[Continued from How Christianity became aligned with politics under Constantine.]
Perhaps things could have gone differently. Saint Patrick’s mission to the Irish in the fifth century gives a glimpse into what might have been possible had Christians under the Roman Empire resisted the temptation to align themselves with an earthly government and operate according to the principles of the world. A Celt who lived under Roman rule in Britain, Patrick was abducted by marauders as a youth and spent years as a slave swineherd in the fields of Ireland. In his solitude, he formed a close fellowship with God through constant prayer. Eventually, he escaped and found passage back to Britain, became a priest, and returned to Ireland on a holy mission to spread the gospel in that land. Thomas Cahill, in his How the Irish Saved Civilization, writes how he and his converts helped to transform Irish society:
Perhaps things could have gone differently. Saint Patrick’s mission to the Irish in the fifth century gives a glimpse into what might have been possible had Christians under the Roman Empire resisted the temptation to align themselves with an earthly government and operate according to the principles of the world. A Celt who lived under Roman rule in Britain, Patrick was abducted by marauders as a youth and spent years as a slave swineherd in the fields of Ireland. In his solitude, he formed a close fellowship with God through constant prayer. Eventually, he escaped and found passage back to Britain, became a priest, and returned to Ireland on a holy mission to spread the gospel in that land. Thomas Cahill, in his How the Irish Saved Civilization, writes how he and his converts helped to transform Irish society:
With the Irish—even with the kings—he succeeded beyond measure. Within his lifetime or soon after his death, the Irish slave trade came to a halt, and other forms of violence, such as murder and intertribal warfare, decreased. In reforming Irish sexual mores, he was rather less successful, though he established indigenous monasteries and convents, whose inmates by their way of life reminded the Irish that the virtues of lifelong faithfulness, courage, and generosity were actually attainable by ordinary human beings and that the sword was not the only instrument for structuring society.[1]
Patrick’s non-violent, politically unadulterated, and courageously resolute message subdued the wild, warlike, and druidic Irish who the Romans could not conquer. Cahill compares the conversion of Ireland with that of the Roman Empire and argues that while Christianity transformed Irish society, Roman society transformed Christianity:
Through the Edict of Milan, which had legalized the new religion in 313 and made it the new emperor’s pet, Christianity had been received into Rome, not Rome into Christianity! Roman culture was little altered by the exchange, and it is arguable that Christianity lost much of its distinctiveness. But in the Patrician exchange, Ireland, lacking the power and implacable traditions of Rome, had been received into Christianity, which transformed Ireland into Something New, something never seen before—a Christian culture, where slavery and human sacrifice became unthinkable, and warfare, though impossible for humans to eradicate, diminished markedly. The Irish, in any case, loved physical combat too much for inter-tribal warfare to disappear entirely. But new laws, influenced by Gospel norms, inhibited such conflicts severely by requiring that arms be taken up only for a weighty cause. Ireland would not again see a battle on the scale of the Tain till Brian Boru would rout the Vikings in the eleventh century.[2]
Roughly a century after the death of Patrick, Ireland had been conquered by Christianity operating according to principles of submission and service and Irish monks began spreading peaceful, apolitical, and non-conformist Christianity in a Europe.[3] For several centuries, these monks infiltrated the barbarian tribes that had overrun the Roman Empire. The growing number of monasteries they established confounded regular church authorities with the number of converts that flocked to them. In these places of refuge, converts found a Christianity that was not only unique from the old order of Roman culture and political power but also radically different than the Germanic paganism of tribal kings. These monasteries were truly “cities on hills which could not be hidden.” Sadly, by the seventh century, unorganized Celtic Christianity was nearly entirely subsumed into the hierarchical Roman church.[4]
[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.]
[1] Thomas Cahill, pg. 110, How the Irish Saved Civilization
[2] Cahill, pg. 148
[3] Cahill, pg. 151, “Ireland is unique in religious history for being the only land into which Christianity was introduced without bloodshed.”
[4] Nora Chadwick, in her history The Celts, eulogizes: “The disappearance of the idiosyncratic Christianity of the Celtic Church was inevitable, owing to the absence of central organization; but it is impossible to reach the end without a feeling of regret. A Christianity so pure and serene as that of the age of saints could hardly be equaled and never repeated.”
4 comments:
Again, I have to take issue with some points here.
Celtic Christianity was not without its defects: especially towards the end of the Dark Ages, it had become a cottage industry more than a force in society. For example, Abbots of the Celtic church in Scotland passed the office on to their eldest sons, and ruled their territories in the same way as clan chiefs, which is hardly separating yourself from the world. Celtic Christianity, while admirable in many ways, had certain weaknesses, e.g. their ideas about the body, physical work and women were not as holistic as in Catholicism, and writings of Celtic saints tend to gnosticism in their attitudes towards sex, for example (seeing it as evil).
At the Synod of Whitby, where the Anglo-Saxons decided on following Roman rather than Celtic versions, the Romans won the arguments by referring to Scripture and the Church Fathers, which were older and therefore more authoritative than Celtic teachings.
The quote from Cahill has some rather glaring errors:
"Roman culture was little altered by the exchange, and it is arguable that Christianity lost much of its distinctiveness."
Does he honestly think that Roman Christianity approved of slavery, human sacrifice (which had been practiced by the Romans, entrails of slaves were read as potent auguries) and arbitrary warfare? I'm afraid it looks to me like someone has an axe to grind.
One thing is right, however - The Irish and British did great things by re-evangelising Europe. St Columba is remembered in frescoes as far away as Italy!
Hi Herenvardo,
Again, your points are well taken and I'll make some adjustments to my draft. I think there is a natural human tendency that co-opt God's will for our own selfish reasons and that tendency was demonstrated in both the Celtic and Roman instances. However, the main point that Roman culture was less affected by Christianity than Celtic culture still stands, I believe. This is the result of the different ways in which Christianity "took over" those cultures. My basic argument is that the early Christians were doing great at transforming society until Constantine, after which their effectiveness was diluted. The Celtic conversion was much different, at least until the end of the Dark Ages as you note.
It's always hard to argue from history ... it's never quite as black and white as you want it to be! :-)
"Like" clan chieftains isn't exactly correct.
At three points during the history of the diocese of Emly, the serving bishop of Emly was also a member of the king of Munster’s derbfine, and was not only considered a good and eligible choice, but was in fact was elected to the post of Munster’s king without stepping down as Emly’s abbot/bishop!
The three were Olchobair MacKinede (died AD 850/851 -- a vigorous fighter against the Norse, though he did make everybody promise not to pressure him to marry and break his monk vows), Cinfelod/Cenfaelod/Mane-Confelad (died 872), and Tiobruide (killed in battle in 908 by a herdsman named Fiacha, in a battle of Munster’s troops vs. the forces of Flan Sionna, high king of Ireland, and Cearbhall, king of Leinster).
St. Fiacre (Fiachra) was famously one of those who fled a Kingship Worse Than Death, if I recall correctly. (They could have been chasing him down to make him an abbot, though.)
Wow! I'm learning a lot here! Early Irish history is fascinating but something that I'm admittedly very ignorant about, having only read history meant for general audiences on the subject. Thanks for the details!
Post a Comment