Has Western society abandoned Christian values?

[Barney]

The main stream culture has rejected Christianity and with it the ethical underpinnings.

This claim has come up in a number of places - this is only one example.

It's not actually true. I don't agree with everything in the attached PDF (which is not long, don't worry), but it is sufficient to give you the general idea.

Basically, everything in the modern Western world is Christian in its origins. Human rights, gay rights, transgender rights, capitalistic values, conservative sexual ethics, Black Lives Matter, modern science, environmentalism - all these have their roots in principles that were unknown before Christianity exploded onto the scene. Let's survey them:

• Human rights are based on the principle that a human being has value simply by being human. This is not self-evident and nobody believed it in the ancient world. It is no coincidence that the idea of human rights arose in a Christianized West.
• Gay rights and transgender rights are based on the principle of freedom and equality for all, the end of oppression and discrimination. Freedom is a fundamentally Christian idea. It is Christian not to oppress people or discriminate against them. It is Christian to respect people's autonomy and ability to live according to their own moral values, not to force them to live according to your moral values.
• Capitalism is based on the principle of getting what you deserve as an individual, and of "thou shalt not steal." Both of these are Christian in origin, showing a wisdom embedded in the Old Testament that individuals punish and reward themselves by their own actions, and do not need external punishment and reward. Also the principle that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions, rather than the actions of his/her parents.
• Conservative sexual ethics are based on Christian values of monogamy and the idea that the purpose of sex is not pleasure but children and the strengthening of the marital bond.
• BLM is based on the Christian principle that all human beings are equally valuable regardless of their race, and that discriminating against people based on their race is morally wrong.
• Modern science is based on the principle that there is intelligible order to the Universe. See Pope Benedict's beautiful response to this child in the section beginning "I am Giovanni, I am 17 years old."
• Environmentalism is based on the principle that the world is given to us to steward with wisdom and care, not to abuse as trash. See the current Pope's call for all people to care for the planet and not destroy it through greed.

No matter where you look, you find Christian principles underlying the argument. The problem is not that the West has abandoned Christian principles. The problem is subtler than that. It is that people have divided up Jesus' seamless garment (John 19:23) - they have taken one Christian value and abandoned all the other Christian values, so there is no longer a healthy tension or balance between the values. They now war with one another, each one claiming for itself the priority at the expense of the others.

The answer is not to "return" to Christian values that we never left. The answer is to regain the balance by holding to all the values at once. It is difficult - it is light tightrope walking in that you're always in danger of going too far one way. And everyone hates you for it, because you're not prioritising the value they care about most.

[Ondrej]

This claim has come up in a number of places - this is only one example.

It's not actually true. I don't agree with everything in the attached PDF (which is not long, don't worry), but it is sufficient to give you the general idea.

The main stream culture, that which you see represented in news, TV, movies, etc. does not profess to be Christian, or extol values because they are Christian values. While many Christian values are accepted, they are accepted because they are already part of the culture. Christianity as such is portrayed as being backward, ignorant, and foolish.
Without Christian thought there is no reason why everyone should be treated equally. If you reject Christianity but accept the idea that everyone should be treated equally you have removed the underpinnings of that belief. The belief may persevere for some time but on careful examination it is not at all obvious that everyone should be treated equally (under the law).

Basically, everything in the modern Western world is Christian in its origins. Human rights, gay rights, transgender rights, capitalistic values, conservative sexual ethics, Black Lives Matter, modern science, environmentalism - all these have their roots in principles that were unknown before Christianity exploded onto the scene. Let's survey them:

I think this is a bit of an overstatement with use of the word “everything” but I mostly agree with the sentiment. Many of the principles around which the western world is built are principles of Christianity. This means that many of the societal norms and values are Christian in origin even if the people who hold those values are ignorant of that fact.

The world around us is built one judgment at a time as each person makes their decisions. That we live in a world where Christian principles are central speaks to decisions made in the past where the judgments were subject to the “examination” so to speak of Christian morality. In a culture where adherence to Biblical teachings was paramount there is a certain trust you can offer your fellow man where even if your judgments might be different you still both submit to the same higher authority. You disagree on the specifics but can genuinely trust that the goal of adhering as much as possible to Biblical teachings is shared. This is no longer the case. We may currently largely agree on some of the specifics because we are a part of the same culture but the view that we ought to adhere to Biblical teachings by virtue of the fact that they bear the authority of God is gone. As a consequence, the billions of judgments being evaluated daily are no longer subjected to the examination of Christian morality. I think it is sort of willful, optimistic blindness to suggest that a culture actively acting to suppress Christianity will nonetheless exhibit blossoming Christian principles. Watts alludes to this at the end of his essay “The incredible freedom and unimaginable agency offered by the gospel only brings life when we humans reflect the character of unique Yahweh, who created this entire cosmos. Since that character is most fully expressed in Jesus, the continued flourishing of modernity depends utterly on our imitating him. In such a case, never has Jesus been more relevant. This of course raises several more and searching questions: how well do we who own his name understand his gospel, and even more importantly, ourselves reflect his character?”

In summary, the “now” we are living in reflects past values so we observe the distinctly Christian fingerprint everywhere. The future our children will inhabit will reflect the principles we adhere to now. So taking a single snapshot and pointing at evidence of Christian values is slightly misleading.

Human rights are based on the principle that a human being has value simply by being human. This is not self-evident and nobody believed it in the ancient world. It is no coincidence that the idea of human rights arose in a Christianized West.

Agreed

Gay rights and transgender rights are based on the principle of freedom and equality for all, the end of oppression and discrimination. Freedom is a fundamentally Christian idea. It is Christian not to oppress people or discriminate against them. It is Christian to respect people's autonomy and ability to live according to their own moral values, not to force them to live according to your moral values.

In one sense I agree. We should not have different laws for gay or transgender people but my understanding is that we don’t. So it’s not clear to me what exactly we are talking about. I think often what is meant by “rights” is that all lifestyles should be equally facilitated and celebrated. This is not at all a Christian principle.

Regarding discrimination, we should clearly specify what we mean. The base meaning of the term is to tell the difference between things, which we obviously do all the time. The purpose of this is to act based upon a more finely grained approach to life. The type of discrimination Christianity teaches us to avoid is a mistaken discrimination, that is, taking a person’s race or status as though that is representative of the person themselves. This undermines proper discrimination as you are abandoning the fine grained approach and embracing the broad characterizations that could be significantly in error. Christians are called to be as shrewd as snakes, not to judge by appearances but with right judgment (i.e. accurate John 7:24). The current cultural mantra is that one should not judge at all but this is also not Christian. One should judge accurately. And I think it is accurate to say that homosexuality and transgenderism should not be praised and extolled but discouraged. Defining marriage to be between a man and a woman and insisting that men cannot become women is seen as an affront to lgbt which is in some sense true but to construe this as a removal of rights from people is inaccurate.

Capitalism is based on the principle of getting what you deserve as an individual, and of "thou shalt not steal." Both of these are Christian in origin, showing a wisdom embedded in the Old Testament that individuals punish and reward themselves by their own actions, and do not need external punishment and reward. Also the principle that each individual is accountable for his/her own actions, rather than the actions of his/her parents.

Agreed

Conservative sexual ethics are based on Christian values of monogamy and the idea that the purpose of sex is not pleasure but children and the strengthening of the marital bond.

I’m not sure I completely agree here, in that, I’m not so sure the Bible teaches that sex is not for pleasure. For sure, I have heard it claimed that Christians teach this but I haven’t actually heard a teaching like this. In any case, yes, the Bible certainly is the source of plenty of conservative sexual ethics.

BLM is based on the Christian principle that all human beings are equally valuable regardless of their race, and that discriminating against people based on their race is morally wrong.

I think it is actually based on the Marxist oppressor/oppressed narrative that has been adopted by critical theory. It gains significant traction because everyone else agrees that racial prejudice is unethical. But my impression is that actors within the BLM movement do not themselves refrain from racial prejudice, calling it out across the board, rather only when it fits the oppressor/oppressed narrative and only when it falls in the “correct” direction. BLM heavily relies upon division into and identification by group which goes against the principle of proper discrimination, dealing with people individually rather than as a member of a group. This is the classical definition of racism.

Modern science is based on the principle that there is intelligible order to the Universe. See Pope Benedict's beautiful response to this child in the section beginning "I am Giovanni, I am 17 years old."

Agreed

Environmentalism is based on the principle that the world is given to us to steward with wisdom and care, not to abuse as trash. See the current Pope's call for all people to care for the planet and not destroy it through greed.

I’m not sure I agree with this. I think one can make a case for environmentalism in this way but I’m not sure this was the impetus for the current environmental movement. In much of current environmentalism there is an underlying assumption that mankind is bad and any effect that mankind has on the world is bad. This is not at all a Christian principle.

[Barney]

The main stream culture, that which you see represented in news, TV, movies, etc. does not profess to be Christian, or extol values because they are Christian values. While many Christian values are accepted, they are accepted because they are already part of the culture. Christianity as such is portrayed as being backward, ignorant, and foolish.

What do you mean by mainstream culture? According to this poll, 70% of Americans adhere to some form of Christianity. This is another instance of the way Americans are made to believe that they are the persecuted minority, a lone island in a sea of hostile voices, and they believe this regardless of their religious or political views. Everyone is marginalized and there is no core.

Without Christian thought there is no reason why everyone should be treated equally. If you reject Christianity but accept the idea that everyone should be treated equally you have removed the underpinnings of that belief. The belief may persevere for some time but on careful examination it is not at all obvious that everyone should be treated equally (under the law).

You could argue that with Christian thought there is on reason why everyone should be treated equally. They weren't treated equally for the majority of Christian history. So Christianity is no guarantee of that moral principle.

But there's a more important point to be made. We must be careful not to fall prey to the genetic fallacy when discussing the Christian origins of things. It is a plausible position to say: "Christianity had some good ideas, but some bad ideas and silly superstitions were mixed up in it. The march of history has helped us to filter the good ideas and throw away the bad ideas and superstitions, such as belief that Jesus was divine or that miracles can happen." This position depends for its power on the idea of progress, which is borrowed from the sciences.

In short: just because an idea came from Christianity doesn't mean that a non-Christian cannot have good reasons for holding it. It is also a little presumptuous to say that there is no good reason to believe in the equality of all human beings apart from Christianity. There might be other good reasons - like other religions, for example, or like modern secularism considered as a religion.

I think it is sort of willful, optimistic blindness to suggest that a culture actively acting to suppress Christianity will nonetheless exhibit blossoming Christian principles.

Do you have any evidence that the culture is actively acting to suppress Christianity? I don't mean one or two people who have published an article on the internet. That is not "the culture." What gives you the idea that "the culture" at large is doing this?

But that is not my main point. My main point is twofold:

• Even if the culture has abandoned Christianity, it is clearly evident that it does exhibit blossoming Christian principles. Not all of them. It cherry-picks the ones it wants and abandons the ones it doesn't want. But principles like equality, social justice, care for the planet - these are Christian principles.
• And here's the even more important point: Those who self-identify as Christian are also cherry-picking which Christian principles they adhere to and which they downplay or even completely ignore. Christianity has been torn in two, the Left holds half the principles and does not take the name 'Christian', and the Right holds the other half the principles and does take the name 'Christian'.

In much of current environmentalism there is an underlying assumption that mankind is bad and any effect that mankind has on the world is bad. This is not at all a Christian principle.

This is probably false and irrelevant even if true. Probably false because I've never met any environmentalist who thinks this, and I know a lot of them. Irrelevant because what matters is whether Christians ought to be environmentalists, and it seems to me obvious that they should be. Unfortunately this point is obscured because of the culture wars, and people have gotten into the deep habit of ignoring all the Bible says about creation care. But the Pope is clear evidence otherwise. Nobody can accuse the Pope - or the Catholic Church more broadly - of being quick to jump on popular bandwagons. After all, they still have male-only priests. Yet there is a strong environmentalist drive here which doesn't go anywhere near denigrating mankind.

Let me be clear about my main point once again. Christianity is a complex system of beliefs and ethical principles which hold each other in tension, like a well-built racing car or bridge. What has happened in the modern Western world is that these principles have been torn apart from one another, so they are no longer in tension but at war. The Left has taken some, the Right has taken others, and each condemns the other for abandonment of the principles it holds dear.

Listen to Chesterton, the clear-sighted visionary who saw this already a hundred years ago:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. ... In his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race -- because he is so human. As the other extreme, we may take the acrid realist, who has deliberately killed in himself all human pleasure in happy tales or in the healing of the heart. Torquemada tortured people physically for the sake of moral truth. Zola tortured people morally for the sake of physical truth. But in Torquemada's time there was at least a system that could to some extent make righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now they do not even bow.

What is needed is a similarly clear-sighted way of overcoming the culture wars and seeing what is valuable in each side, and starting to sew back together the seamless garment of Christ.

[Ondrej]

What do you mean by mainstream culture? According to this poll, 70% of Americans adhere to some form of Christianity.

I tried to spell it out. "that which you see represented in news, TV, movies, etc" You would not guess that 70% of Americans adhered to some form of Christianity by looking at the cultural productions. The culture as represented by the news, TV, movies, etc does not represent the people. Likewise institutions like the universities are also not representative. The average american is not a persecuted minority, rather they are a persecuted majority in a sea of hostile voices. It is perfectly socially acceptable to bash Christianity on TV or in the movies etc. But the powers that be will not find it acceptable to bash Islam in the same way.

During gamergate for example you had a few journalists writing hit pieces about gamers. The gamers were clearly the majority but the "authoritative" voices speaking, the journalists, were not representative of the gamers. I'm not very familiar with all the details of gamergate but I think it provides an easy to understand picture. In this case, the narrative can be generated without it representing the gamers at all.

In the same way, the news, media, etc. can generate narratives that don't represent the people at all. This is slightly off the topic of Christianity specifically but I think the same thing happens in the realm of Christian principles.

As a specific example, Prager University, a youtube channel, produces short videos explaining Christian or conservative positions on various topics and typically features some notable expert in the area to explain it. Youtube has demonetized them, labeled their videos as a fundraiser, categorized many videos as not suitable for children (which means you have to be logged into youtube for the video to show up and will be filtered out from any schools) and probably deboosted their recommendations though this is quite difficult to demonstrate. Now, this is debatably perfectly appropriate for youtube to do since it is a private platform. The point is, the Prager U perspective is perfectly mainstream among American people and explain perfectly reasonable conservative positions but youtube is acting in opposition to the vast majority of people who would find these positions perfectly reasonable. They are thus, tilting the "culture", that which you will see presented to you, in opposition to what the people themselves, through likes, comments, sharing etc, have deemed is important to pay attention to.