The Germanisation of Christianity in the Early Middle Ages

[Menydh]

The following are some review articles on the book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation, by James C. Russell.

I have been particularly interested in the subject of Germanic influence on Christianism since it came about during a discusion which I had with a good friend of mine who, although a Catholic himself, he has been influenced by the teachings of his professor, an Orthodox monk from Mt. Athos. Unfortunately I've had no access to any further information ever since and what he discussed was far from sufficient. Just today I came across this book while searching for other information. And so it goes into my to-buy list.

However, looking at the background of the author makes me aware that I should take whatever conclusions he reaches with a pinch of salt...or two.

James C. Russell, PhD in Historical Theology, is an American Paleoconservative identified with the White segregationist or separatist entourage, which in itself overlaps to much an extent with the White supremacist views, or at least they borrow ideas from one another, where White Segregationism would be a moderated version of White Supremacism.

However premature before reading the book, from the author's background added to the reviews and a limited online access to the Conclusions chapter, it appears to surface a sui generis analysis from where it constructs a biased conclusion.

Perhaps a companion book to Russell's The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity could be Ralph M. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. A History of Vatican II, which Russell appears to cite in his book.

How to find what Western Christianity was like before Germanic influence appears as a challenging but interesting task. Probably some information lies in the early monasteries of the western fringes of Old Europe.

[Menydh]

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach (book review)


The strongest aspect of Russell's case is his argument for Germanic cultural resistance to assimilation into Latin civilization. While this is a point that has been made before, few have presented it with such systematic determination and with a concern to prove the vitality of Germanic values in the face of cultural contact. As Russell explains it, from the start the Latin need of Germanic military might far exceeded the German need for Latin civilization. The Germanic tribes were not barbarians with their noses pressed to the shop window looking in at the comforts of civilized life; the Romans were the proprietors of a "senescent" civilization from which "nascent" Germanic cultures took what they wanted. Among the things they did not want were the heterogeneous, anomic culture of late imperial Roman cities, and the religion (Christianity) which provided much of the sense of community which remained in those cities. Thus tribal leaders, while imitating the lifestyle of the Roman elite, consciously avoided educating their children in Roman values and, before Clovis, embracing Christianity themselves. Particularly intriguing is Russell's answer to the question of why Clovis turned Christian, an answer which emphasizes the degree to which the former's options were between a form of Christianity already ethnicized (Arianism) and a (Gallo-Roman) Latin Christian church quite eager to accommodate itself to his needs. Russell's point is that Clovis' motivation was entirely political, and that political considerations drove the conversion to Christianity of most tribal leaders.

Much less convincing is Russell's argument for the germanization of Christianity, at least for a reviewer who would expect such an argument to have some empirical demonstration instead of being a conclusion reached from a survey of secondary readings. Russell's construct of late Roman Christianity is something of a strawman given first that he provides a sociological definition for a phenomenon he wants to be understood in a cultural sense, second that he avoids discussion of Greek and Egyptian Christianity and the question of whether during the period under discussion Rome was an originator or a transmitter of Christian culture. Perhaps Rome was so accommodating to German sensibilities out of a need to create a constituency which recognized its authority versus that of Constantinople or Alexandria. Russell commits himself to validating the theories of Georges Dumezil on the nature of Indo-European consciousness. This commitment only confuses his case. Germanic tribal elites may have rejected cultural assimilation into a Latin world view, but he never demonstrates that there was something uniquely Indo-European about this rejection. Tribal elites in Asia, Africa and South America have found Christianity equally unsuited to their needs. Having insisted that there was something in Germans being Indo-Europeans which explains why they did not respond to the Christian message, Russell needed to indicate what this uniqueness was by reference to the reactions of other non-Indo-European warrior elites to Christianity.

This last criticism is especially pertinent in regards to literacy, the one aspect of the Latin cultural bequest to the Germanic tribes Russell did not discuss. Not to take away from his dichotomy between "world-rejecting" and "world-accepting," but how and why these categories were not in this historical instance reducible to the distinction between "literate" and "non-literate" needed to be considered. The issue was never one of whether warriors dismissed the importance of the Latin cultural legacy, but whether literate Germans did. And while one can appreciate Russell's point that looking at christianization during the earlier Middle Ages from the perspective of the debate between John Van Engen and Jacques Le Goff about christianization in the later Middle Ages obscures the cultural processes going on in the earlier era, it is still valid to inquire to what degree the syncretism occurring during the earlier time was a function of the absence of a Latin trained clergy concerned to inhibit it.

Russell begins his discussion by citing the recent (1988) schism from the Roman Catholic Church by the French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as an example of the alienation of contemporary Europeans from a religious institution which has consciously sought to de-ethnicize itself from its European roots, and ends it with the observation that the "disassociation" of Christian churches from their European "heritage" may account for the disassociation of many Europeans from those churches and "possibly from Christianity itself." Clearly he is conscious of a religious experience which he senses is dying and this essay is an effort to bring this development under sociological scrutiny. The problem with Russell's sensibility is that (Indo-)European intellectuals at least as far back as the Hussites have voiced frustration over the "disassociation" of Christianity with the needs and values of local communities. And at least from the time of the Hussites the response by Church intellectuals has been that their goal is to supply the spiritual needs of the more cosmopolitan among the laity. Perhaps the greatest fault of Russell's argument is that it does not come to grips with what happened next in the story it projects back to the dawn of European Christianity.

A. E. Barnes Carnegie Mellon University
COPYRIGHT 1995 Journal of Social History
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

[Menydh]

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Socio-historical Approach to religious Transformation (book review)


Most of Russell's discussion is based upon anthropological models which should be quite useful for study of a period in which only limited written sources are extant. That should include "belief-attitude-value-behavior construct of a society" or B.A.V.B. which is explained on p. 11-13 and mentioned again in conclusion on p. 211. Apparently, during his period "B.A.V.B. modification" is "barely perceptible," and this is his main complaint; for significant B.A.V.B. modification of German pagan religiosity by missionaries "might have completely transformed Germanic religiosity into a replica of early Christianity had it not been for the contemporaneous decline of the catechumenate, and the vitality of the Germanic ethos and world-view." But B.A.V.B. is not an operative construct for anthropologists; as an analytic model therefore, it loses explanatory power in Russell's hands.

If we test some of the evidence, we shall have even more problems. He accepts Joseph Campbell's most casual comments about Christianity:

"How, exactly, was this Levantine institution with its supporting myth received and understood by the recently pagan, hyperborean population, to whose well-being in the yonder world its magic now was to be applied. One important clue may be seen in the heresy of two Irishmen, contemporaries of Patrick, Pelagius and his chief disciple Caelestius. In their essentially Stoic doctrine of free will A second clue to the temper of the north may be seen in the Irish Neoplatonic philosopher . . . Johannes Scotus Erigena (c. 815-c.877) . . . according to whom sin is the misdirected will." (The Masks of God (1964), pp. 464-6).

Stoic free will? Duty and fate, wasn't it? A serious philosopher like Augustine ("their antagonist," according to Campbell) admired the duty but abhored the "fate" which reduced "free will." Evidence of how northerners received Christianity is the question for Russell, and Campbell is just no help at all because of his perverse selection of evidence. Patrick left writings of his own, as did Cummian and other Celts in several parts of that region. Aldhelm and Bede, Cuthbert and Dunstan, Willibrord and Boniface - so many hyperboreans who wrote so much and so well of pride as the root of license and licentiousness, grace as the source of freedom of the will. I guess those who are thankful to be free of paganism and fatalism don't make the team for cultural anthropology.

Boniface has a place of honour, however; his career as an Anglo-Saxon missionary to the Germans is used to set a limit for this book. Indeed, Anglo-Saxon missionaries are often cited as being accommodating, and Boniface is the principal one. What is the evidence? Well, liturgy is important for B.A.V.B. How did it affect the Germans? Silence; but through it the Germans affected Rome, and there bas been trouble ever since. Russell is sure that the desire of Frankish kings, Pepin the Short and Charlemagne, to Romanise the Frankish liturgy was intended to undergird the alliance between their northern German monarchy and the southern Holy See (p. 192). And there is other evidence of how things went wrong: letters of Gregory the Great to new bishops in England, one of which would allow converts to kill cattle for food in the usual places; Daniel of Winchester's letter to Boniface; Pope Zacharius' letter to Pepin the Short; reports of missionaries amongst the Frisians (p. 195).

Unfortunately for Russell, Pepin and Charlemagne intended to upgrade Frankish liturgy with Roman standards (and obtain books for their schools from the markets), but alliance with the papacy seems to have meant little else to them. Boniface was not interested in Romanising the Frankish liturgy at all. There is no evidence that Boniface knew Gregory's suggestions. Advice from Daniel to Boniface and all other advice and reports of Anglo-Saxon missionaries are affirmative of the core elements of Christianity without accommodation. Zacharius, of course, was not Anglo-Saxon but Greek, perhaps from Syria, one of a series of Greek-speaking popes in central Italy; his letter is not remotely accommodating about the truth and nature of Christian doctrine. All these reports say that pagan Franks were confronted with demands to give up worshipping idols, believe in Christ, and accept baptism; in return their sins would be washed away and they would receive eternal glory at the end of their lives: basic Christianity, obviously. No accommodation there.

Russell failed to mention Boniface's encounter with the tree of Thor, and how he was not expected to survive, but did. Nor his dramatic death, preaching to the Frisians: it was an axe through the skull from those to whom he was preaching in their own language. What of his successor Lul at Mainz? Just as direct. Wulframm asserted to Duke Radbod in Frisia that his ancestors were damned and thus failed to convert him but did escape with his life; Willibrord preached a more sensible sermon to the same duke, but without accommodation. What of the series of abbots of Fulda who trained and sent so many missionaries to the Saxons and Slavs - most of whom died on the field of spiritual battle? They don't fit the model.

He cites some literature which might reveal the B.A.V.B. of Indo-European culture: Snorri Sturluson was a thirteenth century Christian Icelander who wrote the Prose Edda, and I don't know why Russell wants us to know that his "approach to his sources was more objective" (p. 110). Further: "The disparity between Germanic and early Christian world-views . . . may be observed more clearly if one momentarily moves beyond the Merowingerzeit to the thirteenth century to compare the allegorical and moralistic orientation of Augustinian salvation history as epitomized by De civitate Dei, with the far more objective Germanic depiction of historical events in the Nibelungenlied and the Icelandic sagas" (p. 205-6). Somehow De civitate Dei seems a bit too large to epitomise anything. Neither were written in the thirteenth century, and one must look elsewhere in Augustine's work for allegories. Can you believe that the Nibelungenlied depicted historical events objectively? But none of this reveals anything about the years 376-754.

Russell wants "to better illustrate the disparity between Germanic and Christian values" (p. 120). After all the other confusion and reversals of common sense, why am I not surprised at three split infinitives, prominently displayed?

Why was the book published? I propose that the editors at Oxford University Press should have their positions reviewed. If it really were accepted as a doctoral dissertation at Fordham University, the professors should not be granted tenure.

Wesley M. Stevens University of Winnipeg
COPYRIGHT 1995 Canadian Journal of History
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

[Menydh]

The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation (book review)

Russell's book presents an interesting and important twist: he demonstrates how early medieval Christianity got fundamentally transformed by Germanic religious concepts and thought. Indeed, he arrives at the conclusion that the Germanic peoples had not been christianized in the strict sense by the middle of the eighth century. Although baptized, their form of Christianity was basically a non-Christian Germanized one, since essential Christian soteriological concepts had been compromised. This Germanization of Western Medieval Christianity had serious consequences, R. claims, for the religiocultural orientation of popular Roman Catholicism for more than a thousand years--until of opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962.

The Germanization of Western Christianity is not a new concept. R. is well aware of German research in particular that has employed the concept since the end of the last century; but for R., it is central in his understanding of the transformation of Christianity. What in the efforts of the missionaries to christianize the Germanic peoples led to this Germanization of the Christian religion thus transmitted? In studying this question, R. develops a general model of religious transformation for encounters of the generally "world-accepting" folk religiosity of the Germanic peoples with the "world-rejecting" attitude of the Christian religion. This makes for highly interesting and challenging reading. R. uses sociological, anthropological, and psychological perspectives and obtains criteria and concepts from the reports of contemporary missionary efforts in, e.g., Africa and Asia.

To apply such a method of conclusion by analogy is, of course, always problematic; but what can be done, when there is only the scantiest of information available? R. proceeds carefully and conscientiously, his results are generally acceptable, and he is to be congratulated for many interesting insights and ideas. The principal result of this investigation, itemized at the end of Part 1, is that a universal-salvation religion must temporarily accommodate the world-accepting ethos and worldview of a folk-religious society, if it is to succeed in its missionary efforts (103). The need to accommodate the Germanic peoples, if they were to become Christians, naturally led to religious beliefs, values, and views that were more Germanic than strictly Christian.

An approach such as R. has chosen elicits, of course, many questions. Did not the Early Church itself already dilute the strictly Christian ideas of the New Testament by opposing the Marcionites and allowing the old pre-Christian Jewish texts to be part of its Scriptures? Early German texts, particularly those influenced by the idea of crusading are pervaded by an Old Testament spirit. It is almost unimaginable how the Germanic peoples would have become Christian without the Old Testament and the interpretations it allowed. What about the strict Christian beliefs of the early missionaries themselves, who were often just first-generation Christians?

Other questions concern the time limit R. has set for his investigations. Occasionally he allows for tantalizing glimpses forward to the time of a chivalrous society or the crusades. They, together with the spirit of Cluny and the Gregorian reform attempts, would have been a marvellous field for an investigation with his model. Another hundred pages of research in this area would also have made for a better balance between the development of the model and its application.

Yet Russell's book is an important contribution to research, and, despite many long and overlong citations from secondary sources, it makes stimulating and challenging reading. As a revised thesis it obviously aimed first at establishing and presenting its model of religious transformation. Future application of the model to the efforts of Christianization in the Carolingian, Ottonian, and Salian-Stauflan dynasties is to be expected and hoped for, as it will allow for new aspects and a unifying approach.

Horst Richter (McGill University of Montréal???)
COPYRIGHT 1994 Theological Studies, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

[Lutiferre]

This is about the Early Middle Ages, thusly early Christianity among Germanics, not Christianity as a whole.

The course of history as I understand it is that the Christianisation of Germanics began with more Germanic (pagan?) influence locally on Germanics, gradually leading to full assimilation. Unless I misunderstand.

Not some kind of transformation of the whole church into something else. If that were the case anyway, all Christians are supposedly Germanic pagans.

Originally Posted by Menydh

How to find what Western Christianity was like before Germanic influence appears as a challenging but interesting task. Probably some information lies in the early monasteries of the western fringes of Old Europe.

What kind of Germanic influence do you mean? Most Germanic influence on the church was likely local rather than universal. Some universal contributions of course do exist, but most of these contributions were highly influenced by Latin thought and culture in the first place, though, like Gregorian chant.

The Germanic resistance to tyranny throughout history have led to some revolution within the Church, for example the abolishment of torture.

But that seems like the opposite of an Old Testament spirit. Later Lutheran reformation (though it can't truly be compared) has also been highly negative against the Old Testament.

[Lutiferre]

Additionally, I think this article maybe confuses "German" and "Germanic". Taking no examples of Germanics, except for Germans.

The Germanization of Western Christianity is not a new concept. R. is well aware of German research in particular..

[..]

Early German texts, particularly those influenced by the idea of crusading are pervaded by an Old Testament spirit.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

This is about the Early Middle Ages, thusly early Christianity among Germanics, not Christianity as a whole.

Wat exactly is your source of disagreement? And, where do you get the idea that the Early Middle Ages [are] "thusly" early Christianity among Germanics? Early Christianity among Germanics starts in Late Antiquity and goes through the Early Middle Ages.

However this was not European (Roman) Christianity.

The course of history as I understand it is that the Christianisation of Germanics began with more Germanic (pagan?) influence locally on Germanics, gradually leading to full assimilation. Unless I misunderstand.

If your disagreement is with the book, then fine. Notice that the different review articles are almost invariably a negative critique to the book.

Not some kind of transformation of the whole church into something else. If that were the case anyway, all Christians are supposedly Germanic pagans.

What kind of Germanic influence do you mean? Most Germanic influence on the church was likely local rather than universal. Some universal contributions of course do exist, but most of these contributions were highly influenced by Latin thought and culture in the first place, though, like Gregorian chant.

You must have some confusion as to the dates. My comment points to different periods, but initially the concern arises from the times of the Saxon dinasty of the Ottonians of the (un-)Holy and (un-)Roman "Empire", which encompasses much of the Xth century. This is a moment during which the Patriarchy of Rome is manouvred and manipulated and the Roman concept of primus inter pares is lost.

The Germanic resistance to tyranny throughout history have led to some revolution within the Church, for example the abolishment of torture.

The comment sounds far off topic, wouldn't you agree?

But since you mention it, what is exactly the source of this... rather, what on earth are you talking about?

But that seems like the opposite of an Old Testament spirit. Later Lutheran reformation (though it can't truly be compared) has also been highly negative against the Old Testament.

Lutheran reformation... or rather Luther himself appears to me as if he goes back and forth depending on his [also apparently irascible] character mood of the moment.

But anyway, there are more recent developments related with the subject which I think that are worth to review, hopefully in a non distant future. It is possible that the Rhine has not flown into the Tiber, but that it has overflown into it.

As a hint, I'm referring to the level of the involvement of the German and Austrian Cardinals and Bishops in the making of Vatican II and, parallel to it, if and how the post-Kalergi Pan-Europa and The Vatican, with reference to the United States of Europe, is linked to these Rhine and Danube prelates. But this is material under research.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Additionally, I think this article maybe confuses "German" and "Germanic". Taking no examples of Germanics, except for Germans.

German and Germanic are often used as interchangeable terms, because it is rarely of North Germanic that people think of when they refer to Germanic, but of West Germanic in modern history and of East Germanic in the so-called "heroic age".

[sachsenkoenig]

We should be talking about how Paganism has influenced Christianity in the Early Middle Ages! I would be brave enough to claim that up to 80% if our concepts of Chrisitianity was influenced by paganism from all over the world. Our concept of God comes from Zeus and Odin, our idea of Hell comes from various mythologies, the Devil; the archgod in every pagan world. Christmas comes from a pagan holiday including the Yule. Father Christmas comes from Odin and his eight-legged reindeer. Elves come from norse mythology along with dwarves. Egyptian mythology is written all over our christian beliefs, we just don't realize it.

[Menydh]

What you mention is a different story. Not since the Early Middle Ages but already since the early times of Christianism in Europe.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Menydh

Wat exactly is your source of disagreement? And, where do you get the idea that the Early Middle Ages [are] "thusly" early Christianity among Germanics? Early Christianity among Germanics starts in Late Antiquity and goes through the Early Middle Ages.

It depends what period of the Early Middle Ages. In the beginning, Christianisation was only a couple of centuries old.

Originally Posted by Menydh

The comment sounds far off topic, wouldn't you agree?

It's no more off-topic than is the talk of "Germanic" worldviews and ideas being more compliant with an Old Testament spirit. I never claimed it to have a direct relevance for this historical period, only that it has a relevance for this "Germanic" spirit.

Originally Posted by Menydh

Lutheran reformation... or rather Luther himself appears to me as if he goes back and forth depending on his [also apparently irascible] character mood of the moment.

True, I've never claimed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Menydh

But anyway, there are more recent developments related with the subject which I think that are worth to review, hopefully in a non distant future. It is possible that the Rhine has not flown into the Tiber, but that it has overflown into it.

As a hint, I'm referring to the level of the involvement of the German and Austrian Cardinals and Bishops in the making of Vatican II and, parallel to it, if and how the post-Kalergi Pan-Europa and The Vatican, with reference to the United States of Europe, is linked to these Rhine and Danube prelates. But this is material under research.

I don't think there is any German(ic) conspiracy in it, at least not one that doesn't also involve Poland. Additionally, to think it has anything to do with a Germanic sentiment or character is a whole is a large stretch, considering the complete lack of enthusiasm and engagement of the common people in anything that relates to Christianity in the modern period of Vatican II.