My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Tom Holland's thesis is that the moral and ethical values of Western Civilisation have been shaped mainly by Christianity, and in this book he tries to follow and explain the process by which this happened. He covers a broad sweep of Western Christianity, sometimes illuminating particular historical events and periods as he does so.
I think it is a book that would be useful for most Christians to read; Western Christians, because it is about them and their history; Orthodox Christians living in the West, or in any society where Western values are influential, to help them to understand the society in which they live. It would also be useful for Orthodox Christians not living in the West, because the West is influential even in places where its values are not dominant. It will be useful to people living in sub-Saharan Africa and much of Asia, especially those colonised by the West, to see what Western values are based on.
For an example of the last point, Holland makes some interesting comments on how the Western concept of "religion" came to be applied outside the West. In a sense the British East India Company applied the concept of "religion" to India. This concept had been shaped by the history of Christianity in the West, especially in the Early Modern period, and it could be said that the British East India Company invented Hinduism as a religion. Holland could, however, have said a little more about how the concept had developed in the West before being applied to India. He does point out that in the premodern period "religion" referred primarily to those who had taken monastic vows or something similar, but modernity has changed this understanding. A useful book on this topic, for those who would like to know more, is ["Religion" and the Religions in the English Enlightenment] by Peter Harrison.
Tom Holland is not himself a Christian, as he makes clear in the last chapter, but he acknowledges that his values are based on Christian presuppositions. In general I agree with most of what he says; I might, however, differ from him over what he does not say.
He appears to give a survey of the history of Western Christianity, but there are significant lacunae. Some of the gaps seem to have things that do not support his thesis, or that might cause readers to modify it. He does not, for example, mention the Great European Witchhunt, in which large parts of Early Modern Christendom appeared to revert to pagan values with regard to witchhunts. He should have at least made some attempt to explain such a dramatic reversal in terms of his theory. For more on this, see my article on Christian Responses to Witchcraft and Sorcery.
Another gap that stood out for me came in the penultimate chapter, dealing with fairly recent events. He describes events of the annus mirabilis 1989, when authoritarian regimes collapsed in Eastern Europe and Southern Africa and a wind of freedom blew through the world.
Holland notes that both Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk tended to interpret South Africa's liberation, and that of many communist countries, in 1989/90 in biblical terms, as the writing of God's finger on the affairs of state. loving enemies etc. But Western leaders tended to see it differently. As Holland puts it:
This, however, was not how it tended to be seen by policy-makers in America and Europe. They drew a different lesson. That the paradise on earth foretold by Marx turned out instead to be closer to a hell emphasised the degree to which the true fulfilment of progress was to be found elsewhere. With the rout of communism it appeared to many in the victorious West that it was their own political and social order that constituted the ultimate, the unimprovable form of government. Secularism; liberal democracy; the concept of human rights: these were fit for the whole world to embrace. The inheritance of the Enlightenment was for everyone: a possession for all of mankind. It was promoted by the West, not because it was Western, but because it was universal. The entire world could enjoy its fruits. It was no more Christian than it was Confucian, or Muslim, or Hindu. There was neither Asian nor European. Humanity was embarked as one upon a common road. The end of history had arrived (Source: Holland 2019:489)
Secularism, liberal democracy and the concept of human rights are all values which, according to Holland, the West derived from Christianity. I don't quibble with him there. But I don't think they were the values the "policy-makers in America and Europe" thought most important. Those policy-makers included people he did not name, and those who dominated in the 1980s were Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, whose chief values were enshrined in the ideology of neoliberalism, which they had been pushing for the previous eight years and more.
The Neoliberalism they pushed for very strongly, and applied in their own countries, has continued to dominate the world economic system, and may seen as a watered down version of the ideology propagated by Ayn Rand, an atheistic despiser of Christianity and its "altruism". That ideology has been influential in the West since the 1960s, and certainly was held by some people in Reagan's administration, if not by Reagan himself.
In the five years since Holland's book was published, however, events have shown that the West is rapidly abandoning any traces of Christian values that remain.
According to Holland:
That human beings have rights; that they are born equal; that they are owed sustenance and shelter and refuge from persecution:these were never self-evident truths.
The Nazis, certainly, knew as much -- which is why, in today's demonology, they retain their starring role. Communist dictators may have been no less murderous than fascist ones; but they -- because communism was an expression of concern for the oppressed masses -- rarely seem as diabolical to people today. The measure of how Christian we as a society remain is that mass murder precipitated by racism tends to be seen as vastly more abhorrent than mass murder precipitated by an ambition to usher in a classless society.
But in the five years since Dominion was published, Tom Holland's thesis has been completely overturned. The mass murder precipitated by racism in Gaza in 2023-24 has not been seen as at all abhorrent by Western governments, as can be seen by their frequent protestations of support for the perpetrators. The Western values that Holland says are based on Christianity, like human rights, and concepts like "crimes against humanity" are safely stored away in the musical banks described in Samuel Butler's novel Erewhon.
View all my reviews
3 comments:
An interesting read, this. Though I'd like to put in my two nickels worth (we no longer have pennies in this country) on some of its assertions.
In the closing months of World War II in Europe, Germany was no longer fighting for its original aims of conquest, but to force a negotiated peace that would leave the Nazis in power. The Allies would have none of that, but continued to push for total victory, even to their own further cost. Allied attacks remained concentrated on military, industrial and political targets generally regarded as legitimate under /jus in bello/ (= right conduct within war) criteria of Just War Theory, yet many German noncombatants (not to mention Allied soldiers) still died who would have lived had the fighting ended sooner. Yet it was only eventual Allied victory that allowed those Nazis guilty of atrocities to be brought to justice at Nurenburg, and the rest removed from power at all levels in a years-long process of "denazification".
Today, Germany is a peaceful and prosperous democracy and a strong ally of the West.
And much the same for Italy and Japan.
See also the premise of the 1967 Star Trek episode "City at the Edge of Forever", in which time-travelling Kirk must allow the death of a pacifist preacher in order to keep Hitler from winning the war to come.
On October 7, 2023, Gaza's Hamas Party Government (self-governing and Jew-free since 2005) broke a ceasefire and invaded Israel to conduct the largest deliberate killing of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust, not to mention the rapes and the taking of hostages that also violate formal and customary laws of war. It did this to terrorize Israeli Jews to flee their country and leave it weakened; to draw in support near and far from fellow-extremists and useful idiots selectively outraged at the inevitable Israeli counter-attack; to sabotage the peace that had just been concluded between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, and that was about to extend to Saudi Arabia and others; and all with the ultimate goal of extending "from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea" a version of Shari'a (= Law) that prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals and ex-Muslims now living in peace, and that either reduces all non-Muslims to second-class citizens or expels them outright, as has happened to ancient Jewish populations most everywhere else in the Arab world.
Israel, that could've turned Gaza to glass, has taken great pains to be selective in its response, even to sacrificing some of its own infantry as it chooses ground operations over less discriminate aerial or artillery bombardment, given that Hamas fighters and their weapons and munitions have established themselves within and beneath Gazan schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and private homes. But this is war, and there'll be civilian casualties and collateral damage in every war, especially when the enemy hides behind women and children, and counts every "martyr" among them--the images properly exploited--as a win for its cause.
Furthermore, after it was elected to power in 2007--and immediately killed all of Gaza's known gays--Hamas brutally suppressed all opposition, especially those suggesting any compromise that would allow Israel to exist. Therefore there can be no lasting peace in the area until the Party that ordered and conducted the October 7 raid is--like the /Nationalsozialistischen/ of hated memory before it--dismantled and its members called to account, either in this world or the next.
The Israelis, like the WWII Allies, will accept no peace that leaves Hamas in power. Indeed, it's hard to see how anyone could, who doesn't support Hamas's aims and methods. (continued)
As for "racism": 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, who have full civil rights and who occupy high-level government, judicial and military positions. The founding documents of Israel welcomed the area's Arabs, among other original inhabitants, to become full partners of the new nation; many left instead, rather than give the new nation the same worldly allegiance as individual Muslims today offer secular states like the U.S. and others. There is already a "free Palestine" and it is called Israel.
In contrast, the 1988 founding charter of Hamas states:
"The Day of Resurrection will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!" (Article 7)
"The land of Palestine is an Islamic Holy Possession consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day." (Article 11)
"[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility." (Article 13)
"Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims." (Article 28).
"Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [the 1903 forgery that was ultimately responsible for the Nazi Holocaust, and, evidently, is still going strong] (Article 32).
One more thing.
All of humanity's worst deeds, as well as its best ones, have been motivated by compassion: for one people against the rest; for one's own self against the world. Over the course of the last century, from Stalin's Gulags to Pol Pot's killing fields to Mao's Great Leap Forward, hundreds of millions were robbed, killed, imprisoned or terrified into silence, all in the name of compassion for the poor.
Compassion has a lot to answer for, divorced from wisdom and justice, and unfettered by "Thou shalt not steal", and "Thou shalt not kill", and "Thou shalt not bear false witness".
And without hope that "You will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free".
You say, "As for "racism": 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, who have full civil rights and who occupy high-level government, judicial and military positions."
Those "full civil rights" include being kicked out of your home, having your olive groves and other means of livelihood destroyed. To which one can only respond with the words of Isaiah, "Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room" (Isa 5:8).
Post a Comment