Sunday, January 11, 2009

Becoming western culture

Interesting to see Don Cupitt's typically shrewd observation that Christianity has gradually evolved beyond its 'church' form, to become modern western culture.

He sees this in "the way that the modern world expects Christian standards of the West. People in the poor countries expect the West to feel rather guilty about being so rich, and to acknowledge a duty to 'redistribute' its surplus wealth. They expect the West to acknowledge the sinfulness of colonialism and the slave trade, . . to go on about individual human rights, about democracy and the rule of law. In short, the rest of the world has a great range of moral expectations of the West and tries hard to exploit them. But the poor countries don't have the same expectations of other religions or culture-areas. Nobody expects the Turks to apologize to the Armenians, or the Egyptian Arabs to the Copts, the Indians to dwell on the evils of the Maghul Empire, or the Zanzibaris to demand repentance and reparations for centuries of slave-trading in dhows down the East African coast."

"The world assumes (rightly, it seems) that Christian values do still greatly influence Western behaviour. Many commentators assume that Christianity is a dying faith whereas Islam is very much alive. Because other faiths and cultures show absolutely no inclination to be self-critical in public, they can confidently assert their own moral superiority and the West's relative decadence. But are rich oil sheiks apologizing to black East Africa for slavery, and offering aid without strings? Seemingly not, despite the fact that Almsgiving (Zakat) is one of the Five Pillars of Islam."

His conclusion? That "Christianity is doing better in its afterlife as 'Western culture' than ever it did as a religion."

3 comments:

James said...

I wasn't familiar with Don Cupitt's writing before this, but I'm not impressed with the quality of what you quote here.

I've never heard anyone from a "poor country" suggest that the West should feel guilty about being wealthy. However, many in and out of the West do suggest, with some reason, that we might feel a bit uneasy about where our wealth comes from.

I was particularly surprised, though, at this line:

Nobody expects the Turks to apologize to the Armenians ... or the Zanzibaris to demand repentance and reparations for centuries of slave-trading in dhows down the East African coast.

Of course, expectations that the Turks apologize to the Armenians for the genocide of World War I have been a major part of Turkey's relations with the rest of the world in the last few years. Many prominent Turks, in fact, have taken it upon themselves to apologize.

As for Africans apologizing for their role in the slave trade, I don't know about Tanzania (which includes the historic territory of Zanzibar), but several of the nations whose societies participated so heavily in the transatlantic slave trade have already volunteered apologies for their roles.

In fact, I've been to West Africa, and those societies are generally quite open about their complicity in the slave trade, and quite willing to apologize for their participation.

It isn't merely the matter of expectations, either. I find it strange, as well, that Cupitt complains that he hasn't actually heard of any "rich oil sheiks apologizing to black East Africa for slavery," when most majority-Christian nations have not offered apologies for their roles in the transatlantic slave trade, either. I agree that there's a double-standard operating here, but it isn't the one that Cupitt claims he sees.

goodfornowt said...

On the Armenian genocide, it is my understanding that a major obstacle for wider recognition of the genocide in the world is the position of Turkey, which denies that genocide or even massacres ever took place and insists any deaths were a side-effect of the World War I casualties.
But Cupitt's argument goes beyond this and other particular cases he cites. He is making the point that Christianity, though not the Church, is alive and well and living in the conscience of the western democracies.

James said...

it is my understanding that a major obstacle for wider recognition of the genocide in the world is the position of Turkey

That's my understanding as well.

The point is that it's wrong to say that "nobody expects the Turks to apologize," since there have been strong demands for just such an apology for many years.

He is making the point that Christianity, though not the Church, is alive and well and living in the conscience of the western democracies.

This, of course, I don't doubt for a minute. Christianity continues to play a vital role in some Western democracies, and a diminished, but still notable, role in the others.

I was merely responding to his mistaken argument that there is a double standard with regard to apologies from the West and the rest of the world.