Trey Dimsdale’s post at the Acton Institute, “Why Christianity Is Necessary for Liberty”, caught my attention. That in turn was a reaction to an article that took the contrary view.
I have problems with both of those articles but I would like to introduce a little of Marx’s thought into the conversation: the notion of inalienable rights is part of the superstructure of Christianity.
Among my objections to the articles is something I’ve written about here in the past—the notion that we in the West, the United States in particular, are the heirs to Rome and Greece. The irony of that claim appears to be completely lost on those who claim it. The Russians think the same thing. Considering Moscow as the “Third Rome” goes back to the 15th century. IMO the only way one could believe such a thing would be to be an individual, as Ben Jonson one said, with little Latin and less Greek. We owe rather little to Roman law and Greek philosophy and a lot more to Italian humanism. Anti-Papist as the Founding Fathers were they couldn’t say that so Greece and Rome it is! Practically everything of either Roman law or Greek philosophy that has been preserved was filtered through the pen of a Christian scribe. If you really wanted to know what life in ancient Greece or Rome were like I suggest you turn to traditional Arab culture which I suspect is a pretty fair representation of classical antiquity.
Will we be able to maintain quaint ideas like morality and inalienable rights in this post-Christian age? I have no idea but there are plenty of signs they are being abandoned.
I think we still have the principles. These are no longer rooted in Christianity but have become part of the broader culture. But culture always changes, so the idea that they will stay with us forever is fanciful. Christianity changed substantially over time, and Greece and Rome are gone – we should not delude ourselves into thinking we’ve arrived at the final form of human civilization or that the future is destined for continual improvement.
Throughout most of the history of Christianity democracy and liberty did not exist. Did the writers during the Great Enlightenment develop due to Christianity, despite its existence or was it unrelated? Even once the concepts of liberty and democracy took hold they were pretty deeply flawed and it has taken a lot of refinement. Did Christianity help or hinder that refining process?
I think its pretty hard to show Christianity as causal. From my mildly interested POV it looks more to me like a nation’s avoiding an official state religion and/or de-emphasizing the state church if they had one seems more associated with democracy and liberty.
Steve
Yes. The progression was from Italian humanism to the French Enlightenment to the British Enlightenment to early America.
So the question is why did those happen when they did after Christianity had been around for a millennia? My first thought was that it was related to the spread of protestantism but then I thought of the Italian and French movements.
Steve
“So the question is why did those happen when they did after Christianity had been around for a millennia?”
A related question is why it didn’t happen anywhere else?
Christian ideas are part of the story here, but a lot else was also going on. And I think the “brand” of Christianity also mattered. These ideas did not form in Eastern Orthodox, particularly Russia, because the church there was a subject of the state, and other reforms were stymied by the Mongol occupation.
Christianity was struggling to survive for a millennium—from 600 AD right until the Ottoman Empire was halted in the late part of the 17th century.
Observations to think about.
If mass literacy is a necessary condition for liberty; what was the role of distinctive protestant belief “sola scriptura”. That scripture is the sole inerrant source of doctrine, and the corollary that literacy should be encouraged throughout society? Can literacy as understood be maintained from technological advancements?
Or another distinctive doctrine; the “priesthood of all believers”. The consequence that laity and clergy had equal rights and responsibilities of course influenced believers in the secular world. Can those beliefs be maintained without believers or without an appeal to faith?
The real progression maybe (at least the American branch)
Italian humanism -> Protestant revolution (English and German) -> Enlightenment -> early America
There is the “British” branch which is similar, though less influenced by German protestantism. There is the “French” branch which was a reaction against Catholicism….
From somewhere, Aleister Crowley, smiles.