The reason for their reluctance? They instinctively recognise that behind their assertions of so-called "faith" lie a host of assumptions which, if exposed, would bring into question their most valued teachings.

Sorman's proposal that gender equality is one of three factors which define Western thinking, is suspect. Much more likely is that [a] mutual respect (acceptance of human difference while insisting on the primacy of the individual); and [b] equality before the law, together underpin assertion of the equal rights of women in relation to those of men. And there is a strong case for arguing that equality and mutual respect derive directly from Jesus of Nazareth's life and teaching - in particular from his entirely new and revolutionary assertion, unknown in any society until then, that we are called to love and accept as equals ("part of the family") even our enemies.

Another proposal, that innovation is a key differential between West and east, rings more true. Nothing is more illustrative of the change from Medieval social and theological structure to Renaissance flux and reason than this apparently relentless aspect of Western society today. The possibility is still to be explored that innovation is is not in itself a basic factor, but rather that behind it lies humanity's God-given curiosity and drive to survive. Whatever the case, the today's Church at large is definitely not Western, for it's main emphasis is on maintaining a doctrinal stance inherited, more-or-less lock, stock and barrel, from a previous age. 

Or rather, the Church as the sum of all its people is in a state of deep internal schism. Its members assert traditional teachings which are incompatible with the underlying way of thinking which drives the rest of their lives. And, despite centuries of Enlightenment, it is still willing in extreme cases to persecute individuals for stepping across official doctrinal lines.

Self-criticism, Sorman's other foundation of Western thought and culture, could be upheld as a basic Christian value in the sense that, from the earliest times, Christians have been urged to recognise and turn away from their errors. Repentance has been urged by figures from John the Baptist to Jimmy Swaggart - though it should be noted that the Jesus of history presented by some modern theologians doesn't seem quite so keen on getting people to criticise themselves. The point is, however, that Christian self-criticism is of moral failings - that is, of deviation from standards of behaviour laid down by the Church.

Thus Christian repentance cannot be equated with the self-criticism advanced by Sorman. What he appears to refer to is a mental attitude which accepts nothing at its face value, which is potentially sceptical about everything and everyone, and which wants to test every assertion for its validity in terms of the way the world actually works (that is, it could be said, in terms of the way God has made the world). It is probable that science and its many allied disciplines have flourished and succeeded precisely because of their inherently sceptical outlook.

Given the opportunity and the space, Sorman would no doubt argue for other determining factors which separate East from West. The bigger questions are, What premises underpin these differences? and are they crucial not only to the survival of the West but also of humanity itself? Or are they assumptions which are edging us all to destruction by distancing us from God? And if these premises are valid but not overtly "Christian" as the Church as large defines the term, can Christians adapt to the secular society which, if current trends last, seems to be the outcome of Western ways of thought and life? 

It seems to some that individual Christians can adapt but the Church can't - at any rate, not until it somehow gives up the notion that it has any final, absolutely true, answers.

What is the West? is published on the Project Syndicate website.

[Home] [Back]