Christianity's influence on Western civilisation

[mr friendly guy]

Ok I hear a lot of letters saying Christianity was responsible for making the West what it is today.

this opinion piece for example about government planning to scrap scripture classes says

No serious historian – regardless of whether or not they are religious — doubts the formative influence of Christianity, its ethics and values on the legal, cultural and political development of Western civilisation. Indeed it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that sets the way we live apart from the way other cultures live.

The second sentence is meaningless since it doesn't specify what differences between the west and the other culture he is comparing to. If for example a hypothetical culture could have the same ethics values eg homophobic, supporting woman's rights etc without being Christian the statement would be still correct. However its so vacuous to be meaningless.

Now the first sentence's statement about cultural influence is true, because any religious influence would be counted in the cultural influence. However there a lots of cultural developments, say sports for example which are not dependent on Christianity. In any event if the guy was really interested in people learning Christianity's cultural influence on the west it would be better served in history classes, and not indoctrination scripture classes.

However I am curious about what effect Christianity has on legal, ethics / values and political development of Western civilisation. Both what Christians commonly claim (presumably they make a more substantial claim than this vague statment I quoted above) and what influence in these spheres can be documented.

In terms of legal I would have thought its rubbish, since the ten commandments aren't exactly prescribed in law. Moreover several things which would be considered sins aren't exactly illegal.

Values? I hear people usually count democracy and treatment of women as differentiating the West from say Islamic nations. Sorry but these values didn't come from Christianity.

Religious tolerance. Secularism. Again didn't come from Christianity.

Political development? Presumably they are talking about our political democratic systems, which I am pretty sure didn't come from Christianity. In fact IIRC with the formation of Italy the Vatican lost much of its powers being reduce to the tiny sovereign state it is now, which the Church did not take it lying down. The point being that here is an example of a Christian faction opposing political change. So if they are going to claim it contributed to political development up to now, they can only say it had an opposing rather than contributory affect.

So at the end of the day, I am trying to see which of these aspects of Western civilisation aside from the obvious cultural (which be definition any powerful enough religious force would contribute to it) did Christianity contribute to?

Note I am not discounting that Christians did contribute, but whether you can argue they did it because of their religion is another matter. One way to tell would be to compare what they believed with how consistent it matched Christian scripture. So in a sense Jefferson Davis was more consistent with the Bible when he tried to justify the South's endorsing slavery with Bible quotes compared to the Christians such as Quakers who opposed it (presumably also on religious grounds).

[Darth Wong]

Ok I hear a lot of letters saying Christianity was responsible for making the West what it is today.
this opinion piece for example about government planning to scrap scripture classes says

No serious historian – regardless of whether or not they are religious — doubts the formative influence of Christianity, its ethics and values on the legal, cultural and political development of Western civilisation. Indeed it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that sets the way we live apart from the way other cultures live.

No serious historian - regardless of whether they support warfare - doubts the formative influence of warfare, its conduct, ethics, and values on the legal, cultural, and political development of Western civilization.

That statement is just as valid as the one they made. It helps put the argument in perspective; it is quite possible for something to cast a huge shadow over the development of a culture without necessarily proving that it is a good thing, or that this culture should employ it as a guiding principle. You could do the same thing with the word "slavery".

The second sentence is meaningless since it doesn't specify what differences between the west and the other culture he is comparing to.

It also implies that the west is necessarily superior: an inherently egocentric assumption.

If for example a hypothetical culture could have the same ethics values eg homophobic, supporting woman's rights etc without being Christian the statement would be still correct. However its so vacuous to be meaningless.

Now the first sentence's statement about cultural influence is true, because any religious influence would be counted in the cultural influence. However there a lots of cultural developments, say sports for example which are not dependent on Christianity. In any event if the guy was really interested in people learning Christianity's cultural influence on the west it would be better served in history classes, and not indoctrination scripture classes.

More importantly, there are lots of other influences on western culture. Warfare has been a huge driver of cultural development as well, as were greed, slavery, monarchism, and lawyers. To say that something must be good because it contributed to the historical development of western civilization is to make a completely unjustifiable leap in logic.

However I am curious about what effect Christianity has on legal, ethics / values and political development of Western civilisation. Both what Christians commonly claim (presumably they make a more substantial claim than this vague statment I quoted above) and what influence in these spheres can be documented.

In terms of legal I would have thought its rubbish, since the ten commandments aren't exactly prescribed in law. Moreover several things which would be considered sins aren't exactly illegal.

Values? I hear people usually count democracy and treatment of women as differentiating the West from say Islamic nations. Sorry but these values didn't come from Christianity.

Religious tolerance. Secularism. Again didn't come from Christianity.

Political development? Presumably they are talking about our political democratic systems, which I am pretty sure didn't come from Christianity. In fact IIRC with the formation of Italy the Vatican lost much of its powers being reduce to the tiny sovereign state it is now, which the Church did not take it lying down. The point being that here is an example of a Christian faction opposing political change. So if they are going to claim it contributed to political development up to now, they can only say it had an opposing rather than contributory affect.

So at the end of the day, I am trying to see which of these aspects of Western civilisation aside from the obvious cultural (which be definition any powerful enough religious force would contribute to it) did Christianity contribute to?

That's a tough question since Christians usually try to take credit for all ethics, which are built into laws, but most of the generalized ethics they refer to are common to all religions and cultures, not just Christianity.

If I try to think of ethics which are specific to Christianity, the list is a lot shorter. The idea of being "born into a state of grace" may have contributed to advocacy of lenient treatment of youthful criminal offenders. The "free will" doctrine may contribute to advocacy of lenient treatment for criminal offenders who are suffering from mental illnesses or diminished mental capacity. Some might argue that Jesus' call to give to the poor may have contributed to the development of social assistance programs, although that's a pretty weak argument since so many Christians think social assistance programs are immoral. Sexually puritanical rules about "obscene materials" and "indecent exposure" probably have a strong religious basis.

Note I am not discounting that Christians did contribute, but whether you can argue they did it because of their religion is another matter. One way to tell would be to compare what they believed with how consistent it matched Christian scripture. So in a sense Jefferson Davis was more consistent with the Bible when he tried to justify the South's endorsing slavery with Bible quotes compared to the Christians such as Quakers who opposed it (presumably also on religious grounds).

However, it's annoying to get into Bible-based arguments with Christians. There's always a counter-quote to every quote. It says a lot that Jesus spends most of his time talking about the importance of giving away your money to help the poor, yet millions of AmeriChristians have managed to convince himself of the exact opposite, and will argue till they're blue in the face that you're misinterpreting their stupid "Scripture".

[wautd]

Coincidentally, today I read an rebuttal to a similar article claiming that the French revolts, after centuries of being kept puur and dumb by their Kings and Curch respectively, helped more wih bringing civil rights to the western world than christianity ever did. I'm not sure in how far this is accurate, but I do know that things like democracy, free speech and civil rights would be far from evident in a non-secular society

[Channel72]

Well, of course modern Western civilization was influenced in no small part by Christianity. I mean, the Church held direct political and moral sway over Europe for centuries.

But what the opinion piece really wants to suggest is that the Christian ethic was a sudden, divine spark that forever changed Western civilization for the better. But of course, no "serious historian" would deny that Christianity itself was directly influenced by a combination of centuries of Hellenistic thought, Greek philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and an ancient Near Eastern mythological framework going back to the Sumerians.

All these things had a strong formative influence on Christianity, so really, it's just as valid to say that these were the major contributing factors to the development of Western civilization. As for legal development, it goes without saying that the Greeks and Romans had much more of an influence on the modern legal system than anything in the Bible. The only legal/political system described in the Bible is a theocracy ruled by an elect order of priests.

[Liberty]

The only legal/political system described in the Bible is a theocracy ruled by an elect order of priests.

This is an extremely important point. Fundies like to say that we get democracy from the Bible, capitalism from the Bible, free trade from the Bible - seriously, what the fuck? I don't know what Bible they're reading, but that sure isn't in the one I've read.

[Channel72]

This is an extremely important point. Fundies like to say that we get democracy from the Bible, capitalism from the Bible, free trade from the Bible - seriously, what the fuck? I don't know what Bible they're reading, but that sure isn't in the one I've read.

The Bible consists of 66 different documents stemming from various different time periods, so not only does it often contradict itself, it makes it easy to cherry-pick verses which seem to vaguely support just about any doctrine. You want support for separation of Church and State? Matthew 22:20. You want support for capitalism? 2 Thessalonians 3:10. You want support against abortion? Jeremiah 1:5. You want support for abortion? Exodus 21:22.

Most fundies have no idea how to actually analyze an ancient historical document, let alone determine what the original authors were trying to say. They just spout whatever verses they've heard from their Pastors which seem to support whatever right-wing doctrines they hold dear.

An actual, reasoned, thorough analysis of the Bible inevitably leads to two overall conclusions regarding politics:

1) The Old Testament describes a theocracy run by an ancestral order of priests. It also includes various socialistic tenets such as the entitlement of every citizen to their own ancestral plot of land, which must be returned to them after a certain time period if it is sold.

2) The New Testament is mostly an apolitical document, however, the only vaguely political system it describes is the organization of the Church in Acts. Here again, it is outright socialist if not proto-communist. Property is held in common by all Church members, and wealth is distributed.

With this in mind, it's absolutely hilarious how fundies are convinced that the Bible includes some sort of support for capitalism. It's also one of the greatest historical ironies that large numbers of people turn to the New Testament, a book which is explicitly and chiefly concerned with eschatology, i.e. the end of the world, for guidance on how to implement a long-lasting, well functioning society.

[Kanastrous]

What I hear from a number of ConservaFundies is that all the charity, property-in-common, and other socialist-y or communist-y sounding concepts are to be implemented within the community of the faithful (not that I notice any but a few isolated instances of that happening) and that anything that to them resembles socialist or communist ideals in the form of government programs or national/state laws is anathema.

In other words, if a given fundie feels like obeying the exhortation to help the poor, the sick, the halt or lame, or participating in a church program to do so, well, that's all to the good, but any sort of organized national or state program to do it is un-Christian and reeks of communism...

[Darth Wong]

What I hear from a number of ConservaFundies is that all the charity, property-in-common, and other socialist-y or communist-y sounding concepts are to be implemented within the community of the faithful (not that I notice any but a few isolated instances of that happening) and that anything that to them resembles socialist or communist ideals in the form of government programs or national/state laws is anathema.

In other words, if a given fundie feels like obeying the exhortation to help the poor, the sick, the halt or lame, or participating in a church program to do so, well, that's all to the good, but any sort of organized national or state program to do it is un-Christian and reeks of communism...

I've tried pointing out to them that we can produce empirical data to show that government social programs are more effective at reducing poverty and suffering than church charity (universal health care is a good working example; no church charity ever came remotely close to actually providing widespread health care for the poor), so if they really love their neighbours, they should support government social programs.

I've never really had anyone bother giving an answer to that. In many cases, they just change the subject, which suggests to me that they know they have no answer.

[Samuel]

What I hear from a number of ConservaFundies is that all the charity, property-in-common, and other socialist-y or communist-y sounding concepts are to be implemented within the community of the faithful (not that I notice any but a few isolated instances of that happening) and that anything that to them resembles socialist or communist ideals in the form of government programs or national/state laws is anathema.

In other words, if a given fundie feels like obeying the exhortation to help the poor, the sick, the halt or lame, or participating in a church program to do so, well, that's all to the good, but any sort of organized national or state program to do it is un-Christian and reeks of communism...

Except they want to insert "moral values" into the government. If social change is supposed to be under the perview of the government, so should economic matters.

[Darth Wong]

What I hear from a number of ConservaFundies is that all the charity, property-in-common, and other socialist-y or communist-y sounding concepts are to be implemented within the community of the faithful (not that I notice any but a few isolated instances of that happening) and that anything that to them resembles socialist or communist ideals in the form of government programs or national/state laws is anathema.

In other words, if a given fundie feels like obeying the exhortation to help the poor, the sick, the halt or lame, or participating in a church program to do so, well, that's all to the good, but any sort of organized national or state program to do it is un-Christian and reeks of communism...

Except they want to insert "moral values" into the government. If social change is supposed to be under the perview of the government, so should economic matters.

That's an excellent point; why do they think Christian sexual morality belongs in government, but not Christian charity? I'll have to remember to bring that up the next time I'm dealing with one of those knuckle-draggers.

[Kanastrous]

Except they want to insert "moral values" into the government. If social change is supposed to be under the perview of the government, so should economic matters.

The folks I hear from are consistently dead-set against government involvement in economic matters, beyond what they perceive as the barest minimum necessary to establish a currency and enforce some basic trade and finance laws. And they certainly oppose government involvement in most anything that could be called 'social change,' in the sense that any departure from Leviticus impresses them as 'social change...'

The Christian-morality vs. Christian-charity bit is a great point. I can't wait to see how they weasel on that one.

*edit* come to think of it their position on gov't involvement in social policy basically assumes that their morality (really, their self-serving interpretation of it) is the universal baseline, so anything that leaves their preferred system of morality in place is 'good' while anything that departs from it in any way is 'social engineering' and 'upsetting the traditions of western civilization,' etc etc etc

[Surlethe]

Okay, I'm throwing this to History on Thanas' suggestion.

[Cecelia5578]

Okay, I'll throw two things out there:

1. Music. Regarding Western Christianity, the Catholic Church patronized musicians for quite a while, which helped the growth of Western music.

2. Art. Insofar as an alternate West based on...Islam, for example, would never have developed art in the sense Western Civ did, especially since Christianity had no problems with depicting human beings in artwork, and at least Western Christianity (not so much Orthodoxy) also had no problems with statues/sculptures.

As for the rest...I'll throw my lot in with those who believe that Christianity probably retarded social progress in many respects, exceptional individuals to the contrary.

[Serafina]

Okay, I'll throw two things out there:

1. Music. Regarding Western Christianity, the Catholic Church patronized musicians for quite a while, which helped the growth of Western music.

2. Art. Insofar as an alternate West based on...Islam, for example, would never have developed art in the sense Western Civ did, especially since Christianity had no problems with depicting human beings in artwork, and at least Western Christianity (not so much Orthodoxy) also had no problems with statues/sculptures.

As for the rest...I'll throw my lot in with those who believe that Christianity probably retarded social progress in many respects, exceptional individuals to the contrary.

While the church (much more than the actual religion) certainly influenced both music and art, i doubt we would have neither without it.
As far as art goes, just look at roman and greek art - which actually influenced european art a lot, too. Art and music were as much funded by rich people than by the church (depending on period, region etc.).
The Islam example is only true because that religon specifically forbids something.

Overall, i find it much more likely that the churchs influence on art and music (liturgical art and music aside, obviously) was merely due to it's great wealth as an institution and less due to it's religion.
That still makes it an significant contributor, but i do not think that western art&music wouldn't exist without the church.

[Artemas]

Indeed, in some cases the growth of music and art were retarded quite severely. The Greco-Roman style was largely lost for a millenium or more. And not to mention the destruction or censoring of many pieces, most of which can not be restored.

[Cecelia5578]

Indeed, in some cases the growth of music and art were retarded quite severely. The Greco-Roman style was largely lost for a millenium or more. And not to mention the destruction or censoring of many pieces, most of which can not be restored.

Aren't the very 6th century Christian mosaics in San Vitale in a Greco-Roman style?

Is it fair to say something was suppressed, rather than tastes and styles changed?

[Kanastrous]

Taste is taste, but when you get into stuff like the iconoclast/iconophile split it does turn into real suppression.

[Cecelia5578]

Taste is taste, but when you get into stuff like the iconoclast/iconophile split it does turn into real suppression.

Wouldn't that be (orthodox) Christianity defending the use of art, then?

Besides, from what I've read the Byzantine iconoclasts weren't quite as stringent as popular opinion makes them out: they still decorated churches, but only avoided icon veneration and human depictions.

[Spoonist]

2) The New Testament is mostly an apolitical document, however, the only vaguely political system it describes is the organization of the Church in Acts. Here again, it is outright socialist if not proto-communist. Property is held in common by all Church members, and wealth is distributed.

This, is actually one thing that it might have unintentionally spawned where it has not elsewhere around the globe. The early socialist movement got a lot of its arguments and momentum from biblical references. While all references to that has been almost wiped out after the 1920's.

Regarding art etc. Aristocracy or the unequal distribution of wealth, like industrial magnates, sponsored fine art to a much higher degree than ever the church did. Nobility of all ages has always wanted to seperate themselves from the less fortunate and a very convenient way to do that is through fine art and architecture.
(While capitalism as the pragmatical construct it is has done a lot to hurt it going more for kitsch or bling).

[Darth Wong]

Taste is taste, but when you get into stuff like the iconoclast/iconophile split it does turn into real suppression.

Wouldn't that be (orthodox) Christianity defending the use of art, then?

Only when they deemed that it suited their ideology. The line between art and propaganda is drawn at the point of controlling content for political purposes. By that token, the church completely suppressed art, even when they appeared to allow it, because the only art they allowed was that which they deemed ideologically acceptable.

[Thanas]

Taste is taste, but when you get into stuff like the iconoclast/iconophile split it does turn into real suppression.

Wouldn't that be (orthodox) Christianity defending the use of art, then?

Only when they deemed that it suited their ideology. The line between art and propaganda is drawn at the point of controlling content for political purposes. By that token, the church completely suppressed art, even when they appeared to allow it, because the only art they allowed was that which they deemed ideologically acceptable.

Completely wrong. There never was a complete suppression of art in the Byzantine Empire.

And of course Christianity was responsible for the shaping of the West as it is today. Anybody who says otherwise should just look at Milton for one example. With the possible exception of the Roman Empire, Christianity is either the cause or the deciding influence on western civilization, whether by design or by influence, or by the mere reaction to it. There is (with the exception of Roman and Greek philosophy) no other ideology in the west that had that much influence for that long.

The question gets a bit more difficult when one tries to say whether the christian church was the most important influence on western civilization. Which is very much debatable.

[Kanastrous]

Would it be fair or accurate to say that the Enlightenment was driven by a desire to resist or advance past Church teachings and strictures? I understand that some proportion of the period's intellectual movers and shakers felt that they were working within and to advance the Church; were people like Voltaire (secretly or openly) likely in the majority or minority, when it came to moving off the Church reservation?

[Thanas]

Would it be fair or accurate to say that the Enlightenment was driven by a desire to resist or advance past Church teachings and strictures? I understand that some proportion of the period's intellectual movers and shakers felt that they were working within and to advance the Church; were people like Voltaire (secretly or openly) likely in the majority or minority, when it came to moving off the Church reservation?

Of course the Enlightenment was very much anti-religion as a whole, but I find it real hard to make accurate deductions from that part when it comes to the individuals. But then again, I am not a real expert on that period, so this is only a guess based on my limited reading about that period.

The Enlightement is the period when the west starts to complete the process from separating itself from the church.

[Alphawolf55]

What I hear from a number of ConservaFundies is that all the charity, property-in-common, and other socialist-y or communist-y sounding concepts are to be implemented within the community of the faithful (not that I notice any but a few isolated instances of that happening) and that anything that to them resembles socialist or communist ideals in the form of government programs or national/state laws is anathema.

In other words, if a given fundie feels like obeying the exhortation to help the poor, the sick, the halt or lame, or participating in a church program to do so, well, that's all to the good, but any sort of organized national or state program to do it is un-Christian and reeks of communism...

I've tried pointing out to them that we can produce empirical data to show that government social programs are more effective at reducing poverty and suffering than church charity (universal health care is a good working example; no church charity ever came remotely close to actually providing widespread health care for the poor), so if they really love their neighbours, they should support government social programs.

I've never really had anyone bother giving an answer to that. In many cases, they just change the subject, which suggests to me that they know they have no answer.

I'm guessing most of these people aren't Catholics?

[Darth Wong]

I've tried pointing out to them that we can produce empirical data to show that government social programs are more effective at reducing poverty and suffering than church charity (universal health care is a good working example; no church charity ever came remotely close to actually providing widespread health care for the poor), so if they really love their neighbours, they should support government social programs.

I've never really had anyone bother giving an answer to that. In many cases, they just change the subject, which suggests to me that they know they have no answer.

I'm guessing most of these people aren't Catholics?

Correct; I don't know too many Catholics. What difference does that make?