← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel

Sam Francis: The Christian Question

Thread ID: 15951 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2004-12-13

Wayback Archive

Centinel [OP]

2004-12-13 00:04 | User Profile

Book review by Francis (from years ago?) I stumbled across on the web....

[url]http://foster.20megsfree.com/457.htm[/url]

The Christian Question

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation

James C. Russell New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. $19.95 US

xiv + 258 pp.

Reviewed by Samuel Francis

“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism,” Oswald Spengler wrote many years ago. What he meant was that Christianity’s endorsement of such ideas as universalism, egalitarianism, peace, world brotherhood, and universal altruism helped establish and legitimize the ethics and politics invoked by socialists and communists. Socialists and communists don’t always agree, however, which is why another German scholar, Karl Marx, pronounced that religion is in fact a conservatizing force, the opiate of the masses, the drug that prevents the workers of the world from rebelling against their class enemies.

Both of these Teutonic heavyweights might have profited from reading James C. Russell’s The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, since it speaks, at least indirectly, to the tension between their different views of Christianity, differences that continue to be reflected in political and ideological disputes on the European and American right today. The main question in the controversy is this: Is Christianity a force that supports or opposes the efforts of the right to defend the European-American way of life? Christians on the right argue that their religious commitments are central to Western civilization, while pagans and secularists on the right (especially in Europe) argue, with Spengler, that Christianity undermines the West by pushing a universalism that rejects race, class, family, and even nation.

Mr. Russell, who holds a doctorate in historical theology from Fordham University and teaches at Saint Peter’s College, does not quite answer the question, but his immensely learned and closely reasoned book does suggest an answer. His thesis is that early Christianity flourished in the decadent, deracinated, and alienated world of late antiquity precisely because it was able to appeal to various oppressed or dissatisfied sectors of the population -- slaves, urbanized proletarians, women, intellectuals, frustrated aristocrats, and the odd idealist repelled by the pathological materialism, brutality, and banality of the age.

But when Christian missionaries tried to appeal to the Germanic invaders by invoking the universalism, pacifism, and egalitarianism that had attracted the alienated inhabitants of the empire, they failed. That was because the Germans practiced a folk religion that reflected ethnic homogeneity, social hierarchy, military glory and heroism, and “standards of ethical conduct ... derived from a sociobiological drive for group survival through ingroup altruism.” Germanic religion and society were “world-accepting,” while Hellenic Christianity was “world-rejecting,” reflecting the influence of Oriental religions and ethics. By “Germans,” it should be noted, Mr. Russell does not mean modern residents of Germany but rather “the Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, Burgundian, Alamannic, Suevic, and Vandal peoples, but also ... the Viking peoples of Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain.” With the exception of the Celts and the Slavs, “Germans” thus means almost the same thing as “European” itself.

Given the contradictions between the Christian ethics and world-view and those of the Indo-European culture of the Germanic peoples, the only tactic Christians could use was one of appearing to adopt Germanic values and claiming that Christian values were really compatible with them. The bulk of Mr. Russell’s scholarship shows how this process of accommodation took place in the course of about four centuries. The saints and Christ Himself were depicted as Germanic warrior heroes; both festivals and locations sacred in ancient Germanic cults were quietly taken over by the Christians as their own; and words and concepts with religious meanings and connotations were subtly redefined in terms of the new religion. Yet the final result was not that the Germans were converted to the Christianity they had originally encountered, but rather that that form of Christianity was “Germanized,” coming to adopt many of the same Indo-European folk values that the old pagan religion had celebrated.

Mr. Russell thus suggests, as noted above, a resolution of the debate over Christian universalism. The early Christianity that the Germans encountered contained a good many universalist tendencies, adapted and reinforced by the disintegrating social fabric and deracinated peoples of the late empire. But thanks to Germanization, those elements were soon suppressed or muted and what we know as the historical Christianity of the medieval era offered a religion, ethic, and world-view that supported what we today know as “conservative values” -- social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice. In being “Germanized,” Christianity was essentially reinvented as the dynamic faith that animated European civilization for a thousand years and more.

Mr. Russell’s answer to the question about Christianity is that Christianity is both the grandmother of Bolshevism (in its early universalist, non-Western form) and a pillar of social stabilization and order (through the values and world-view imported into it through contact with the ancient barbarians). Throughout most of its history, the latter has prevailed, but today, as Mr. Russell argues in the last pages of his work, the enemies of the European (Germanic) heritage -- what he calls “the Euro-Christian religiocultural fusion” -- have begun to triumph within Christian ranks. “Opposition to this fusion, especially as it might interfere with notions of universalism and ecumenism, was expressed in several of the documents of the Second Vatican Council,” and he sees the same kind of opposition to the early medieval Germanic influence in the various reform movements in church history, including the Protestant Reformation, which always demand a return to the “primitive church” -- i.e., pre-Germanic Christianity. It is precisely this rejection of the European heritage that may have driven many Christians of European background out of Christianity altogether and into alternative forms of paganism that positively affirm their racial and cultural roots.

Whatever primitive Christianity or true Christianity or historical Christianity may or may not have believed and taught, what is indisputably happening today is the deliberate extirpation from Christianity of the European heritage by its enemies within the churches. The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of Europe and the race that created it.

Mr. Russell has produced a deeply learned book that assimilates history and theology, sociology and comparative religion, and even sociobiology and genetics within its pages. Moreover, it is an important book that addresses a highly controversial and philosophically and culturally significant issue that few others will address at all.

Samuel Francis is an award winning columnist and associate and book review editor of The Occidental Quarterly

Ponce

2004-12-13 00:41 | User Profile

I am angry and sad to see how people use "religion" in order to either make money, control people or make war in the name of their respectives Gods.

God is God and either you know him or you dont, there was no need of a book in order for me to fall in love with my one and only and knowing God is like falling in love and once again either you know him or you don't,,,,why make such a big deal of something so simple?

No one has the right to talk to you in the name of your respectives Gods, they are all the same, and only him or it can talk to you and I will not disgrace the one that you call God by giving him a name so therefore I call it "The Force", I was very happy to see them use the same terms in "Star War".

To me religion is like stock brokers they tell you what could happen but wont tell you what is going to happen, preachers as well as stock brokers can't really see into the future and only tell you about it after the facts therefore that makes religion is the longest stock market bet in history.

"Religion is the excuse for making war and not the reson to make war",,, Ponce

I know, I know,,,,,I am full of crap, but hey! I am happy with my crap.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-06 22:20 | User Profile

I discussed this book on the New Right forum, here's my reply(which sadly is only a short outline. I can go deeper into details refuting Russell's arguments):

Im so sick and tired of having this piece thrown around constantly by members of the New Right. In fact possibly the biggest weakness reviewers have noted about Russell's book is that he fails to give any real evidence to back up his thesis, it relies completely on assumptions and speculation. If Im not mistaken, he "proves" his entire case by making a short list of these assumptions in one chapter. Not impressive.

In an earlier debate Ive shown how much of the BS being thrown around about Christianity being a mere gloss over the original paganism when concerning the Celts. Richard Fletcher in his The Barbarian Conversion: from paganism to Christianity also notes the agendas behind those trying to claim a form of "syncretism" between paganism and Christianity. Indeed, I find it highly interesting how some like to protray simple inculturation as somehow a form of "paganizing" Christianity.

"Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism," Oswald Spengler wrote many years ago. What he meant was that Christianity's endorsement of such ideas as universalism, egalitarianism, peace, world brotherhood, and universal altruism helped establish and legitimize the ethics and politics invoked by socialists and communists.

Those were all common themes of Hellenistic thought.

But when Christian missionaries tried to appeal to the Germanic invaders by invoking the universalism, pacifism, and egalitarianism

Christianity never invoked any of those principles. Well maybe universalism, but in an ethno-pluralist sense. Christianity has never been pacifist, in fact the first Roman convert to the faith is a soldier. St. Paul invokes martial idioms in his epistles and so on and so on. Egalitarianism only in a metaphysical manner.

Given the contradictions between the Christian ethics and world-view and those of the Indo-European culture of the Germanic peoples, the only tactic Christians could use was one of appearing to adopt Germanic values and claiming that Christian values were really compatible with them.

Yes and? This is a practice commonly referred to as inculturation.

The saints and Christ Himself were depicted as Germanic warrior heroes;

Yes, and among the Celts Christ was depicted and referred to as a Druid. So what of it? Again, they're assuming a adaptation to local culture is somehow a "paganization", which is highly simplistic to say and even wrong in many cases.

The early Christianity that the Germans encountered contained a good many universalist tendencies,

Define univeralism please. If you mean disregard for local cultures, than that is absolute bullshit! The Apostles themselves decided that Christianity could and should be celebrated within one's cultural enviroment. In fact its even been noted that Mathew's gospel is filled with nationalistic themes.

But thanks to Germanization, those elements were soon suppressed or muted and what we know as the historical Christianity of the medieval era offered a religion, ethic, and world-view that supported what we today know as "conservative values" -- social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.

Again, absolute bullshit! We see signs of a hierarchial structure within the Christian communities as early as the end of the first century. We see signs of loyalty to ones tribe and place not only within Christ but also the Aposltes, and at least one Gospel makes this a major theme. The Apostles themselves decreed in Jerusalem that Hebrew customs only applied to Hebrew Christians while Non-Roman Christians could and should celebrate the faith within their own cultural contexts.

We see a glorification of heroism and military sacrifice within the Bible itself and a full doctrine of "Just war" by the time of St. Augustine just before the collaspe of Rome. In fact Allen Franzten took particular aim at this notion:

** “Because we associate chivalry with courtliness and the “civilizing” impulse, many have assumed that the triumphant figure of Christ was a survival of Germanic culture and it was gradually replaced by a human-centered, more emotionally resonant representation of the Passion. [u]The militant spirit of Christianity was not a pagan survival[/u], however, but a commonplace of monastic literature. Here is the opening paragraph of the Benedictine Rule, developed by St. Benedict in the early sixth century, long before Christianity made headway in the Germanic territories of northern Europe: [QUOTE] 'Listen, my son, to your master’s precepts, and incline the ear of your heart. Receive willingly and carry out effectively your loving father’s advice…To you, therefore, my words are now addressed, whoever you may be, who are renouncing your own will to do battle under the Lord Christ, the true King, and are taking up the strong, bright weapons of obedience.' [/QUOTE] Behind such expressions we hear the words of St. Paul calling Christians to don “the armor of Christ” (Eph. 6:10-18, for example). But in the Rulethe thinking is refined and adapted to the formation of a brotherhood. Obedience has become a weapon; renouncing one’s will enables one to “do battle” under Christ. The Rule was probably known in Anglo-Saxon England already in the seventh century and shows [u]that Christianity did not depend on Germanic paganism for an appreciation of martial metaphors.[/u]” --Allen J. Frantzen "Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War"pg.33-4**

There you have it! I have absolutely no idea where Russell or Francis(who btw I just recently found out before his death possibly became a Christian himself) gets their argument from. A further point I wish to make is that we see all those elements in Christian communities that were never touched by "Germanization"(assuming for a moment that it actually occured); mainly among the Eastern Greek influenced churches. Ironically those are the churches most often associated with nationalism, another nail in Russell's argument. Theres simply too much information that undermines Russell's argument upon closer examination.

In being "Germanized," Christianity was essentially reinvented as the dynamic faith that animated European civilization for a thousand years and more.

More bullshit. The elements that "animated" European civilization where already in place within the Christian faith before "Germanization" occured(again, assuming this actually took place). A further weakening of Russell's thesis, if "Germanization" strengthened Christianity in the end it weakened it. It was Germaninic Christianity that first collasped to the liberal influences of the Reformation(not Latin Christianity and certainly not Greek Christianity).

Mr. Russell's answer to the question about Christianity is that Christianity is both the grandmother of Bolshevism (in its early universalist, non-Western form)

An argument that cannot be backed up with any real serious scholarship.

and a pillar of social stabilization and order (through the values and world-view imported into it through contact with the ancient barbarians).

Anybody who actually has studied Christian history knows this to be false. Hell even the New Age revisionists like Elaine Pagels and others(including Dan Brown, author of the "Da Vinci Code") admit Christianity became a major political force when Constantine converted(and this was before contact with the barbarians and "Germanization"). Of course Pagels herself admits that there never was an era in the church when pure egalitarianism ruled the day, but oh well.

he sees the same kind of opposition to the early medieval Germanic influence in the various reform movements in church history, including the Protestant Reformation, which always demand a return to the "primitive church" --i.e.,pre-Germanic Christianity.

The irony of which I have already pointed out.

It is precisely this rejection of the European heritage that may have driven many Christians of European background out of Christianity altogether and into alternative forms of paganism that positively affirm their racial and cultural roots.

Yeah except these neo-pagans have little if any similarity to their historical "ancestors". Paganism will not revive Europe.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-06 22:49 | User Profile

When I have time, I'll post information concering the BS surronding the interaction of paganism and Christianity among the Celts; largely because the way many try to protray Celtic Christianity as just a Christian gloss over the original paganism seems to equally apply here.

Ironically original theories of syncretism actually emphasized the ways in which paganism was similar to Christianity. Switching from pagan ways to Christian ones was not a challenge since many elements of Christianity wouldve already made sense to them. Example: the pagan Celts already believed in gods who took three forms, so they fully understood the trinity. Greek pagans already believed in mortal women giving birth to divine-human children; so the idea of christ being god yet born of a mortal woman wouldve made sense to them. And so on.

Nowadays, however, it's the opposite view. Pagans couldnt understand Christianity, so the Christians "paganized" their faith to make it more understandable and likable.

The former view is closer to the truth.

Petr

2005-11-07 00:54 | User Profile

I'll make some notes here myself:

[QUOTE=Centinel]What he meant was that Christianity’s endorsement of such ideas as universalism, egalitarianism, peace, world brotherhood, and universal altruism helped establish and legitimize the ethics and politics invoked by socialists and communists.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of straw-man stuff in here - for example, far from teaching "peace," one of Communism's main doctrines is [I]the inevitability of class struggle [/I]and the vanity of trying to prevent the revolution with "hypocritical bourgeois charity." Christianity, on the other hand, decidedly tries to [B]prevent[/B] selfish class struggle and turn it into co-operation instead.

[QUOTE=Centinel]But when Christian missionaries tried to appeal to the Germanic invaders by invoking the universalism, pacifism, and egalitarianism that had attracted the alienated inhabitants of the empire, they failed. That was because the Germans practiced a folk religion that reflected ethnic homogeneity, social hierarchy, military glory and heroism, and “standards of ethical conduct ... derived from a sociobiological drive for group survival through ingroup altruism.” Germanic religion and society were “world-accepting,” while Hellenic Christianity was “world-rejecting,” reflecting the influence of Oriental religions and ethics.[/QUOTE] Now this is just romantic nonsense. Russell is making up history, and nothing shows this more clearly than the [B]immediate[/B] success of[B] Arian Christianity [/B]among Germanic tribes. If anything, this Unitarian doctrine should have been even more "alien" to Germans than Trinitarian Christianity! [B][COLOR="Navy"][FONT="Arial"] "Ulfilas or Wulfila (perhaps meaning "little wolf") (c. 310 - 383), bishop, missionary, and translator, was a Goth or half-Goth who had spent time inside the Byzantine Empire at a time when Arianism was dominant. Ulfilas was ordained a bishop by Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his people to work as a missionary. Ulfilas translated the Bible from Greek into the Gothic language. For this he established a Gothic alphabet writing system."[/FONT][/COLOR][/B]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulfilas[/url]

Wulfila is actually said to have been forced to[B] cut out[/B] some of most violent parts of Bible while preaching to Goths, fearing that it would inflame their warlike passions too much! [SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"][COLOR="Red"][B] "Among the matters which he attended to among them, he was the inventor for them of their own letters, and translated all the Scriptures into their language - with the exception, that is, of the Books of Kings. [U]This was because these books contain the history of wars, while the Gothic people, being lovers of war, were in need of something to restrain their passion for fighting rather than to incite them to it, which those books have the power to do[/U], for all that they are held in the highest honour, and are well fitted to lead believers to the worship of God."[/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[url]http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/ulfilas.htm[/url]

And thus, take notice, Vandals, Burgundians, Visigoths and Ostrogoths were converted to Arianism [B]before[/B] they had even set their foot on Roman soil and become under the influence of Hellenism.

[QUOTE=]By “Germans,” it should be noted, Mr. Russell does not mean modern residents of Germany but rather “the Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, Burgundian, Alamannic, Suevic, and Vandal peoples, but also ... the Viking peoples of Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain.” With the exception of the Celts and the Slavs, “Germans” thus means almost the same thing as “European” itself.[/QUOTE] Whoa! What happened to all Latin peoples?

[QUOTE=]he sees the same kind of opposition to the early medieval Germanic influence in the various reform movements in church history, including the Protestant Reformation, which always demand a return to the “primitive church” -- i.e., pre-Germanic Christianity.[/QUOTE] This is a highly ironic claim, since it completely ignores the essential role that Martin Luther played in the birth of [B]German nationalism [/B]- even Nazis congratulated him for it!

[SIZE="3"][FONT="Garamond"][COLOR="Sienna"][B] “It was Luther, we must understand, who began to Germanise Christianity; National Socialism must complete the process.” This from Alfred Rosenberg is one of their typical sayings.[/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[url]http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html[/url]

Especially his translation of the Bible into laymen's German was the beginning of modern German language.

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"]"During his involuntary stay at the Wartburg, despite "the pestering of the Devil", Luther devoted his time to a major project: translating the New Testament from Greek into German in only eleven weeks. Later the work would be edited by Melanchthon and other specialists (for example, Caspar Cruciger), and was published in 1522 as the so called [I]September Bible[/I]. Through this Bible, Luther became[B] the creator of the New High German written language.[/B]"[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.luther.de/en/sprache.html[/url]

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was actually fashionable for hyper-nationalist Germans to abandon Catholicism, that they considered to be un-German in its universality, and convert to Protestantism as a sign of racialist defiance, much like some American Blacks abandon Christianity for Islam. [SIZE="3"][COLOR="Purple"] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"]...

They believe that if Catholicism is an international religion, with a leader who is not part of Germany – obviously in Rome – that by contrast, Protestantism is more innately amenable to nationalist politics. [B]They cast Luther as not just the first Protestant, but also the first German. Hitler’s saying this, but it’s certainly not new. [/B]What is notable about it, is that even nominal Catholics – as you point out, like Hitler – seem to have a greater appreciation for at least the political and social dimensions of Protestantism than they do their own nominal faith Catholicism. And so again, it’s no surprise when you look at it that way, that Hitler obviously had long before 1933, when he comes to power, stopped attending Catholic church; for him, Protestantism was more valued. Now, because he was a politician, and he wanted to get Catholics on board his movement, he wasn’t about to convert to Protestantism, but when you look at his private conversations behind closed doors – when the curtain of Nazi performance, if you will, comes down – [B]what you hear Hitler saying over and over again, is among other thing, a much higher estimation of Protestantism as what he calls “the natural religion of the German”[/B].[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[url]http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?PID=1268[/url]

(Two Waffen-SS divisions were even named after rebel leaders of the 1520s Peasant War in Germany - [I]Florian Geyer[/I] and [I]Götz von Berlichingen[/I])

So [I]summa summarum[/I], it would seem that Russell doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Petr

Petr

2005-11-07 17:58 | User Profile

Further observations:

[QUOTE=Centinel]That was because the Germans practiced a folk religion that reflected ethnic homogeneity, social hierarchy, military glory and heroism, and “standards of ethical conduct ... derived from a sociobiological drive for group survival through ingroup altruism.” [/QUOTE]

Actually what Germanic tribes practised back then was [B]tribalism[/B]. Not[I] nationalism[/I], what was essentially a co-product of Christianity, but more like short-sightedly violent, [I]Rwandaesque[/I] tribalism.

Julius Caesar wrote in 51 BC: [COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Garamond"] "21. [B]The customs of the Germans differ widely from those of the Gauls; for neither have they Druids to preside over religious services, nor do they give much attention to sacrifices. [/B]They count in the number of their gods those only whom they can see, and by whose favors they are clearly aided; that is to say, the Sun, Vulcan, and the Moon. Of other deities they have never even heard. Their whole life is spent in hunting and in war. From childhood they are trained in labor and hardship.

...

23.[B] It is a matter of the greatest glory to the tribes to lay waste, as widely as possible, the lands bordering their territory, thus making them uninhabitable. They regard it as the best proof of their valor that their neighbors are forced to withdraw from those lands and hardly any one dares set foot there; [/B]at the same time they think that they will thus be more secure, since the fear of a sudden invasion is removed. When a tribe is either repelling an invasion or attacking an outside people, magistrates are chosen to lead in the war, and these are given the power of life and death. In times of peace there is no general magistrate, but the chiefs of the districts and cantons render justice among their own people and settle disputes. [B]Robbery, if committed beyond the borders of the tribe, is not regarded as disgraceful, and they say that it is practiced for the sake of training the youth and preventing idleness.[/B]"[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/51caesar-germans.html[/url]

We can see the lacking sense of German nationalism in the ease that (mostly pagan, possibly part-Arian) Lombards allied themselves with nomadic, Turko-Mongol Avars to destroy and pillage another Germanic tribe, Gepids: [COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"] [B]THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GEPIDAE[/B]

"It was about the year of Justinians death (565) that Alboin succeeded to the kingship of the Lombards. [B]Alboin saw in the power of the Avars a means of crushing the Gepids. He proposed a compact to Baian. He said: "Let us join hands and destroy these Gepids who lie between your lands and mine. If we conquer them, you shall have their lands and half the spoils." [/B]This alliance sealed the fate of the Gepids. They were conquered in a great battle, of which the date is about 567, and politically annihilated. This was the end of another of the great East German peoples, who, though less famous than Goths and Vandals, had played a considerable part in the Danubian lands. A new period in the history of Dacia ensued. That country now passed into the hands of the Avars, who soon extended their power farther west.

"The destruction of the Gepids seems to have been, on the part of the Lombard king, prompted by hatred and vindictiveness, not by policy. [B]He slew Cunimund, the Gepid king, in the battle with his own hand; afterwards he took Rosamund, his daughter, to wife, and, according to a doubtful tale, fashioned her father's skull into a drinking cup to be used at solemn banquets. [/B]But no sooner had the extirpation of his hated neighbours been completed and his passion of vengeance satisfied than he determined to leave his home in Pannonia and seek a new home in Italy. He may perhaps have come to the conclusion that the Avars would not be more agreeable neighbours than the Gepids had been. He is said to have made the Avars the conditional inheritors of his Pannonian territory. He said: "If we Lombards conquer Italy, you shall have all our territory in Pannonia; but you must promise that, if we fail, you will restore it to us". However this may be, Pannonia, on the departure of the Lombards, was occupied by the Avars apparently without consulting the Emperor. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.northvegr.org/lore/bury/029.php[/url]

[QUOTE=Centinel]Germanic religion and society were “world-accepting,” while Hellenic Christianity was “world-rejecting,” reflecting the influence of Oriental religions and ethics.[/QUOTE]

This a typical heads-I-win, tails-you-lose assertion: if Christians show a more positive outlook of life instead, followers of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are immediately blaming them for "shallow optimism" and laud hyper-pessimistic religions like Buddhism for their lack of idealism.

(Both Judaism and Islam are very "world-affirming" religions, btw.)

And actually, at least among Vikings, there was some very gloomy fatalism present as well - the [I]Götterdämmerung[/I] mentality:

[COLOR="DarkRed"][FONT="Arial"][B]"Absolute pessimism" is expressed in a different way in ancient Scandinavian mythology in the collection of songs known as the [I]Elder Edda[/I]. /B In this tradition (and especially in the "Prophecy of the Vala," the so-called "Voluspo"), we see a picture of a world ruled by gods personifying the forces of order and life and elemental destructive forces, embodied in the wolf Fenrir, son of Loki, held in check by a magic net. But at the appointed hour, the Wolf breaks loose and devours the sun; the world Serpent rises from the bottom of the ocean and gains victory over Thor. A ship built from the fingernails of the dead sails the sea, bringing giants who come to fight the gods. All people perish, heaven is cleft, the earth sinks into the sea, and the stars fall. B[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]

[url]http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html[/url]

Petr

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-07 20:37 | User Profile

You know Petr, I was just reading Peter Brown's Rise of Western Christendom last night and I couldn't stop laughing hard enough. Brown makes note that the localization of Christianity occured in vastly different regions as Ireland, Spain, Armenia, Egypt, etc.

What Brown had to say about Armenia really got me laughing. According to Brown's account, the Armenians were a proud warrior people who also had a strong sense of tribal kinship. When Christianity arrived, the Armenians largely interpreted Christianity to fit this mold. For example the stories of the Bible were seen in a fashion similar to typical Persian heroic epics. When the Persians invaded, the Armenians rallied themselves to the cause of defending their Christian nation and protrayed themselves as like the Israelite Maccabees fighting off foreign invadors. Sound familiar? Well that's because Brown notes this is exactly the same as what happened in Western Europe. In fact Brown notes that Germanic leaders actually saw themselves as following the model of the kings and warriors of the Old Testament. So Russell's thesis that "Germanization" was somehow special and totally changed the nature of Christianity is complete nonsense; as Brown notes the same basic story [I]HAPPENED EVERYWHERE CHRISTIANITY AROSED![/I]

And the fact that Christianity adopts itself to local cultures and often serves to help build a greater sense of social and national loyalty and cohesion is not some unintended side-effect of the faith, but as Adrian Hastings explains it goes right to the heart of the nature of Christianity itself.

As I said earlier, there's simply too much information that debunks Russell.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-07 20:58 | User Profile

BTW, Ive also found this damaging review of the book here: [url]http://www.infomotions.com/serials/bmmr/bmmr-9406-stacey-germanization.txt[/url]

According to the reviewer, Russell is not writing history so much as putting forth a sociological theory about the differences between "universal"/"worl-rejecting" faiths(Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) and "world-accepting"/"folk religiosities" and in order for the "universal" faiths to convert the "folk religions" they have to reinterpret their faith to fit that mold. And then Russell projects this thesis onto the past with the pacifist Christians vs. the martial Germanic pagans. Yet as the reviewer notes, plenty of historians disagree with many aspects of this viewpoint:

** Medieval historians are likely to have some reservations about the degree to which [Russell's] model captures the essence of the conversion years. Not all would agree, for example, with his picture of the Germans of the migration period as a homogeneous, stable and socially cohesive group. Kingship itself was undergoing considerable change in this period (reges, duces, and the like), and recent work has stressed the extent to which the social and political identities of these peoples as a whole were also "under construction". Indeed, one could use Russell's model to argue that social instability of this sort might actually predispose the Germanic peoples to conversion, rather than the other way around. In this case, the encounter between Roman Christianity and Germanic paganism might appear less a sociohistorically mandated clash of world-views in which certain elements triumphed over others than a long-term forging of a common religiocultural identity by two traditions equally in crisis.**

I love how the reviewer uses Peter Brown(who obviously did more research into his works than Russell) to refute Russell. As he explains, many of the issues surronding the conversion of the Germanic peoples were seen before during Roman times and elsewhere: ** Equally difficult is the issue of "Germanism". On one level Russell's main argument--that Germanic priorities and perceptions exercised a tremendous influence on Christianity as it developed in the middle ages--is certainly right. On the other hand, the danger with such generalizations is that as soon as one pushes at all on the framework the whole model comes toppling down. What exactly is a "Germanic" institution? Do holy warfare and crusade represent instances of the Germanic heroic ethic refashioning "authentic" Christianity which Russell, citing the Sermon on the Mount (p. 122), sees as inherently pacifist in nature? Well, on one level, maybe--but as Augustine and others demonstrate, the problem is rather more complicated than that. Are Eigenkirchen Germanic because they pick up on the desire of Frankish nobles for sacral reinforcement? [u]In part certainly--but then as Peter Brown has shown, conflicts between aristocrats attempting to privatize the holy and bishops determined to preserve public access to it in order to cement their own position were a vital part of the late Roman scene as well.[/u] Russell attempts to get out of this problem by asserting that it is not necessary for the developments he assigns to Germanic influence to be unique to the Germans (p. 167). However, one wonders then what exactly he sees himself as tracing.**

Yes makes you wonder how on earth Russell could seriously present this thesis when too much information is out there to refute it.

So how does Russell choose to back up his assertions and what does this have to say about the book as a whole?:

** Indeed, perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this obviously thoughtful book is its failure to go beyond vague assertions of Germanic origin to consider the true complexity of the institutional and doctrinal developments he has set himself to describe . For all intents and purposes, [u]Russell's exploration of the Germanic "transformation" of Christianity never goes beyond the list of examples offered in chapter two (pp. 40-44).[/u] That this should be so is due in large measure to the nature of the book itself. [u][COLOR="Red"]This is not a work of history[/COLOR]. Its intent is not to examine the actual development of Christianity in the early middle ages but rather to construct a model by which to understand how such development might have occurred. [/u] As such, the book does not draw to any significant extent on primary sources; it is instead a pastiche of secondary works drawn together into a sociohistorical model of religious change. And while the range and quality of the author's reading is impressive, it is not coincidental that many of the passages he cites are from older works that lend themselves better to such sociological generalizing. To say this is not to disparage the interest of Russell's model or the intelligence of his work. It is, however, to warn historians that they might find less in this book than its title would lead them to expect--and to alert those interested in the sociology of religion, or in contemporary religious change, that they might find a good deal more.**

So obviously neo-pagans and the ENR obviously blow this book to be more than what it really is.

Read the entire review for more information.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-07 21:20 | User Profile

David Warner also gives a strong critique of Russell's book here: [url]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb141/is_199703/ai_hibm1G120304553[/url]

You might have to register to read it though.

Petr

2005-11-08 01:03 | User Profile

An interesting tidbit: a 19th-century Polish nationalist[B] Antoni Maurycy SZYMANSKI (1813-1894)[/B] comments upon the "Christianity as Communism's granddaddy" theory: [COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Garamond"]

"Christ did not preach communism. [B][U]Communism was championed by sects hostile to Christianity, namely by the neo-Platonists, the most passionate defenders of sinking paganism. Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute Christianity.[/U] In the early second century, Carpocrates and Epiphanius, founders of one of the sects which would later merge with the Gnostic heresy, proclaimed communal ownership and sanctified dissoluteness. Nourished by Platonic principles, Epiphanius wrote a book about Justice where he held that God's justice on the earth finds its expression in common ownership and equality; that common ownership arises from natural and divine law, and property and marriage from human law. His disciples prayed without any clothes on, they hated fasting, men and women worshiped their own bodies, perfumed and fed them. Property and women were held in common. The host offered his wife to the guest. This custom was clothed in the mantle of charity. After a collective dinner they put the lights out and indulged in debauchery. [...][/B]"[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.omp.org.pl/szymanski_ang.htm[/url]

Nesta Webster also mentioned these Gnostic cults in her book[I] Secret Societies and Subversive Movements[/I]:[FONT="Times New Roman"][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]

"These men were therefore not only the enemies of Christianity but of orthodox Judaism, since it was against the Jehovah of the Jews that their hatred was particularly directed. [B]Another Gnostic sect the Carpocratians, followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria and his son Epiphamus—who died from his debaucheries and was venerated as a god(105)—likewise regarded all written laws, Christian or Mosaic, with contempt and recognised only the () or knowledge given to the great men of every nation—Plato and Pythagoras, Moses and Christ—which " frees one from all that the vulgar call religion" and " makes man equal to God."(106)[/B]

So in the Carpocratians of the second century we find already the tendency towards that[I] deification of humanity [/I]which forms the supreme doctrine of the secret societies and of the visionary Socialists of our day.[B] The war now begins between the two contending principles: the Christian conception of man reaching up to God and the secret society conception of man as God, needing no revelation from on high and no guidance but the law of his own nature. And since that nature is in itself divine, all that springs from it is praiseworthy, and those acts usually regarded as sins are not to be condemned. [/B]By this line of reasoning the Carpocratians arrived at much the same conclusions as modern Communists with regard to the ideal social system. Thus Epiphanus held that since Nature herself reveals the principle of the community and the unity of all things, human laws which are contrary to this law of Nature are so many culpable infractions of the legitimate order of things. Before these laws were imposed on humanity everything was in common—land, goods, and women. According to certain contemporaries, the Carpocratians returned to this primitive system by instituting the community of women and indulging in every kind of licence. "[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://ca.geocities.com/nt_351/webster/secret/secret01.htm[/url]

Igor Shafarevich also mentions Carpocratians and notes how an important part of their Gnostic anti-OT position was[U] mocking the very concept of private property that the Ten Commandments had made sacred:[/U] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkRed"]

"Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria describe the gnostic sect of Carpocratians which appeared in Alexandria in the second century A.D. [B]The founder of this sect, Carpocrates, taught that faith and love bring salvation and place man above good and evil. [/B]These ideas were elaborated by his son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen, having written a work "On Justice." [B]According to Clement of Alexandria, he was later worshiped as a god in Samos, where a sanctuary was erected to him.[/B]

Some quotations from Epiphanes follow:

[I]"God's justice consists in community and equality."

"The Creator and Father of all gave everyone equally eyes to see and established laws in accordance with his justice without distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one thing from any other."

"The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community established by God's law. Do you not understand the words of the Apostle: 'Through law I knew sin' (Romans 7: 7)? 'Mine' and 'thine' were spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law."

"Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the principles of communality, he joins man and woman. In the same way, he links all living beings; in this he has revealed justice demanding communality in conjunction with equality. But those begotten in this way deny the community that has created them, saying: 'He who takes a wife, let him possess her.' But they can possess all in common as the animals do."[/I]

[I]"[B][U]It is therefore laughable to hear the giver of laws saying: 'Do not covet' and more laughable still the addition: 'that which is your neighbor's.'[/U] For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more laughable is the phrase 'your neighbor's wife,' for in this way that which is common is forcibly turned into private property[/B]."[/I] (7: p. 117)

The members of this sect, which extended as far as Rome, followed principles of complete communality, including communality of wives. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_7[/url]

And so, a 14th-century English poet William Langland cited precisely [B]the Law of Moses[/B] to defend the concept of private property and described how university-educated Communist heretics were citing [U]pagan philosophers [/U]to justify their own position:

[B]from [I]The Pursuit Of The Millennium[/I] by Norman Cohn (1961), pg. 212-13:[/B]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Navy"] "It would be surprising if amongst the swarm of students of all sorts and classes who congregated at Oxford there had been none who snatched at such ideas and scattered them abroad, simplified into propagandistic slogans. [B]And indeed Langland, writing on the morrow of the great revolt, has told in [I]Piers Plowman[/I] how speculations concerning the State of Nature penetrated from the universities to the common people, and with what effect[/B]:

[I]"Envy heard this; and bade friars go to school, And learn logic and Law, and also Contemplation, [B]And preach to men of Plato, and prove it by Seneca, That all things under heaven ought to be in common.[/B] He lies, as I live, who to the unlearned so preaches, [B]For God made to men a law, and Moses taught it, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's[/B]"[/I][/COLOR][/FONT]

Petr

Petr

2005-11-08 02:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hilaire Belloc]Those were all common themes of Hellenistic thought. [/QUOTE]

An interesting tidbit: a 19th-century Polish nationalist[B] Antoni Maurycy SZYMANSKI (1813-1894)[/B] comments upon the "Christianity as Communism's granddaddy" theory: [COLOR="Purple"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Garamond"]

"Christ did not preach communism. [B][U]Communism was championed by sects hostile to Christianity, namely by the neo-Platonists, the most passionate defenders of sinking paganism. Plato's communist republic was the dream of Porphyry, Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the ideal of perfection employed to refute Christianity.[/U] In the early second century, Carpocrates and Epiphanius, founders of one of the sects which would later merge with the Gnostic heresy, proclaimed communal ownership and sanctified dissoluteness. Nourished by Platonic principles, Epiphanius wrote a book about Justice where he held that God's justice on the earth finds its expression in common ownership and equality; that common ownership arises from natural and divine law, and property and marriage from human law. His disciples prayed without any clothes on, they hated fasting, men and women worshiped their own bodies, perfumed and fed them. Property and women were held in common. The host offered his wife to the guest. This custom was clothed in the mantle of charity. After a collective dinner they put the lights out and indulged in debauchery. [...][/B]"[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.omp.org.pl/szymanski_ang.htm[/url]

Nesta Webster also mentioned these Gnostic cults in her book[I] Secret Societies and Subversive Movements[/I]:[FONT="Times New Roman"][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]

"These men were therefore not only the enemies of Christianity but of orthodox Judaism, since it was against the Jehovah of the Jews that their hatred was particularly directed. [B]Another Gnostic sect the Carpocratians, followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria and his son Epiphamus—who died from his debaucheries and was venerated as a god(105)—likewise regarded all written laws, Christian or Mosaic, with contempt and recognised only the [I]gnosis[/I] or knowledge given to the great men of every nation—Plato and Pythagoras, Moses and Christ—[U]which "frees one from all that the vulgar call religion" and " makes man equal to God."/U[/B]

So in the Carpocratians of the second century we find already the tendency towards that[B][I] deification of humanity [/I][/B]which forms the supreme doctrine of the secret societies and of the visionary Socialists of our day.[B] The war now begins between the two contending principles: the Christian conception of man reaching up to God and [U]the secret society conception of man as God[/U], needing no revelation from on high and no guidance but the law of his own nature. And since that nature is in itself divine, all that springs from it is praiseworthy, and those acts usually regarded as sins are not to be condemned. [/B]By this line of reasoning the Carpocratians arrived at much the same conclusions as modern Communists with regard to the ideal social system. Thus Epiphanus held that since Nature herself reveals the principle of the community and the unity of all things, human laws which are contrary to this law of Nature are so many culpable infractions of the legitimate order of things. Before these laws were imposed on humanity everything was in common—land, goods, and women. According to certain contemporaries, the Carpocratians returned to this primitive system by instituting the community of women and indulging in every kind of licence. "[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://ca.geocities.com/nt_351/webster/secret/secret01.htm[/url]

Igor Shafarevich also mentions Carpocratians and notes how an important part of their Gnostic anti-OT position was [U]mocking the very concept of private property that the Ten Commandments had made sacred:[/U] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"][COLOR="DarkRed"]

"Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria describe the gnostic sect of Carpocratians which appeared in Alexandria in the second century A.D. [B]The founder of this sect, Carpocrates, taught that faith and love bring salvation and place man above good and evil. [/B]These ideas were elaborated by his son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen, having written a work "On Justice." [B]According to Clement of Alexandria, he was later worshiped as a god in Samos, where a sanctuary was erected to him.[/B]

Some quotations from Epiphanes follow:

[I]"God's justice consists in community and equality."

"The Creator and Father of all gave everyone equally eyes to see and established laws in accordance with his justice without distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one thing from any other."

"The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community established by God's law. Do you not understand the words of the Apostle: 'Through law I knew sin' (Romans 7: 7)? 'Mine' and 'thine' were spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law."

"Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the principles of communality, he joins man and woman. In the same way, he links all living beings; in this he has revealed justice demanding communality in conjunction with equality. But those begotten in this way deny the community that has created them, saying: 'He who takes a wife, let him possess her.' But they can possess all in common as the animals do."[/I] [SIZE="3"] [I]"[B][U]It is therefore laughable to hear the giver of laws saying: 'Do not covet' and more laughable still the addition: 'that which is your neighbor's.'[/U] For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more laughable is the phrase 'your neighbor's wife,' for in this way that which is common is forcibly turned into private property[/B]."[/I] (7: p. 117)[/SIZE]

The members of this sect, which extended as far as Rome, followed principles of complete communality, including communality of wives. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_7[/url]

And so, a 14th-century English allegorical poet William Langland cited precisely [B]the Law of Moses[/B] to defend the concept of private property and described how university-educated Communist heretics were citing [U]pagan philosophers [/U]to justify their own position:

[B]from [I]The Pursuit Of The Millennium[/I] by Norman Cohn (1961), pg. 212-13:[/B]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Navy"] "It would be surprising if amongst the swarm of students of all sorts and classes who congregated at Oxford there had been none who snatched at such ideas and scattered them abroad, simplified into propagandistic slogans. [B]And indeed Langland, writing on the morrow of the great revolt, has told in [I]Piers Plowman[/I] how speculations concerning the State of Nature penetrated from the universities to the common people, and with what effect[/B]:

[I]"Envy heard this; and bade friars go to school, And learn logic and Law, and also Contemplation, [B]And preach to men of Plato, and prove it by Seneca, That all things under heaven ought to be in common.[/B] He lies, as I live, who to the unlearned so preaches, [B]For God made to men a law, and Moses taught it, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's[/B]"[/I][/COLOR][/FONT]

Petr