Robert Traer

The editorial in the Winter 1991 issue of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies calls for the development of a "Universal Declaration of Global Ethos." The call appears under the names of Leonard Swidler and Hans Küng, is signed by many other well-known scholars, and urges that a global dialogue be initiated at once to build a consensus on the basic principles needed to face the enormous problems of our time.

Specifically, every major religion and ethical group and scholarly institution is urged to formulate a position on this question. Inter-religious, ethical scholarly working groups are to be formed, and a permanent Global Ethos Research Center is to be established. It is envisioned that all formulations would be circulated for revision and dialogue, that finally that a consensus would be adopted, and that this declaration would be recognized as a standard in the same way that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been.

It is difficult to challenge such an authoritative and assertive call to research and dialogue, however I am convinced that this is not the best way to proceed. I share all the concerns of the authors and signers, but question the proposed project for the following reasons.

Three Concerns

First, the call to develop a "Universal Declaration of Global Ethos" is so obviously self-serving that one must at least ask whether this is the best use of our time and resources. Dialogue by experts, working groups, research centers, institutional support for all those committed to this quest, this is the bread and butter of those of us who are scholars and religious leaders. But in a time that the authors of the editorial suggest is "beyond the borders of sanity," because war and religious hatred abounds, is this our best response? Are there no sacrifices that we, as scholars and religious leaders, might have to make? Are we not, with all our words and knowledge about our world, part of the problem, too? Should we not approach the great ethical and spiritual questions of our time with more humility?

Second, although the editorial speaks of dialogue, scholarship and building a consensus, the quest for a global statement is a political struggle to control the terms in which convictions and commitments are expressed. There is no neutral language. Key terms are somebody's terms, more evocative within one or more traditions than in others, and thus more advantageous for some than for others. The call to draft a Universal Declaration of Global Ethos ignores these issues. How will the minority voices be heard in this consensus-building process? How will those who assert orthodox positions be received?

Anyone who has participated in statement writing at a conference knows how coercive and alienating the process may be. Some views carry more weight because their proponents are persistent or powerful. Those who have distinctive views are pressured, for the good of the project, to accommodate themselves to the majority view. Language that is more concretely tied to a particular faith tradition is politely endured, for by its very nature it is a stumbling block to consensus. Language which is original, with images and metaphors that ring and inspire, is lost in the crafting of sentences which incorporate different views in a way that is sufficiently vague to be acceptable to all.

Of course, these problems can in principle be resolved by good leadership, open procedures and a great deal of time. Yet, if we are honest, we know that there will not be time enough and the process will be dominated by those who control the agenda and the resources. Those who are already established in the field of inter-religious dialogue will have the most to say about the outcome. Those who are new will be well received, if they contribute to the shaping of a consensus. Those who believe the crucial concerns of our world are better addressed within a specific faith tradition, rather than within the discourse of dialogue and pluralism, will not find themselves welcome.

Third, at a time when we are awash in statements of global principles, we must ask what the conclusion of this project would contribute. A more authoritative position? Why would this be so? Because of the renown of its participants? Because of their diverse cultural and religious traditions? Because they represent religious institutions with sizable memberships?

Specifically, what would such a declaration add to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is mentioned as a model in the editorial? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely recognized today not only as the foundation of international human rights law, but as an ethical statement expressing the convictions of peoples around the globe. Its Western bias, which is reflected in the limited number of nations represented in the United Nations in 1948 and in its language and emphasis upon individual civil and political rights, has been largely redressed through the formulation of economic, social, and cultural human rights by an increasingly diverse United Nations. One might even say that the International Bill of Human Rights, a phrase which refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, does set forth the global ethos of our time, is a consensus document that expresses the ethical standards of our world.

Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been supported by religious leaders around the world from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. I have documented this fact in a book entitled Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious Traditions for a Global Struggle (Georgetown University Press, 1991). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become a consensus document not because of inter-religious and scholarly conferences, but because religious leaders and scholars have decided that it translates into a contemporary language at least some of the fundamental convictions of their particular cultural and religious traditions.

The authors and signers of the call to a "Universal Declaration of Global Ethos" suggest that they would like something with the authority of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but covering a larger area of ethical concern, which would represent the religious and ethical consensus of the world in a way parallel to the political consensus of the world achieved through the United Nations. Certainly it would be wonderful to have such a document. But is their suggestion for a global scholarly project the best way to try to produce it?

An Alternative

I have argued that the appeal of the present project is too narrow, that the process envisaged is too political, and that we do not need an additional global statement concerning the issues already cover by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have urged that we approach the great ethical issues of our time with greater humility, being attentive to the minority voices which often are not heard, and sensitive to other compelling claims for the use of available resources. I have even suggested that we consider what sacrifice we might make, as scholars and religious leaders, in our effort to contribute to the healing of our religiously divided communities.

What might this mean in practical terms? I would suggest three projects, or really kinds of activities, which I believe take these concerns into account, and also address at least some of the issues set forth in the editorial.

First, I believe it would be enormously helpful if scholars and religious leaders wrote commentaries on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the perspective of their own faith traditions. Such commentaries would strengthen the arguments for human rights within each religious tradition, and would clarify where perhaps further reform is needed. Such commentaries would provide useful material for educational programs, and would stimulate comparative work.

I am aware of commentaries such as this in the Jewish and Islamic traditions, but not in the Christian or in the other major traditions of the world.** Such commentaries would build on the consensus that has already developed with respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but would also identify differences and would do justice to each religious tradition. Commentaries might be written from minority perspectives, as well as from within the mainstream of a tradition. Finally, this kind of scholarly work does not require new institutional initiatives or international conferences, and thus would be relatively inexpensive.

This proposal is based on the assumption that the most powerful ethical arguments are those which are framed in the language and logic of one's own tradition. We do not need another universal consensus statement on human dignity, for we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What we do need is further interpretation of the human rights, which have been formulated to protect human dignity, within the various cultures and religious traditions of the world.

Second, I propose that individuals and groups be invited to draft an Earth Charter to address the ecological issues, which admittedly are not covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the UN Earth Summit in June 1992, religious groups and other concerned non-governmental organizations were unable to persuade the world's political leaders to adopt a brief document setting forth the fundamental ethical principles for the care of the earth and its peoples. A variety of draft documents, some of them the result of inter-religious conferences, have already been written. Why not invite all those who are interested to send their draft documents to the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, which would publish a selection of those received and solicit comments from readers?*** To make this manageable, I suggest some guidelines. Perhaps a limit of 1000 words, with no more than thirty points, a deadline for submission, and a commitment to share the comments of readers with the writers whose drafts are published. Writers would be given an opportunity to make revisions, based on the comments received. Perhaps two or three of the most favored drafts would then be reprinted in their revised versions.

This process treats the drafting of a statement more like an artistic creation, rather than as the result of political compromise. It is inexpensive, it utilizes existing systems of communication to broaden the participation of those who might be interested, it allows for minority voices to be raised and heard. Even as the powerful Vietnam War memorial came from an unknown artist, perhaps this open invitation will stir some person now unknown to us to write about our problems and our prospects in a way that will inspire us and move us to action.

Third, I urge other scholars and religious leaders to take the time to engage themselves in some local effort for inter-religious understanding that involves not just scholars and religious leaders, but lay people as well. We all need a context for our work that is close to home, that reminds us of the concerns of mothers and fathers, of teachers in the local schools, and of ministers or rabbis or priests or imams who are trying to help their people get through each day without losing their sense of wonder and hope.

There is a Confucian saying that if you want peace in the world, seek peace in your own community. If you want peace in your own community, seek peace in your family. And if you want peace in your family, seek peace within yourself. Of course, few of us are Confucians, but we can at least identify with the bumper sticker: "Think globally, act locally." The world community, if there is to be one, will be a community of communities. All those who are caring for local communities, or for faith communities or national communities, have as much to contribute as those of us who are working on global issues.

Finally, what about making some sacrifice? There's a hint of sacrifice in the three suggestions I have made. In the first suggestion, we are invited to tackle a less visionary task than the one proposed by the editorial in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies. It is less glamorous to write a commentary than to create a global perspective. I believe, however, that the work is more promising. In the second suggestion, I have implied that we might well attend fewer conferences, travel less, and create a way to open our conversation to new voices. These modest changes might give more credibility to what we say.

In the third suggestion, I have invited us to listen more to those who are not scholars and religious leaders, to take the time to hear the concerns of those close to home, to take upon ourselves some of the troubles of our neighbors where we may have an opportunity to help. To do this might well lead to a major sacrifice, not only because it may take time and resources away from our work, but because it may lead us to revise some of the ideas that we hold dear.

16 August 1992

* In 1993 a Declaration Towards a Global Ethic was prepared by Hans Küng for the Parliament of the World's Religions held that year in Chicago. I was present at this Parliament and signed the declaration. My supportive but critical analysis of "the global ethic" is spelled out in Chapter 15 of my book, Quest for Truth: Critical Reflections on Interfaith Cooperation (1999).** Since this was written, I am aware of at least one Christian commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was prepared by the Reverend Robert F. Smylie, entitled Life in All Its Fullness: The Word of God and Human Rights (New York: American Bible Society, 1992).