Conversion

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell

Russell begins his specific examination of the acceptance of Christianity by the Germanic people, the first covering the period 376 – 678.  This covers the period from the Germanic entrance into the Roman Empire until the Anglo-Saxon mission by Bishop Wilfrid of York to Frisia.

When speaking of Christianity in this context, there are two prominent theologies: Germanic Arianism and Frankish Catholicism.  Seeking refuge from the Huns, the Visigoths negotiated with Valens, the Arian Christian emperor of the Eastern Empire: Arianism was adopted in exchange for asylum.

In Christianity, Arianism is a monotheistic Christological doctrine which asserts the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to the Father….The Arian concept of Christ is based on the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten by God the Father.

Several characteristics can be noted from this first encounter, characteristics that would repeat for even centuries into the future: political leaders vouched for their subjects regarding Christianization; Christianity was associated with Roman culture and the Roman polity; there was little or no religious instruction prior to baptism. 

 By the middle of the sixth century, several tribes – to include the Bavarians, Thuringians and Lombards – accepted the Arian form of Christianity; others – including the Franks, Alamanni and Saxons – remained unaffected.

Yet Valens suffered defeat and death in the battle of Adrianople; with him, Arianism was on the wane in the empire.  The Arian heresy suffered condemnation in the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Why did the leaders of most of the Germanic peoples accept the Arian form of Christianity, just as this heresy was in the process of being extirpated throughout the Roman Empire?

Some believe it is due to the Arian belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father – a characteristic easily understood and accepted by a hierarchical culture.  Others believe that Arianism spread because it wasn’t Roman – in this manner, less of a possibility that the Germanic tribes would be absorbed into the Universal Church – and therefore into the empire.

It was Clovis, ascending to the throne in 481 as the king of the Franks, who was recruited by the Roman Catholic Church to be their champion; Clovis saw that through the Roman Church he could find a means to consolidate an empire.  The Franks were, perhaps, more predisposed to become affiliated with Roman Christianity as their relationship with the Roman Empire was more gradual and less antagonistic than it was for the Visigoths.

…the overall relationship between the Franks and the Romans in the century preceding the baptism of Clovis in 496 was one of relative harmony. …it may be argued that the Franks perceived their greatest potential military threat as coming from the neighboring Germanic peoples rather than from the Romans.

Aside from baptism, Clovis was almost certainly not a Christian in any meaningful sense; yet his baptism committed the Merovingians to the Church.  Paganism was tolerated throughout.  After Clovis died, the process of Christianization stalled for almost 80 years, until the arrival in Gaul of the Irish monk Columbanus, in about 590.

During this period, little more was enforced beyond the sanctification of Sundays and holy days.  However, two important developments did occur:

…the Eigenkirchensystem, or “proprietary church system,” and the Eigenklostersystem, or “proprietary monastery system.

Privately developed and maintained churches and monasteries.  In such a system, the feudal lord held proprietary rights, most importantly the right to nominate the ecclesiastic personnel.  Through this, Columbanus succeeded in establishing a series of monasteries on the property of northern Frankish aristocrats – all the leading families had one or more of their members attracted to this new monasticism.

Still, this does not imply nor suggest that something approaching Christianity as it was understood in Rome was taking form.  The Merovingian kings did little to impose doctrinal orthodoxy; instead they were more concerned with “orthopraxy,” adhering to the cultic and ritual observances of Christianity.

Germanic Social Structure

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell

The study of Germanic religiosity has always suffered from a paucity of reliable extant sources.

What were the Germanic social and religious traditions prior to and during the early centuries of contact with Christian missionaries?  In order to deal with this “paucity” of sources, studies of similar Indo-European societies are utilized:

…India, Persia, Greece, Rome and pre-Christian northern Europe…

Russell offers some boundaries: 

…the term “Germanic” refers not only to the Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, Burgundian, Alamannic, Suevic and Vandal peoples, but also to the Viking peoples of Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain.  In addition, the term “religiosity” is often used when referring to the religious elements of Indo-European and particularly Germanic societies.

There are no available sources written by members of pre-Christian Germanic societies.  Archeological sources are used, as are written accounts by visitors to the Germanic regions – primarily Roman visitors.

One source dates from 53 B.C., and notes that “They have no Druids to control religious observances and are not much given to sacrifice.”  The beings recognized are things that they see – the sun, the moon, fire.

A second source is offered, from 98 A.D., noting that Mercury, Hercules and Mars are worshipped; human sacrifices are occasionally offered, animal sacrifices more so.  Their gods are not confined inside walls, and carry no human likeness.  Other sources point to devotion to “sacred trees, groves, springs, and stones, and an interest in prophecy and magic.”

There are two primary groups of German deities:

…the Aesir, comprising the gods of sovereignty and battle, Odin and Thor; and the Vanir, comprising the gods of sustenance and reproduction, Njord, Frey, and Freya.

Similar structures are found in other Indo-European societies – societies whose roots trace to either the steppes of the Urals or Anatolia (depending on whose theory you believe).

Russell relies on the work of Georges Dumézil:

…a French comparative philologist best known for his analysis of sovereignty and power in Proto-Indo-European religion and society. He is considered one of the major contributors to mythography, in particular for his formulation of the trifunctional hypothesis of social class in ancient societies.

Dumézil found a pattern in this structure that is common to other, non-Germanic, Indo-European societies and not found in non-Indo-European societies; this is described as “tripartition”:

…(1) chieftains and priests, constituting the “first function,” that of sovereign and supernatural authority, with a considerable degree of bipolar tension between these elements; (2) warriors, constituting the second function of physical force; and (3) farmers and herders, constituting the third and last function of fecundity.

It is not only this tripartition that is unique to Indo-European societies; the bipolar tension within the first group – between the chieftains and priests – was also unique.  Pairs of divinities, representing the two parts of this tension, are found in Vedic, German, and Roman tradition.

Further, the culture was patriarchal, with kindred as the foundation of its concentric structure: families, into clans, clans into tribes.  Inside the group was safe; outside was danger.  Inside, one enjoyed all of the freedoms of the group.

Most relevant to the subject at hand was the unique phenomenon of “a class of military specialists….”  Such as these organized themselves into a comitatus or Männerbund. There were specific themes regarding this class – transgressions against each of the three divisions within the society: regicide against the first, cowardice against the second, and adultery against the third.

Each of the warrior heroes, the Indic Indra, the Greek Heracles, and the Germanic Starkaŏr, is punished after each transgression by losing some degree of his power, until he finally dies.

The noble served his lord.  If he served him well, this brought material rewards and the opportunity to win glory; failure to live up to his oath brought shame.

The main “distinguishing characteristic of the comitatus,” which Clawsey finds lacking in classical and non-Western analogues, is “its reciprocity – more precisely, its being at once vertical and reciprocal,” that is, “only the comitatus combined both qualities and made the assumption that the leader in a vertical relationship had obligations as much as did the follower and that therefore a voluntary element existed on both sides.

It was this reciprocity that contributed to a high degree of group solidarity.

Shake the Dust off Your Feet

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell

This post will go in a different direction.  In my earlier posts regarding this book (here and here), I believe the stage has been set – the theory of the case: what happens when a folk-religious society and a universal religion collide?  How does this collision alter the characteristics of each of the two traditions?  In future posts, I will examine the particulars of the folk-religious German tribes meeting with the universal Catholic religion.

But today, a detour.  This examination has brought to the fore some thoughts about libertarianism as a universal religion; it is here where we will spend some time.

Universal Libertarianism

Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

We will come to this verse shortly; I offer it here only to suggest that this is kept in mind while reading the post.

We are told by some libertarians that the NAP is for all – regardless of background, tradition, culture, religion, etc.  It is universal.  That observation and historical analysis offer a mountain of evidence to the contrary is irrelevant: we just need to teach them, show them, be logical, demonstrate the economic benefits, etc.  Once we do this, they will see the light.

All this time we’re talking and sharing our Rational View

A billion other voices are spreading other news

-        Peaceable Kingdom, Rush

Or maybe not.  Others, myself included, believe that a certain cultural soil is beneficial, if not necessary – a tradition conducive from which liberty may blossom.  I have found the best example in what is referred to as Western Civilization, and specifically in the law and tradition of the Germanic Middle Ages.

The author places Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and several mystery cults in the category of universal religions.  These are characterized as revealed, prophetic, or historical religions. These are religions with specific doctrinal beliefs – these religions are doctrine-centered.

Universal religions offer access to an existence that transcends that which is normally associated with a biological view of human life – for example, eternal salvation:

According to most universal religions, this existence is attainable by all mankind through initiation into a community of belief and adherence to a universal ethical code.

You will find here a commonality with those who believe in a universal libertarianism: such as these offer an existence that transcends that which is normally associated with a biological view of human life.  Universal libertarians ignore the fact that humans are human – born into a tradition, culture, community; defining “liberty” (if they even care to at all) in a very different way than that offered by the libertarian understanding of the non-aggression principle.

This universalism goes further, to include…

…attitudes of general indifference or opposition toward the sociobiological principle of group survival through in-group altruism.

…a rejection of the world-accepting sociobiological principle of group survival through in-group altruism.

Again, a characteristic certainly inherent in many that can be described as universal libertarians.  Yet, how can “in-group altruism” be acceptable to a libertarian of any type?  One answer is offered by E. O. Wilson, when asked:

“How can altruism, which by definition reduces personal fitness, possibly evolve by natural selection?”  He responds: “The answer is kinship…”

Kinship – the foundation of “nation”; in other words, a natural (sociobiological) part of being human.  A similar response is offered by Mises (here) and Rothbard (here and here). 

Like other universal religions, the early Christian church was an artificial kin group, membership available to the individual without regard to sex, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.  Of course, it was held together in the body of Christ…which gave it an advantage over other universal religions – but I am getting ahead of myself.

To establish a religion that is to be accepted universally (voluntarily or by force) requires a world empire.  According to Ernst Troeltsch, this has been achieved in the past via several factors, to include:

…the destruction of national religions, which was a natural result of the loss of national independence; the mingling of races, which led to the mingling of various cults…

And in this we can see that individualism and universalism go hand in hand; a time of societal decay, massive population dislocations and relocations.  From Everett Ferguson:

Individualism may seem a paradox alongside universalism, but the two are corollaries.  The breaking of traditional patterns of inherited conduct in the enlarged world of the Hellenistic age threw men back upon themselves and gave opportunities for individual expression.

Absent these “traditional patterns of inherited conduct,” we are left with dictate to determine our patterns of conduct.  And who or what will dictate?  Of course, a universal state will happily step in to fill the void.  And we will find that such individualism will result in the most collectivist universalism known to man.  Just ask Cultural Marxists about their plans.

Conclusion

Having expanded on the idea of a world-rejecting universal religion, I have compared this to the desires of universal libertarians.  Am I equating one with the other?  Do I denounce Christianity for such universal hopes as I do libertarians?  No and no.

Christianity has something going for it that libertarianism – or any other man-made religion (or supposedly other-worldly religion) – doesn’t have: Christ, the Son of God.  Oh yeah…and God.

So now…you are wondering: what was the point of the verse with which bionic began this post?

Even Christ, in all His glory and with the might of God the Father behind Him, knew that not all would be open to His universal religion.  In light of this, you might think universal libertarians would be a bit more humble (and realistic) in their expectations.

Epilogue

From Elwin H. Powell:

Despite “a rising level of material comfort, and times of relative tranquility like the 2^nd century A.D….beneath the splendor of imperial Rome was that ‘profound malaise common to aging nations,’ as Jacob Burckhardt said….

It is when society is in decline that universal religion finds its most fertile soil.  One may ask today: in the decline of western society, do we hold hope for universal libertarianism to spring forth, or will it be some other – perhaps destructive – universal religion that takes root? 

Or, if we are shown extreme mercy, a return to our Christian roots and traditions?

What Kind of Christian Are You?

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell

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.

Germanic Christianity

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell

This one is going to be complicated, enlightening, troubling, controversial, valuable….

From the author’s Wikipedia page:

[Russell’s book] examines the encounter of the Germanic peoples with Christian conversion efforts. Russell argues that a Christian missionary policy of temporary accommodation of pre-Christian beliefs and customs inadvertently contributed to a Germanization of Christianity. He contends that since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a conscious effort in the Roman Catholic Church to "shed its predominantly Western, European image". However, Russell notes, "the popularity of Catholic traditionalist movements among persons of European descent suggests that the Germanic elements within Christianity have not lost their appeal".

Why is this topic of interest to me?  As you know, I point to the period of the European Middle Ages and the decentralized law and society of the time as perhaps the closest and longest lasting example of something approaching a libertarian society that I have found.  Fundamental characteristics of the society include its Christianity.

Yet Christianity existed elsewhere and during the same time; however, I do not find that Christian society elsewhere progressed in a similar manner – decentralized governance, decentralized law.

So, why is this topic of interest to me?  I guess I want to understand the “why.”  And it seems reasonable that the “why” could be found in the cultural traditions of the Germanic tribes that were joined to the Christian religion as brought by the missionaries.

Russell examines the period beginning with the entrance of the Visigoths into the Eastern Roman Empire in 376 until the death of St. Boniface in 754.  His inquiry is divided into two parts: in Part I he develops a model of religious interaction between folk-religious societies and universal religions; in Part II, this model is applied to the specific case at hand – the “folk-religious” Germanic tribes meeting “universal” Christianity. 

For now, just a brief introduction: the religions of folk-centered societies are “world-accepting”; religions such as Christianity are “world-rejecting.” World-accepting societies value this life: kin, agriculture, military; world-rejecting religions offer hope in the afterlife, with little concern about this life.

When the missionaries first went north into the regions populated by the tribes, they emphasized aspects of Christianity that would resonate with the tribes, and deemphasized aspects that would be rejected.  After a few hundred years, the Germanic Christianity poured south over the Alps and theologically conquered Rome.

Germanic Christianity emphasized the drama of the Incarnation, the Passion and the lives of the saints; it deemphasized the doctrine of Salvation and the End Times.  Germanic influence can be found in chivalry, feudalism, the ideology behind the Crusades and the cult of relics – none of which can be found in, for example, the Sermon on the Mount. 

For Christianity to be accepted by the Germanic tribes, it had to be presented and interpreted in a heroic manner.  Perhaps the best known example is that of St. Boniface and Thor’s Oak:

…the saint attempted, in the place called Gaesmere, while the servants of God stood by his side, to fell a certain oak of extraordinary size, which is called, by an old name of the pagans, the Oak of Jupiter.

St. Boniface succeeded in shattering the tree:

At this sight the pagans who before had cursed now, on the contrary, believed, and blessed the Lord, and put away their former reviling.

St. Boniface offered a powerful God, a warrior more powerful than Thor (Donar, in Old High German), the god of Thunder.

Conclusion

As noted, this will be complicated, enlightening, troubling, controversial, and valuable.  But for now, this is enough – I think I have covered each of these already.