The Christianization of the Heathen North

[Lutiferre]

EDIT: This thread was split from a tangent in this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8262)


Christians I know personally, rightly, state the Europeanised nature of modern Christianity in Europe, Christianity has always been an adaptive religion, which is why I don’t personally have an anti-Christian axe to grind.
It worked the other way, given that Christianity was a matter of conversion of the culture into a new religion. It's not that Christianity was Europeanised, but that Europe was Christianised.


You are correct to state that the rituals and to some extent even the philosophy of modern Asatru are not a continuation and are even creations of modern Heathens but I think it is incorrect to claim it’s not organic i.e. within the Folk
I don't know which "Folk" you are talking about, but for it to be organic tradition of the folk who practicised it, it would have to be continued by that folk in a present tense, not needing be externally revived after ten centuries of discontinuation.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
It worked the other way, given that Christianity was a matter of conversion of the culture into a new religion. It's not that Christianity was Europeanised, but that Europe was Christianised.

I would say it worked both ways. Europe was, indeed, Christianised, but without Christianity being willing to adapt and adopt it is doubtful if the process of conversion would have been completed, and even then some scholars would argue that the process was only ever a thin overlay.


I don't know which "Folk" you are talking about,

Northern European, Odinism is a northern belief.


but for it to be organic tradition of the folk who practicised it, it would have to be continued by that folk in a present tense, not needing be externally revived after ten centuries of discontinuation.

There we will have to agree to disagree. I believe we can distinguish the trinkets of ritual from the psyche of the practitioner. As I wrote above Christianity had to adapt to the northern mindset in order to flourish, that mindset has never died, indeed how could it ever? What distinguishes a people if not it’s world view and connection with both the physical and metaphysical realms? The differentiation of the human species doesn’t just lie in biology, comparative religion shows us this all too clearly. Christian missionaries understood this, some would say that is Christianity’s greatest strength and greatest weakness.

[Lutiferre]

I would say it worked both ways. Europe was, indeed, Christianised, but without Christianity being willing to adapt and adopt it is doubtful if the process of conversion would have been completed, and even then some scholars would argue that the process was only ever a thin overlay.
Well, it isn't Christianity that adopted, but the culture that adopted Christianity with everything implied in such a process.


Northern European, Odinism is a northern belief.
It certainly isn't. It's a belief that existed in Germanic nations, and not just "Northern European".

As I wrote above Christianity had to adapt to the northern mindset in order to flourish,
Christianity didn't adopt the "northern mindset". The northern mindset adopted Christianity. That should be obvious; go to any of the Christian world in the Mediterranean, there the Mediterranean mindset adopted Christianity.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
Well, it isn't Christianity that adopted, but the culture that adopted Christianity with everything implied in such a process.

I have read on this subject quite widely I have yet to read any scholar of the process of Christianisation in northern Europe who would claim that Christianity did not absorb and adapt indigenous beliefs.


It certainly isn't. It's a belief that existed in Germanic nations, and not just "Northern European".

And the Germanic people’s originated from…….


Christianity didn't adopt the "northern mindset". The northern mindset adopted Christianity. That should be obvious; go to any of the Christian world in the Mediterranean, there the Mediterranean mindset adopted Christianity.

You seem unable, or perhaps unwilling, to grasp the fact that the process was two way, even in the Mediterranean. Again I have read widely on this subject and I have yet to encounter a single scholar who would give credence to the claim that Christianisation was a one way process. Perhaps you would be willing to provide some peer reviewed texts that do suggest this because personally I find it rather bizarre, perhaps even unique.

[Lutiferre]

I have read on this subject quite widely I have yet to read any scholar of the process of Christianisation in northern Europe who would claim that Christianity did not absorb and adapt indigenous beliefs.
Christianity Christianised the pagan culture and beliefs; if it had adopted them, then it would have become part of Christianity as such, and Christianity obviously extends beyond Northern Europe, and then they would have been part of the Christian beliefs of Mediterranean Christians as well, but obviously they aren't. To the contrary, it was because Christianity was adopted by different peoples that different pagan beliefs were locally Christianised. It wasn't a general adoption into Christianity but a local Christianisation.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
Christianity Christianised the pagan culture and beliefs; if it had adopted them, then it would have become part of Christianity as such, and Christianity obviously extends beyond Northern Europe, and then they would have been part of the Christian beliefs of Mediterranean Christians as well, but obviously they aren't. To the contrary, it was because Christianity was adopted by different peoples that different pagan beliefs were locally Christianised. It wasn't a general adoption into Christianity but a local Christianisation.

We seem to be working at cross purposes here, I’m not claiming that Christians started worshipping Odin, although many Germanic deities were tied to saints, St Michael, St Olaf and St Stephen being examples.

What I am stating is that Christian missionaries understood that in order for Christianity to take root they had to adapt and adopt indigenous beliefs to Christian needs, that’s why we have a letter from Pope Gregory to Abbot Milletus in AD601 just before his departure to England exhorting him to on no account destroy the temples of the “idols” but to purify them, that the sacrifice of oxen to the Gods was to be changed into a festival for holy martyrs. That’s why Old English heathen beliefs, such as the charming of the plough before it “impregnated” the “Mother of the earth” survived in Christian times, except with the edition of Christian Priest blessing the plough before the chant of Erce erce (Mother of the Earth) was cried! That’s why Anglo-Saxon charms, such as the Nine Herbs Charm contain both Pagan and Christian influences. That’s why Christian English kings saw no conflict in tracing their ancestry back to Woden and even Scef.

John Grigsby:

“For the conversion to Christianity warranted no giant conceptual leap. In essence, the myth of Christ was not much different from the Vanic religion of the earlier tradition…..Indeed, the conversion from the Vanir cult to Christianity was probably no more traumatic than had been the change from the fertility cults to the militaristic cults of the Aesir. At root, they were both re-imaginings of the same basic myth.”

Go to Mexico and you find survivals of the Indian cults in the Catholicism there, go to the Caribbean and the black African Christianity there practised is heavily influenced by the West African indigenous beliefs as well as the new one’s born in the Caribbean. Northern Europe wasn’t unique, that wasn’t my point, Christianity didn’t become Pagan, that’s wasn’t my point either, my point is that Christianity is an adaptive system of belief, it’s still doing so today, one look at how the Church of England or even, to lesser degrees, the catholic Church have altered their stance to keep up with “modern” views is example enough of that. Without that willingness to evolve Christianity would have got nowhere. Indeed was it not Paul himself who decided that Jesus’ teachings were meant for all and not just the Jews?

[Lutiferre]

Go to Mexico and you find survivals of the Indian cults in the Catholicism there, go to the Caribbean and the black African Christianity there practised is heavily influenced by the West African indigenous beliefs as well as the new one’s born in the Caribbean.
Exactly, because all those places went through local processes of Christianisation in which pagan culture and beliefs were replaced with Christian theological versions acceptable to Christian believers.

It nevertheless does not mean that any of those local Christianised pagan cultures were adopted by Christianity as such, only that that local culture was Christianised.

If it was adopted by Christianity, it would have to be a part of Christianity not just locally (as in a Christianised local culture) but universally and significantly so, which is obviously not the case. To the contrary, the opposite (which you precisely mentioned) is the case; that local cultures were locally Christianised.

[Osweo]

Exactly, because all those places went through local processes of Christianisation in which pagan culture and beliefs were replaced with Christian theological versions acceptable to Christian believers.

It nevertheless does not mean that any of those local Christianised pagan cultures were adopted by Christianity as such, only that that local culture was Christianised.
Where I feel you go wrong, Lutiferre, is in assuming that Christianity exists in some tangible form. I'd say that there are just Christians, i.e. people who think they're Christians.

In Northern Europe, the southern missionaries came, and trained up local youths. For a few generations, southern clerics were imported to maintain orthodoxy and the link with Rome (Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus at Canterbury, for instance). After that, however, it was the affair of local men, who saw things in a rather different light. Some very learned men like Bede felt part of the wider Christendom, and more importantly understood what that meant, but the vast majority of his countrymen and successors could not. Have you read the 'Dream of the Rood' - the famous Old English poem? This is a real local thing, nothing to do with Rome, and the odd prelate and cardinal who visited will not have been able to uproot such a phenomenon even if he'd wanted to.

If it was adopted by Christianity, it would have to be a part of Christianity not just locally (as in a Christianised local culture) but universally and significantly so, which is obviously not the case. To the contrary, the opposite (which you precisely mentioned) is the case; that local cultures were locally Christianised.
Why do you so hanker after this universal Church? It cannot exist, and never has done, even since the first fissures appeared between the Greek and Aramaic understanding of Christ's mission.

[Lutiferre]

Where I feel you go wrong, Lutiferre, is in assuming that Christianity exists in some tangible form. I'd say that there are just Christians, i.e. people who think they're Christians.
It isn't as much where you feel I go wrong, as where you make a different assumption to the opposite effect, as shows:


Why do you so hanker after this universal Church? It cannot exist, and never has done, even since the first fissures appeared between the Greek and Aramaic understanding of Christ's mission.It does exist, and has existed ever since Christ walked the earth. Universal simply means that it is open to everyone. It doesn't mean that it actually embodies everyone. Whether some will find themselves outside of it makes no difference to that fact. It doesn't mean that all nations will have the same ethnic expression of Christianity, either and neither does it mean that all Christian nations become homogenous.


In Northern Europe, the southern missionaries came, and trained up local youths. For a few generations, southern clerics were imported to maintain orthodoxy and the link with Rome (Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus at Canterbury, for instance). After that, however, it was the affair of local men, who saw things in a rather different light. Some very learned men like Bede felt part of the wider Christendom, and more importantly understood what that meant, but the vast majority of his countrymen and successors could not. Have you read the 'Dream of the Rood' - the famous Old English poem? This is a real local thing, nothing to do with Rome, and the odd prelate and cardinal who visited will not have been able to uproot such a phenomenon even if he'd wanted to.
Such poetry in the native language and with reference to the local culture would help make Christianity intelligible for the local pagans by giving it an expression that they can understand, which is the first and most important step in the Christianisation of a nation.

Besides, the "Christus Victor" imagery which was particular appealing in the conversion of European pagans, was the universally emphasised view by the entire Early Church and all the Church Fathers with backing in scripture and tradition, and is still emphasised today by the Eastern Orthodox. The change away from that classical Early Church view which resonated with the pagans, came with Anselms new theory of Atonement in the West which was much more legalistic in its emphasis, but this was after the schism and so only affected the Western part of Christendom.

http://www.woodsonginstitute.com/Gallery/Inspirational/images/victory.jpg