Reg en verkeerd is nie net wat jou kultuur sê nie
Kort antwoord: Kulture verskil werklik, en baie van wat ons “reg” noem, is net gewoonte. Maar as reg net beteken wat jou kultuur sê, kon niemand sy eie kultuur ooit reg wys nie, en dan was die mense wat teen slawerny en apartheid opgestaan het, bloot verkeerd.
Dit kom in die antropologieklas, of in ’n dokumentêr. Ander kulture eet ander kos, trou anders, begrawe hul dooies anders. Dan die gevolgtrekking: “Wie is ons om te sê ons manier is reg? Reg en verkeerd is net wat jou kultuur jou leer.”
Dit klink respekvol. En jy het al gesien hoe mense op ander kulture neerkyk. Jy wil nie so wees nie.
Wat waar is
Begin by wat waar is. Kulture verskil, en baie van wat ons “reg” noem, is gewoonte: hoe jy ’n ouer mens groet, wat jy kerk toe aantrek, met watter hand jy eet. Sendelinge het soms Europese gewoontes saam met die evangelie uitgevoer asof dit dieselfde ding is. En ons gewete word deur ons kultuur gevorm, en soms daardeur skeefgetrek.
Om dit te erken, is nie relativisme nie. Dit is eerlikheid.
Wat die stelling eintlik sê
Maar volg die stelling tot by sy einde. As reg beteken “wat my kultuur sê”, dan is ’n kultuur per definisie altyd reg oor homself. Wie sy eie kultuur kritiseer, is dan per definisie verkeerd.
In 1807 het die Britse parlement die slawehandel verbied, ná dekades se veldtog deur mense soos William Wilberforce, in ’n land wie se ekonomie swaar op dié handel gesteun het. Op die relativis se siening was hulle nie reg nie. Hulle was net ’n nuwe meerderheid.
Neem dan ons eie geskiedenis. In Suid-Afrika het die wet, ’n groot deel van die wit kultuur, en ook kerke in ons eie Gereformeerde tradisie apartheid verdedig, soms met die Bybel in die hand. Dit was verkeerd, en die kerk moet dit sonder verskonings sê. Die mense wat daarteen opgestaan het, binne en buite die kerk, was nie bloot “’n ander kultuur” nie. Hulle was reg.
Die draai
Dit is wat Paulus in Romeine 2:14–15 raaksien. Selfs mense sonder die wet van Moses toon dat die werk van die wet in hulle harte geskryf is. Daar is ’n maatstaf wat geen kultuur besit nie, wat elke kultuur gedeeltelik raaksien en gedeeltelik verdraai. Daarom kan ’n mens oor sy kultuur se kop heen appelleer.
En kyk weer na die relativis se eie motief. Hy wil hê ons moet ander kulture respekteer. Maar “almal behoort ander kulture te respekteer” is self ’n morele stelling wat bo elke kultuur uitstyg.
Dit is ook goeie nuus vir die kerk. Juis omdat God bo elke kultuur staan, die kerk s’n ingesluit, kan ’n kerk wat sy kultuur met God se wil verwar het, tot bekering kom.
Volgende keer
As iemand sê reg en verkeerd is net kultuur, vra: “Was apartheid verkeerd, of net anders?” Byna niemand sê “net anders” nie.
Jou ouma se reël oor elmboë op die tafel, daarenteen, is kultuur. Daaroor mag jy maar onderhandel.
Gaan dieper
- Reeks 1, Sessie 6: Verlange, Skoonheid en die Numinose
- Proloog, Opstel 3: Wie se Waarheid?
- Reeks 3, Sessie 4: Die Morele Wet: Waar Kom Goed en Kwaad Vandaan? (binnekort)
Right and wrong are not just what your culture says
Short answer: Cultures really do differ, and much of what we call “right” is simply custom. But if right only means what your culture says, nobody could ever correct their own culture, and then the people who stood up against slavery and apartheid were simply wrong.
It comes up in anthropology class, or in a documentary. Other cultures eat other food, marry differently, bury their dead differently. Then the conclusion: “Who are we to say our way is right? Right and wrong are just what your culture teaches you.”
It sounds respectful. And you have seen people look down on other cultures. You don’t want to be like that.
What is true
Start with what is true. Cultures differ, and much of what we call “right” is custom: how you greet an older person, what you wear to church, which hand you eat with. Missionaries sometimes exported European customs along with the gospel as if they were the same thing. And our conscience is shaped by our culture, and sometimes bent by it.
Admitting this is not relativism. It is honesty.
What the claim actually says
But follow the claim to its end. If right means “what my culture says”, then a culture is by definition always right about itself. Whoever criticises their own culture is then by definition wrong.
In 1807 the British parliament banned the slave trade, after decades of campaigning by people like William Wilberforce, in a country whose economy leaned heavily on that trade. On the relativist’s view they were not right. They were only a new majority.
Then take our own history. In South Africa the law, a large part of white culture, and churches in our own Reformed tradition too defended apartheid, sometimes Bible in hand. It was wrong, and the church must say so without excuses. The people who stood up against it, inside and outside the church, were not merely “a different culture”. They were right.
The turn
This is what Paul notices in Romans 2:14–15. Even people without the law of Moses show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. There is a standard no culture owns, which every culture partly sees and partly distorts. That is why a person can appeal over his culture’s head.
And look again at the relativist’s own motive. He wants us to respect other cultures. But “everyone ought to respect other cultures” is itself a moral claim that rises above every culture.
This is good news for the church too. Precisely because God stands above every culture, the church’s included, a church that confused its culture with God’s will can come to repentance.
Next time
When someone says right and wrong are just culture, ask: “Was apartheid wrong, or just different?” Almost nobody says “just different”.
Your grandmother’s rule about elbows on the table, on the other hand, is culture. On that one you may negotiate.
Go deeper
- Series 1, Session 6: Longing, Beauty and the Numinous
- Prologue, Essay 3: Whose Truth?
- Series 3, Session 4: The Moral Law: Where Do Good and Evil Come From? (coming soon)