tools to navigate our own environment and find better conditions, a process that leads to a constant search and testing of more helpful cultural resources. Thirdly, the anthropological and cultural dimension has tried to better follow how cultures evolve in a progressive way, from simpler to more complex forms, improving their resources to face new challenges, even if other voices discuss a model that implies the superiority of some cultural forms over others left behind. The fourth model is suggested by a sociological tradition that has pointed out how societies evolve in a process that encompasses social structures and cultural forms, in a kind of hatchet effect, leading, for example, to the great social differentiation we know today. The fifth model draws on the history of ideas, in philosophy, to show the major developments that have marked the rise in modern views and how they have evolved from their earlier expressions, as Charles Taylor has done in a magisterial way (Taylor 2007; Bellah 2011; Knight 2020; Hemminger 2021).

The point of all this broad research and its specific approaches is to provide enough tools to allow us to better understand how and why Christian views, like many other cultural and religious expressions, have evolved over the centuries. Indeed, there has been a consistent effort to better assess evolutionary processes in religions, but there are several problems. For example, the development of early Christianity defies several patterns that should govern social and cultural evolution, and indeed such a real process points to the need to revise existing or standard models and to make room for alternative ones that could help to better explain specific cases and their own factors and dynamics. Religious forms that were apparently counter-adaptive, such as Christianity during the long period of persecution, could probably promote lifestyles that in the long run became much more adaptive than the previously existing or other available alternatives. For many people in those centuries, being a Christian meant risking one’s life and possessions, as it still does in many contexts. However, this faith offered security, hope, and values that could be seen as more appropriate than other more comfortable choices, or some people could value this source of hope more than ever existential security. Indeed, factors other than sheer survival and reproductive success are likely to guide the cultural evolution of religious forms, such as the power of their beliefs to cope with uncertainty and adversity, the capacity of their rituals to provide meaning and social connection, their profound therapeutic virtuality, in addition to their ability to align with contemporary ideas or values, or their ability to offer more reliable and promising alternatives.

The framework described could help to better frame how Christian anthropology has developed over the centuries, following these general patterns. Such a process of trying to represent the human condition has played a central role in how human rights have grown and could become universal principles. But this is probably a controversial claim: to what extent such an evolution has positively influenced the development of human rights or to what extent such a development reveals an overcoming of Christian views that are unable to assist in this emancipatory process.

3. Has Christian Faith and Tradition Played a Role in Human Rights?

This question needs to be better placed in a broader discussion of the real influence of Christian views and values in the formation of modern free and democratic societies. The issue has been debated for a couple of centuries. For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Max Weber attributed the progress recorded in the West in some areas, such as politics, economics, and science, and the lack of progress in others to the presence and influence of some Christian confessions or styles; indeed, not every Christian version could offer the same positive results. However, after Hegel, many philosophers were able to understand this influence in a limited way, as an inspiring start or ignition, but without any lasting effects in the final stages of development. From the eighteenth century onwards, various projects inspired by the Enlightenment ideals of social progress, individual autonomy, and the search for personal fulfilment were able to gradually replace traditional models (including Christian ones) and their fixed rules, giving rise to emancipatory movements that spread in all directions in the following centuries. However, it is debatable to what extent that displacement, or in the terms Taylor applies, “subtraction”, could be completed or even be realistic.

The ongoing discussion has seen several versions in recent decades. For example, the debate between Karl Loewith and Hans Blumenberg in Germany in the 1960s is quite revealing: for Loewith, modern central tenets are nothing more than a secularisation of original Christian motives, but for Blumenberg, they were a way of revolting against or contesting such earlier ideas and a way of emancipating oneself from their oppressive tutelage (Löwith 1953; Blumenberg 1966). Other, more recent, versions of this question concern the extent to which liberal ideas, democracy, and human rights are deeply rooted in the Christian faith or are a reaction to overcome these outdated and debilitating traditions. Some examples may be cited: Nick Spencer, The Evolution of the West: How Christianity has shaped our values (2016); Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (2015); Theo Hobson, God Created Humanism: The Christian Foundations of Secular Values; Tom Holland, Dominion: The making of the Western Mind (2019); Sharon James, How Christianity transformed the world (2021); J. C. D. Clark, The Enlightenment: An Idea and Its History (2024).

The general point discussed in the former works just quoted is that without the Christian dimension, the development of Western systems of guaranteed freedoms and rights would have been much more difficult; or the Christian contribution has been paramount in the development of the liberal democratic system of rights. The argument can be pursued by other means. For example, studies of the “malaise of modernity” as a consequence of deep secularisation could be cited as counter-examples to those who take an overly optimistic view of a modern secular society and system (Kołakowski 1990; Taylor 1991). Even more incisive is the criticism of the thinkers of the so-called “Frankfurt School” (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse) of the “negative dialectic” that follow modern ideals, as revealed in the atrocities of Nazism and other modern totalitarian regimes. Levinas could be added to this sharp criticism that reveals again the dark destiny of a Western culture and a social model when moving far from Christian faith and inspiration.

All these arguments add to the reflection on cultural and religious evolution in order to try to discern the direction that evolution takes and its critical turns. Indeed, the history of ideas and interactions between totalitarian regimes and Christian churches reveals a greater complexity and a deep ambiguity in this interaction. The lesson to be learnt is that we need a better theology capable of discerning and guiding these interactions, beyond political or conjunctural interests and strategies, or, worse, nationalistic emotions that have often colluded with Christian sentiments and traditions if real progress is to be sought and past mistakes are to be avoided.

To try to answer the question that leads this section, I would say that the Christian faith has played an irreplaceable role in the configuration of the modern map of human rights. But at the same time, we must acknowledge that it has not been the only factor contributing to this development, and Christian faith continues to inspire and support human rights, even if some situations in the past and present have shown some limits and doubts regarding this support, especially when other interests have mixed with these fundamental rights.

4. Christian Anthropology as an Evolved and Adaptive Cultural Form

It is important to ascertain the extent to which the development of Christian views about a human person is deeply rooted in a rather empirical, as opposed to theoretical or traditional, understanding of the human condition through constant testing and correction. Indeed, Christian anthropology has never been merely a theory or a hermeneutic exercise of canonical texts, but a view rooted in one’s own experience and in the observation of human behaviour around us. This is already evident in the development of Augustinian anthropology, a powerful example of combining an approach learned from Scripture with the experience of one’s own life and the observation of the behaviour of others. However, it is hard to determine to what extent the current debates on how to judge human nature, its sinfulness and the effects of grace, were more or less informed by inherited traditions, biases link to immediate perceptions or negative memories, or data from lived experience. In any case, the main approach in theological anthropology has been mostly built on previously held beliefs, founded on sacred texts or traditions, and sometimes in dialogue with philosophy (see significant examples of influential treaties of theological anthropology by Pannenberg 1983 and Pesch 1986).

It is difficult to assess the extent to which Scripture acted as a framework within which to frame any perception of human attitudes, or the extent to which the inspired text was developed—at many stages—as a result of lived experience, such as failures, conversions, perceptions of grace and rebirth. Many passages in the Old and New Testaments seem to have been inspired by experience rather than by direct illumination or revelation. This is evident in most of the sapiential texts and in the collections of sayings on human life, family, and social relations. A long process based on the interaction between revealed texts, traditions, and lived experience has resulted in a mature Christian anthropology, which is still in the process of formation, since the human condition and its cultural conditions are quite dynamic and adapting.

To some extent Christian anthropology has been historically configured and has matured through a process similar to other forms of cultural evolution; thus, we are still moving in an incomplete stage of that process. Indeed, we now have to deal with new data and developments in a highly contested and transdisciplinary field of views and theories about the human condition. Further complexity is added when we consider external factors that play a role in human development, such as the intrusion of intelligent technologies (Komuda et al. 2024).

The theological challenge lies in our ability to better follow and reconstruct this process in each relevant area of interaction, as well as in how theology can contribute to discerning, developing critical insights, suggesting orientations that allow for better coping with current challenges, such as dehumanising processes in several areas, such as health care or education, and designing sustainable models in threatening scenarios for humanity as a whole.

Christian anthropology has clearly been shaped by history, for example, by disputes between more optimistic and more pessimistic views, which have never been merely theoretical. If we revisit the disputes between Augustine and Pelagius, or even more so those that took place after the Reformation, between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics, or even within the Catholic sphere, between Jansenists and Jesuits, we can always see a similar pattern of an unsatisfactory or always incomplete understanding of human nature; it is a mystery that defies a precise and definitive description. My suggestion is that we look at this tortured history from a cultural evolutionary framework, in which factors such as adaptability, contrast with reality, and the search for more fitting views of human nature, according to the time and conditions, might help us better reconstruct this process and understand the later results. This can only be performed as an exercise in “theology from below”, and therefore one that takes greater account of empirical data. This point is even more pressing in any attempt to do a “theology of human rights”.

We can even try research that follows a method of “reverse engineering” in order to better assess the interactions and circumstances that could lead to many anthropological perceptions. Anthropology is never just a theory, as can be seen in the questions that could motivate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially after the abuses and disasters of the Second World War or in the elaborations of radical anthropologies that stress more the alterity dimension, as happened with Levinas, Merlau-Ponty, and Michel Henry.

The development of the second half of the twentieth century could also have an impact on Christian anthropology, since some issues have received more attention and emphasis than in earlier versions, such as the relational version of the Imago Dei or the growing interest in love, compassion, and similar expressions that go beyond a purely individualistic pattern. The question is open with regard to more recent cultural sensitivities rooted in the experiences—both negative and positive—of minorities who have been misunderstood and mistreated and who are now demanding social and cultural recognition. Theology should not ignore these issues and demands and should help to discern what rights can emerge from such demands. These developments once again invite a renewed anthropology, as well as a critical discernment, in order to better distinguish which anthropologies are more appropriate and helpful in each case.

5. A Plea for a More Empirical Theology of the Human Condition

A central part of the argument developed in this article is that we need to adopt a different approach to Christian anthropology, more inspired by empirical methods and more aware of its evolutionary condition, in order to better address the issues of human rights. Since this question—the determination and promotion of the fundamental rights to which every human being is entitled to—becomes a theological question, even in secularised societies, and is sometimes the subject of controversy, theologians who seek to enter into these debates must be well informed, and this includes not only a good knowledge of Christian revelation and the great traditions but also an acquaintance with the current factors, limits, and consequences involved in such a development and application of rights. In other words, an informed Christian anthropology that seeks to intervene in ongoing debates about which rights need to be claimed, which need to be better tested, and which raise questions or some controversy needs to complement its traditional wisdom with a set of data and analyses that can help discern these thorny issues.

The former claims need some further development and justification, relying on a convincing model of theological method capable of integrating empirical data and its elaboration. Probably the most difficult part of this process is to integrate an approach that has traditionally been top-down, based on received ancient wisdom or texts that we take to be divinely revealed, with experiences, perceptions, and data that work bottom-up, in a more inductive way. In my view, there are two ways of approaching such integration.

The first approach uses empirical research and data to better attune central tenets of Christian claims about human nature. Some examples might help to make this case. Studies of altruistic behaviour—mostly empirical and experimental—help to build a realistic understanding of the balance between selfishness—linked to original sin—and the capacity to love, adding necessary content and nuance to Christian ideas about human nature. Many studies on the positive effects of religion—in the form of prayers, sacraments, or virtues—as a coping and resilience system clearly add content to Christian views of the effects of grace. Recent research on the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion clearly assist in better conceiving human’s religious nature. The list becomes even longer when we consider the findings of empirical sciences that describe human origins and evolution, or the biological basis of human behaviour, issues that have clear implications for the way we understand and teach doctrines such as man made in the image of God and original sin.

The second approach, when trying to integrate in Christian anthropology the traditional top-down doctrines and the knowledge from below, or a “lived theology”, points to the study of the effects and consequences of current interpretations or ways of proposing these doctrines. This model clearly adopts a more pragmatic stance, in the sense of looking for the fruits or practical results of the stated principles. This is a point already made by George Lindbeck in his classic book, The Nature of Doctrine, when he asserted that “the ultimate test is performance” (Lindbeck 1984, p. 134) to determine which theological model is more accurate and appropriate. There are many ways to test the extent to which an anthropological version—such as the extent of corruption as a consequence of original sin, or the reach of grace as a transforming instance—can have better or worse effects in Christian communities or in the transmission of our faith. After all, we are all aware of Christian expressions that have failed in recent decades, others that have performed better, and others that need to be tested and corrected.

The application of these orientations to the specific field of theology and human rights can be pursued after some previous steps that can reconstruct historical processes and interactions between theological principles and their application to human rights, specifically their successes and failures; history is indeed the first empirical field for a theology able to integrate inputs from below. Next steps need to pay attention to concrete experiences, data, and analysis about which rights are really helpful and needed, as well as which are less clear and need further discernment, such as some new rights related to sexuality and gender issues. These are questions that can be much better addressed by a theology that is well informed about the current research on the positive and negative consequences of the application of such rights.

Of course, the proposed programme does not render the traditional approach obsolete or redundant, since a systematic theological anthropology will always need to draw on central doctrines based on Christian revelation and their further elaboration, sometimes through difficult struggles and long confessional disputes. The point is that we now need the addition of more empirical approaches in order to make our views of humans more credible and in line with current scientific elaboration. To neglect this contribution would be to risk not being able to correct misinterpretations and misapplications of such principles, as has happened too often in the past, and to make their proclamation less significant.

The proposed approach is quite new and finds limited echo in contemporary theology. But it is by no means an isolated endeavour, as we can attest of a line of research applying these methods (Van der Ven and Scherer-Rath 2004). However, the works of great twentieth-century theologians such as Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Küng, and Lonergan have mostly followed the traditional patterns of deductive theology based on a renewed hermeneutics of the Christian traditions and on a dialogue with influential philosophies. The case of Rahner’s theological anthropology is paradigmatic, as he developed a neo-transcendental mode based on a reflection on the conditions of possibility of human experience and the search for answers to ultimate questions, which could be connected to Christian revelation (Rahner 1969). As far as I know, this model has not been empirically tested; it clearly proceeded as a reflection, deriving insights about human nature or characteristics that could provide a clear connection with Christian faith. This model has been very influential in contemporary theology, but I find certain limitations that suggest some alternative methods, such as those that take into account a more empirically informed approach.

To address some doubts regarding the proposed programme, theological or Christian anthropology is not just an adjective, but a framework or model for building a focused knowledge of human beings that has great normative consequences. Obviously this framework is above all a set of claims about what it means for Christians to be human, created, fallen, and redeemed by grace. But it cannot be just a set of doctrines if we overlook the difficult question of their interpretation at each stage of history and in each socio-cultural context. The key issue is how to prevent, detect, and correct misinterpretations or misapplications of such doctrines, for example, in the move towards the rejection of slavery, especially after a long theological tradition based on great Christian masters that legitimised such a terrible practice. Another more recent example is what we now see as a mistaken anthropology, based mostly on fear to condemnation, the one that presided over the rigorous strictures of sexual morality in the decades after the Second World War, which should be corrected. Charles Taylor’s denunciations in this regard are very significant. The question is how we can correct interpretations of applications of these principles that have gone wrong or become clearly inappropriate, other than by empirical contrast or experience. The proposed approach is more aligned with the Catholic theology of “signs of time” (Gaudium et Spes 4, 11, 44) and the question of how can we develop a theology that is able to read and discern the signs of time without a focused attention to the empirical data and the lived experiences.

6. Human Rights, Christian Anthropology, and Empirical Research in Theology

As mentioned above, theological anthropology has never been just a theory or a hermeneutic, but a set of ideas, views, and values that have been strongly influenced by historical and contextual perceptions of human behaviour, sometimes under very difficult and testing conditions.

The current convergence between human rights and Christian anthropology is a point of arrival after centuries of maturation and many failures or negative experiences and processes that can be described in pragmatic terms of trial, error, and correction. The process could be repeated and has led to a renewed appreciation of human dignity and value, to the recognition of the sense of profound freedom, and to the contesting of alternative versions that could diminish the extent of this freedom or that were more prone to control and to limit rights. Indeed, this process is still open, and in many cases and in many cultural settings, it is far from certain that there will be respect or widespread understanding of those rights which in other societies and systems are seen as deeply dysfunctional for social stability and good governance (Villa-Vicencio 2000; Wolterstorff 2011; Witte and Latterell 2015).

Other factors that make human rights a rather open and uncertain project can be added to this process, such as the new forms of control, the new generation of expanding rights, and their connection with sustainability issues. The first is the emergence of new technologies of control and manipulation, in many cases supported by intelligent systems capable of interacting with and better handling the human conscience and intercepting its interests and weaknesses. These trends represent a clear threat to the traditional view of human rights and pose a challenge when trying to update the current code of these rights, which must now include the right to information and to resist manipulation, or to form an accurate system of beliefs and judgements. This new panorama has justified the idea of a “fourth generation” of human rights, or digital rights (Risse 2023).

The second issue concerns the new generations of human rights, which can be articulated in different ways. The standard version refers to collective rights, such as those related to development, peace, a healthy environment and self-determination. The second version refers to sexual rights, such as non-discrimination, free sexual expression, abortion, equality, and even the freedom to choose one’s own sexual expression. In this case, things are more controversial because many cultures and religious views overlap and conflict with these new charters of rights, including many Christian traditions. This is an issue that requires more reflection, study, and discernment based on data and the assessment of practical consequences (Pocar 2015; Domaradzki et al. 2019). Only studies based on data can help to clarify to what extent the recognition of some rights, such as the determination of one’s sex or gender, is healthy. Indeed, there is an important debate going on about the consequences—purely from a health point of view—of accepting early treatment for gender reassignment.

The third issue at stake is related to the first, as the right to a healthy environment includes the principle of sustainability. However, the development of sustainability programmes in recent years creates the conditions for rethinking human rights and duties and placing them in a new context with foreseeable negative effects, even in the short term. In any case, it is difficult to express human rights as unfettered freedom in a context where individual free choices can have very negative consequences for humanity and especially for those populations most exposed to climate change, rising sea levels, or extreme weather events. These rights entail duties that, at the same time, imply some limitations (McGoldrick 1996; Woods 2010).

The question that remains is what theology can do in this very complex context with regard to the developments we are witnessing. One answer is to “wait and see”, since theology can only try to better understand what is happening in order to discern what to do and how to respond to these challenges.

Certainly, the developments described are taking place at a very practical level and can hardly be related to the great Christian traditions or judged from a moral system based on Christian revelation. Theology can do more than wait and see. It can accompany and observe real processes and their effects or consequences in order to discern what can be recognised as a “human right” and thus become something normative, as well as what needs to be approached critically, after assessing the negative consequences of an updated version, for example, the right to change sex freely at any age. But again, this is an exercise in “theology from below”, or a theology that needs to adopt empirical methods in order to better understand reality and lived experience.

Such an exercise is intimately connected with the anthropology proposed and to be developed. This means that anthropology—the Christian one, of course—is open to evolution, change, and adaptation, as has happened with the inclusion of rights previously ignored in the Christian tradition (such as the change on the death penalty in Catholic moral teaching or, more recently, the tentative changes on the religious rights of homosexuals). This is perhaps the most difficult point in the proposed programme, which claims that Christian anthropology and human rights must grow together and influence each other. In this sense, few a priori ideas or claims can be assumed, and a very empirical approach inspired by a pragmatic general view is advisable.

Few guidelines can govern such interactions and processes. For example, “do no harm” or human rights should always be conceived in such a way that no one is harmed in the short or long term. Second, we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in a sense similar to the utilitarian tradition, but which can be adopted in theological terms: human rights as an instrument for improving the human condition and maximising happiness or well-being for all. Third, human rights must be conceived in a way that increases sociality, compassion, solidarity, and concern for others more than in an individual way. And fourth, a principle of vitality can be added to these criteria: human rights must be conceived as a way to promote life in all its dimensions, to revitalise populations, and to heal the wounds inflicted on life by negative events (Flood 2019). Admittedly, the application of utilitarian ideas is far from simple, especially in case of conflicting interests, as happen between minorities and the rest of a society. However, the general principle holds, provided that we are aware of these nuances, the need to respect minority rights and to negotiate between competing interests. Such an approach could raise suspicions concerning inequal rights, depending on which populations we consider. This is not the intention of a more nuanced version of the utilitarian principle, which would pay attention to distinct contexts, conditions, and needs, avoiding the introduction of discriminations.

Christian anthropology understands human nature in the tension between its greatness as a divine creation and its profound limits and failings as a consequence or symptom of sin. It moves between the greatest capacity for love and distressing selfishness, between great vitality and mortality, between virtue and vice, between enlightened knowledge and deep ignorance, and between constructive and destructive tendencies. These tensions should be taken into account in the search for broad agreements on human rights, which could become normative and the guiding principles of human behaviour and social management, and as cautious principles informing about the complexities of the human condition.

Living in a cultural milieu mediated by strong prejudices, misinformation, and manipulation by interested parties, theology must become a tool of de-biassing and a means of obtaining critical information that shapes the right set of beliefs. This task is intrinsic to any attempt to qualify human rights, since they move in a cognitive sphere of beliefs and deeply held values, with all the factors involved. The task of theology can be understood as assisting in the formation of beliefs, from a normative point of view, to educate how to believe in the right way so as to avoid causing harm. This proposal should be again deeply rooted in a realistic anthropology grounded in empirical experience and a good acquaintance with the cognitive conditions that weigh in this process. Believing the right beliefs requires a constant contrast with reality as we experience it, a corrective instance after errors have been recognised. The normative aspect of beliefs and believing justifies a theological concern regarding how we can assist in forming the right beliefs or those more helpful in guiding human rights and the derived policies (Chrisman 2022).

The proposed criteria can easily be linked to Christian principles and values, and they therefore claim a continuity in that common programme described at the beginning of this paper: human rights must be thought in conjunction with Christian faith and values for a better development. This link must be tested and verified at all times and in all cases, not only in theory but also in practice.

The present proposal is a plea against the secularisation of human rights and for an active role for theology in this interplay, in the search for more appropriate and renewed rights needed in changing and new conditions. Theology—as in other fields—can save human rights from becoming a confusing and unbalanced charter of individual interests, provided that it becomes a more “bottom-up” exercise, based on empirical observation and analysis of what is going on, what is working, and what is becoming unhelpful and even harmful to human development and flourishing. Here, we need to be aware of a “hermeneutic circle” that arises in the interaction between the theoretical representation of human rights and their application in concrete situations. The point is that in trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and to help discern new rights, we need to take into account the experiences and outcomes of current practices and regulations and to incorporate methods more attentive to the lived experiences (Swinton and Mowatt 2006). This means observing “from a Christian point of view” what is helpful and what is harmful in this practice; what rights enable effective flourishing, personally and socially; and what hinders human growth and well-being; this can only be assessed in an empirical way.

This is a new theological programme that needs further elaboration, justification, and even testing. The central question of how to render “Christian” an approach that could give normative character to empirical data is very pressing, since this perspective could denaturalise the Christian faith, which cannot depend on contingent data and human interests. However, the many errors we have noted in the past counsel a greater commitment to the empirical level in order to avoid the errors of an overly idealistic attitude. “Empirical” is understood here as a corrective, as a way of assessing the validity or suitability of theological interpretations and as a way of giving more content to some central tenets of Christian anthropology. For example, when we claim that “Christ saves us”, we can draw on a body of recent research on “religious coping” that testifies to such a positive effect of Christian faith.

The tasks described are part of a programme that takes on the character of a “public theology”, or a theology that engages with current issues of general interest and takes a critical stance in the public sphere to help discern what is better for us all. Christian anthropology becomes a criterion and a framework to better discern the direction and consequences of many cultural trends and developments that affect our meaning and purpose as human beings. But such an engagement is by no means one-sided, or one in which theology offers tutelage and guidance to a broad cultural and social environment, but one of active interaction, in which theology itself learns and grows, as it has done in the past, to better appreciate what contributes to human and global sustainability and resilience.