Your reasoning is faulty, as with most of the rest of your post. If your neighbour stole from you, yes, he must pay you back. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about the neighbour who used to live in the house, he is the one who should pay, not the one who lives there now.
The same applies, although here you are on slightly safer grounds, if I stole from an African, his goods, his lands, his wife, or even his life, yes of course I should pay and suffer punishment too. But why should I pay for what my Grandfather did, I wasn’t here. And even if I should pay, should all my co-conspiritors pay too, and that includes all the Africans who were at it long before Grandpa got there. Just because they were selling their fellow citizens to the Arabs makes no difference. Apart from the fact that I suppose you want to pursue the Arabs now too.
So you are Canadian. Your ancestors stole land from the original inhabitants. Does that mean that Canadians should pay rent for that land in perpetuity? And if so, surely that means the whole of the modern Canadian territory. All of it. The whole thing is ridiculous.
If I had control over the proceeds, then I might have - or feel - a moral obligation to repay. But I think it’s an impossible calculation to make, certainly in the original example (Anglican Church owning slaves). How much is repentance and actively working to abolish slavery, as later members of the same church (small “c”) did, worth? Let alone the education, medical and other works done in places like Africa?
It’s perfectly normal though to acknowledge that something your forebears did wasn’t right or desirable whatever the state of opinion about at that time. It isn’t weird or bad to say that you are ashamed of something now even though it happened then.
I expect most of us have ancestors not even that far back who thought dogfighting or cockfighting etc were acceptable entertainment whereas now I’d hope everyone would think such pastimes both cruel and disgusting.
I once had a Canadian give me absolute shit over what the British had done to the First Nations until I pointed out that, by definition, my ancestors weren’t there and then asked, since she was benefitting hugely from the original exploitation, what was she doing to make amends.
For me one of the complex aspects of British and other countries colonisation, was tat they’d proselytize. In that context it’s interesting (at least to me) how contemporary African Christians have managed to incorporate, or retain elements of animism and other non-Christian beliefs into their Christianity in ways that would horrify the CofE.
I went to a funeral of a family friend the other week in a CofE church, but had to double-check the denomination as it was so High Church I thought I’d misread the details and the service was actually Catholic!
They had the lot - Stations of the Cross around the walls, incense, bells, sung responses by the priest etc.
Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell must be turning in their graves.
I’m not one for religion generally but it was interesting to see how individual congregations seem to adapt the whole shebang to their local preferences…
There’s an amusing bit about that in Anthony Burgess’s Earthly Powers, how to explain without confusion to eg people who indulge in ritual cannibalism that it is wrong, and they aren’t to eat those nuns or priests, when your own religion talks about a tripartite god one bit of which is a (probably taboo) spirit and another manifestation of it is a human being whose flesh and blood are ceremonially consumed every Sunday…
Making converts or saving people’s lives: it depends on your point of view, and only one can be correct.
You’ve mentioned that before.
None of the African Christians I know have done that, and would consider it heresy (as of course it would be). Most of them are academics, lawyers, doctors … much more middle class than many in my church!
Do you have any references to provide that cover the topic?
First nations in Canada are very problematic because of the manner in which past governments have tried to manage reparation to a very different culture. There’s also prejudice problems - even obvious to me as a tourist after conversations with local people - and the issues with gambling rights. They seem to have the social situation weighted against them quite heavily from what I can see.
Africa is a very different situation, and while the west is undoubtedly culpable in history, it’s far from as simple as north America. It’s the sort of thing that would be very useful to have a detailed and official legal enquiry into that could be set up without bias (there almost certainly impossible). It seems unlikely that ANY of the guilty parties would really want such a thing.
I used to teach a ug Open University module that covered the Reformation and its legacy and from personal research it became apparent that the MOR account was if not flawed, too focussed on certain parts of England to the exclusion of those where Catholicism endured, albeit underground (and not just in priest holes).
Albeit a very long lapsed Catholic - I still appreciate the legacy of that religion’s foregrounding of the visual over the text. And still love the smell of frankincense.)
‘Making converts or saving people’s lives: it depends on your point of view, and only one can be correct.’
Surely if you’re a believer, both are possible.
‘You’ve mentioned that before.’
Yes I recognise that I’ve posted on this before, but unfortunately haven’t any online references, 'cos it’s outside my field. However, I was on a Rhodes University Senate panel of investigation into why the (now) defunct, essentially Anglican Theology Department had more staff than students!
It’s interesting how different people get a sense of the presence of a deity (real or imagined, it doesn’t matter) through different things. For some, the sense of theatre, the ‘bells and smells’ are very important, and without that they find the church experience to be hollow and without meaning. The CoE likes to be a broad church, although I think they struggle more with the religiously conservative than they do with the socially liberal (who they seem much keener to embrace).
Some do have a very distinct preference for certain kinds of meetings/services that goes above simple comfort. With almost any traditional CoE service it’s possible to let yourself be carried along without having to be pro-active in any way, but some have a very strong sense of what is ‘right’.
I have some questions about whether what people feel is ‘real’ or just emotions and feelings triggered by the nature of what they’re participating in, but that’s another story.
