Wednesday, March 28, 2018

What Kind of Christian Are You?



Russell begins this examination with a look at religious interaction between folk-religious societies and universal religions – not specifically German and Christian but tribe and universal.  He works to develop a model of conversion and adaptation when two such forces meet.

As a reminder: I am working through this book for the purpose of understanding the relative libertarianism of the medieval Germanic tribes.  While elsewhere there were “tribes,” and elsewhere there were “Christians,” and elsewhere there were tribes that were Christian…nowhere else have I found a society and a law that more closely approached libertarian principles as I have found in this one.

With that out of the way…

Each historical instance of an attempt to Christianize a society is unique and dependent on many factors…. Distinguishing between that which is essential to Christianity and that which may be modified or omitted to advance the process of Christianization has always been a major problem for the missionary.

What can be minimized of the universal Christian religion; what is of paramount importance to maintain of the local tradition?  How these two can be brought together is the work of the missionary.

As an aside: through this work I am finding some insights applicable to the split in the libertarian camp, a split between the universal libertarian (the non-aggression principle is for all, equally and uniformly) and the tribal libertarian (call it blood and soil).  I will comment on these as this comes up in the book.  Like now:

[The Emperor] Julian believed that each ethnic and national group had its own unique origin, character, and god, and that it was ill-advised to attempt to modify the cultural and religious traditions derived from this organic uniqueness.

Oswald Spengler adds:

Each Culture possesses its own standards, the validity of which begins and ends with it.  There is no general morale of humanity.

If so (and I believe the world offers ample evidence in support), this suggests something about the unlikelihood of the universality of libertarianism…unless there is a god behind the movement. (Hint: there isn’t – at least not one that is working toward liberty.)

Spengler is an interesting sort.

Spengler predicted that about the year 2000, Western civilization would enter the period of pre-death emergency whose countering would necessitate Caesarism (extraconstitutional omnipotence of the executive branch of the central government).

He wrote The Decline of the West, and he conceived of the book several years before the beginning of the Great War.  He seems to have been correct, and the movements behind Brexit, the AfD, and Trump might represent only the beginnings of this Caerarism that he predicted.

I am reminded of Angelo Codevilla, writing even before Trump’s election:

We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.


But now, returning to Russell.  He asks: What was the Christianity which was spread?  Why did Christianity spread? Why has it reversed in some places, or otherwise failed to spread?  Why, after being present in India and China for far longer than it took to convert the majority of Rome, has Christianity made just marginal inroads?

Further: What effect did Christianity have on the environment, and what effect did the environment have on Christianity?  These questions outline the breadth and depth of the study – eventually applied to the German case.

Perhaps an answer can be found in the cohesiveness and solidarity of society.  The decline of Rome and the spread of Christianity through the Roman world inversely correspond.  The Japanese, on the other hand, have been almost immune to the work of Christian missionaries. 

The German tribes also held such cohesiveness; yet Christianity took hold.  What was necessary for Christianity to successfully spread through these tribes?

…the Anglo-Saxon missionaries did not emphasize the central soteriological and eschatological aspects of Christianity.  Instead, seeking to appeal to the Germanic regard for power, they tended to emphasize the omnipotence of the Christian God and the temporal rewards he would bestow upon those who accepted him through baptism and through conformity to the discipline of his Church.

Russell next spends a chapter on exploring the meaning of “conversion,” and how this term is problematic even at the individual level – and certainly when discussing a larger society – e.g. the conversion of the tribes to Christianity.  Even as late as the 1600s, few of the Christian “peasants” were knowledgeable in any of the meaningful Christian doctrines:

As Van Engen notes, some historians now claim that, outside of a miniscule clerical elite, “the great mass of medieval folk lived in a ‘folklore’ culture best likened to that observed by anthropologists in Third World countries.”

Yet society was described – and most members of society would describe themselves – as Christian.  But it was a German Christian, different than what was to be found in the East.  It was a Christian that developed as the missionaries made accommodation.

This reality may be difficult to accept for Western Christians, yet without this reality Christianity may not have spread to the north and west as it did.  Again, my purpose in this examination is not doctrinal but cultural and political – whatever this Western Christian tradition is or is not, it certainly was foundational in forming and maintaining a reasonably libertarian order.

Conclusion

The author gives many examples of this Germanic influence on Christian tradition: the German law codes found in the period 500 to 800; the concept of collective security; war; family and kin; lordship.  All of these found their way into the Christian tradition; during this early period, Christ was seen as a victorious German warlord!

The universal religion was molded into something akin to a folk religion.  Like I said: working through this topic and this book will be complicated, enlightening, troubling, controversial, and valuable.

How am I doing so far?

Epilogue

I think of the movie Silence, and the two Jesuit priests (try to get past the two being Spiderman and the son of Han Solo and Princess Leia, Kylo Ren) who went to Japan in the early 17th century:

I worry, they value these poor signs of faith more than faith itself. But how can we deny them?

What kind of Christians were they?

It is a movie worth watching.  More than once.

7 comments:

  1. Great series.

    [begin quote]
    The German tribes also held such cohesiveness; yet Christianity took hold. What was necessary for Christianity to successfully spread through these tribes?

    …the Anglo-Saxon missionaries did not emphasize the central soteriological and eschatological aspects of Christianity. Instead, seeking to appeal to the Germanic regard for power, they tended to emphasize the omnipotence of the Christian God and the temporal rewards he would bestow upon those who accepted him through baptism and through conformity to the discipline of his Church.
    [end quote]

    Appropriating the Old Testament promises to Israel. The early version of "name it and claim it" prosperity gospel?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Silence was 10/10, hadn't seen the new garbage JJ Abrhams Star Wars when I watched it but if we are going there don't forget the elder priest was played by Liam Neeson who played Obi-wa'ss mentor Qwai-gon Gin in the other garbage Star Wars

    -UC (too lazy to log into account atm)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think what made the West so successful and so liberty friendly was the combination of tribal German fighting spirit coupled with the compassion and wisdom of Christianity.

    For liberty to be successful you need people who are not only individually willing to fight and die, but they have to be good at it. You need people who will be thorns in the side of any despot. Germanic "barbarians" undoubtedly possessed this and many of them were employed by the Roman military as mercenaries.

    But you need more than just ferocity to have liberty, you need to recognize the reciprocity of social life and trade. You need restraint as well. Germans probably had some of this before their adoption of Christianity but I'm willing to bet that Christianity was a big influence on them in this regard.

    So, according to my very scientific thesis above, in order for liberty to work you need both balls and a moral compass. Christianizing the barbarians of Germania yielded this balance to perhaps its greatest degree yet seen. Another notable example is that of the American frontiersmen who carved out a country in the face of hostile natives, outlaws, and harsh climates and environments. The military acumen and toughness of this society was also tempered by Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perry, thank you for the comment. This is a journey for me; I document and write about the books as I go, always open to feedback that suggests my understanding (or the author's points) may be incorrect or incomplete.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course! It's a journey for me to, and I enjoy riding along so to speak by following your blog. I probably reacted a little strongly to the one quote (which is a small part of your post, and your post doesn't endorse it as the final word). As I said, these explorations are compelling, and there is definitely a lot that folkways shared with Christian life.

    And surely, "conversions" take time and generations; so there was plenty of give and take in medieval Europe as different populations were evangelized to.

    In other venues, I have read accounts that argued that it was Christianity's ability to syncretize with the best of pagan ways that made it so successful at spreading. This includes simple decisions like celebrating Christmas at the same time as the traditional winter feast.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Perry,

    I have The stripping of.. and The voices of... Both are great works by Duffy. Which one were you talking about?

    Cheers,
    Richard

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If so (and I believe the world offers ample evidence in support), this suggests something about the unlikelihood of the universality of libertarianism ... unless there is a god behind the movement. (Hint: there isn’t – at least not one that is working toward liberty.)"

    Is there a god behind the movement? You say no. Let me offer an argument for "yes".

    Although it is not universal with libertarians, many look to the concept called natural law as a support for libertarianism. Those who believe in natural law see it as coming from God, insofar as humans are the work of God's creation, and natural law is simply those truths about human activity that are beneficial to humans (universally). In this sense, to say that the NAP is a principle that would be beneficial to humans makes it consistent with natural law, and anything contrary and opposed to the NAP, that is, any type of violence between humans that is not consistent with the limits of force it calls for, is harmful to humans. In this way, God seems to come down in favor of the NAP.

    ReplyDelete