Christianity mostly spread and is spreading today by free conversion:
...........
In fact Christianity mostly did NOT spread by the sword. Constantine adopted the faith because it had already become the strongest spiritual force in Roman society already -- by caring for the sick, treating women well, and showing courage in the face of death, as Rodney Stark shows in The Rise of Christianity. Richard Fletcher's The Barbarian Conversion tells the rest of the story for Europe, others for the rest of the world -- force was the exception, not the rule.
[ BTW Rome was not the first kingdom or empire to adopt Christianity. The first was the Osrhoene, a small kingdom in northern Mesopotamia, centered on Edessa. Next was Armenia. Then Ethiopia. All of these countries became Christian independently of the Roman empire and before Constantine's Edict of Toleration. ]
Christianity has always been strongest in a free market of faiths -- as in modern America, Korea, and even modern China.
..................
Historical Analysis: Twelve Regions and Eras in which Christianity Spread
(1) Roman-European Christians, 33-600 AD.
According to Rodney Stark, by the time of Constantine's conversion and the Edict of Milan in 313, proclaiming religious tolerance, about 10% of the entire Roman empire had become Christian. Obviously, before this time Christianity was NOT spread by military compulsion. In fact, it spread in the face of often severe persecution. Furthermore, according to Stark, Christianity was growing by about 40% per decade at this time. By that natural growth rate (similar to that later traced by Mormons), Stark argues, the success of Christianity was already a fate accompli:
"In fact, Constantine's conversion was, in part, the response of a politically astute man to what was soon to be an accomplished fact - the exponential wave of Christian growth had gathered immense height and weight by the time Constantine contended for the throne (One True God, 61)."
Capturing 10% of the "market" shows that a religion has "arrived." We know that before this time, Christianity had spread to almost all of the empire by this time - without force of any kind, but in the face of force. By the natural growth pattern it had already established, even without state support, one could expect Christianity to surpass 50% of the population in the latter half of the 4th Century.
| St. Augustine's conversion came under no human compulsion.
[ Augustine's mother was a Christian, his father a pagan who converted on his death bed. Augustine was raised as a Christian, but rejected it, becoming a Manichean. He also led a hedonistic lifestyle in his youth, boasting of his sexual exploits to other young men. In 386, at the age of 31, he converted to Christianity. He wrote that he heard a childlike voice saying "take up and read" so he opened a Bible and read the first passage that he saw: Romans 13: 13-14 "Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof." ]
|
While Christians did take matters into their own hands by forcibly destroying temples at times, for the most part conversion to Christianity during the 4th Century was by free will, not compulsion. (Read Augustine's Confessions, for example - St. Augustine converted as late as 386, in apparent freedom, having freely chosen among contemporary beliefs.) Occasional mob violence or state sanction do not constitute "conversion by the sword" on Carrier's own terms, as we have seen that he praises the ancient Romans, who engaged in both, for being quite different than and superior to Christians.
Theodosius I established "Catholic" Christianity as the state religion in 380. In the 5th Century, the conformity of all, apart from Jews, was mandated and enforced. As we will see when I address Carrier's second claim, Stark and I agree that the vital impulse of Christianity largely died in this period.
Several of the most prominent 4th Century Christians were born into a Christian family: Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzus, (his father was converted not by the sword, but by his wife), Basil the Great and his many siblings, Jerome.
This is consistent with Stark's thesis that like Mormons today, much of the Christian increase came through larger families and better health care. Others, like Augustine, came from a partially pagan background, and were converted after dallying with pagan philosophies: Theodore the Interpreter and John Chrysostom were both educated under the pagan Libanius and then chose the Christian faith -- again, not at the point of a sword. Nor do their biographies seem to involve anyone who converted that way, as far as I know.
Sketchy as this is (let the reader continue this line of research as he or she pleases), this empirical evidence, from various parts of the empire, tells against the claim that the great numerical increase in Christians over the 4th Century came about primarily through military force. It agrees fully, however, with Stark's arguments.
In any case, what happened in the 4th Century is best described as "consolidation," not "spread" as we defined it. Christianity did not win the Roman Empire primarily by force, but by persuasion. As I pointed out, "spread" must refer to the transmission of a religion to a new politio-cultural entity, not to individual conversions, or consolidation. If we count individual conversions, then the early Christians will count for very little, compared to the billions of Christians in the modern world, and Carrier's argument will be rendered even less plausible!
(2) North African, West Asian Christians, 600-2009
In the first centuries after Christ, as in European Rome, Christianity spread through missions, voluntarily. Some consolidating force was employed late in the Imperial era.
After the Islamic conquest, for the next 1400 years, Christianity in the Middle East was mostly transmitted from parents to children, rather than by military force. Thousands of Muslims become Christians today (especially in Algeria, Iran, Egypt), not only of their own free will, but in the face of often strong persecution.
(3) Chinese Christians, 624-2009
Christianity spread to China in four main waves, and one or two smaller ones - all without military or police compulsion on anyone to convert. Nestorian Christianity spread peacefully, with some minor support at first, and some persecution later, from Chinese emperors. Catholicism spread peacefully, with some persecution from the government, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, until there were about 300,000 Catholics in China. In this case, European meddling and Chinese strong-arm tactics combined to undermine Christianity, keeping it from growing much after the "Rites Controversy" erupted in 1705. So this is just the opposite of Carrier's thesis that "Christianity only truly flourished when it had the ability to eliminate the competition."
In the 19th Century, Protestants entered China as a correlate of European imperialistic action against a weak Qing government. Missionaries did not, however, use force; in fact imperialism was a strong disincentive to conversion, making "yang jiao" or "foreign religion" very unpopular. It was in the face of persecution (ie, the Boxers, who killed tens of thousands of Christians in 1900, but all through the 19th Century) that Christianity spread.
In the 20th Century, both under the Nationalists, and far more under the Communists, Christianity was officially discouraged. It has been under persecution that the number of Christians in China has grown to some 70 million not "gua ming" or nominal Christians, but largely highly committed believers - the second or third largest number of any country, after the US and possibly Brazil.
(4) European Christians, 600-1800 The grassroots missions impulse having mostly died within Latin Christianity, the faith did however spread to northern Europe, and was then consolidated as the official religion. (And later, as dueling Catholic and Protestant official religions.)
Mass forcible conversions did occur during this period, including of the Saxons under Charlemagne, in the 8th Century. Joseph Fletcher, Professor of History at the University of York, notes however in The Barbarian Conversion, "It is a striking feature of the spread of Christianity to barbarian Europe that it was, before Saxony, so tranquil a process." Force was also employed on later occasions, among some Norse, Slavs, Finnish, and Baltic peoples. Other methods of transmission that seem to have been more important, however, were evangelism (St. Patrick, to the Irish) and the export of Christian wives to pagan kings. Of course the history of the Middle Ages was bloody, as Carrier remarks - as
are all histories. But the spread of Christianity in Europe can't be reduced to Charlemagne's religio-political campaigns. As Fletcher shows, the most common pattern was for a king to marry a Christian bride; the kingdom generally following his lead.
It's true that there often was an element of compulsion in the subsequent conversion of nobles and laity (also later, with the spread of Protestantism, and the Catholic reaction.) But it would be simplistic to say Christianity was mainly spread "by the sword" to Northern Europe - sometimes it was, more often it doesn't seem to have been.
Still, this period is probably the second-best case for Carrier's claim.
(5) Latin American Christo-Catholics, 1492-1900
This is probably Carrier's best argument for the "spread by the sword" hypothesis. The conquest of South and Central America by the Spanish and Portuguese was, beginning with Christopher Columbus himself, a bloody and terrible affair. What spread most quickly, though, was germs, wiping out much of the Indian population before they had the chance to be subjugated by Rome.
I am not a Latin expert, but it also seems a complex history of conversion. Conquistadors did make Christianity a tool of oppression and conquest. Colonists sometimes attacked the Jesuits, though, for defending Indians against their depredations. Slaves were sometimes baptized, perhaps against their will; at other times prevented from voluntarily becoming Christians voluntarily.
Whether or not Christianity (as opposed to colonialism) spread primarily by the sword over this region during this period, would require closer study than I have done. But Latin America seems like the best case for Carrier's claim, as clearly it sometimes did.
(6) European Christians, 1800-2009
Ours has been an era of consolidation, revival, and a neo-pagan and secularist ("Enlightenment") backlash. Christianity spread, to the extent it did, almost entirely by voluntary conversion. In Eastern Europe, Christianity spread in the face of communist suppression - most successfully in Poland, but also in other countries. (See, for example, the works of Richard Wurmbrand, George Weigel, and James Felak.) Solzhenitsyn's story of conversion was in some ways typical of the era - and was, of course, of his own free will.
(7) North American Christians, 1620-2009
Christianity spread to North America primarily through immigration, education, and voluntary evangelism. There may have been rare instances of force (mostly in the earliest years of this period, among small groups, and through schools in 20th Century Canada), but choice has been the overwhelming pattern. In fact, predominately Christian American and Canada have allowed far more freedom of conscience than did pagan Rome. Given that the US has had more Christians than any other country in the world over the past century and a half (probably some 900 million self-declared Christians altogether), the history of his own society should have given Carrier pause.
(8) African Christians, 1800-2009
Knowing that most of African was colonized by European powers, one might suppose the imperial powers spread their religion to the indigenous population by force. In fact, they usually did not.
In 1900, as the tide of colonialism began fitfully to recede, there were only about 9 million Christians in Africa, including Copts and other small minorities in Muslim countries. Today there are over 400 million at least nominal Christians. (For a total approaching perhaps a billion over the past century.) The vast majority have come to faith of their own free will, in response to missions. (Sometimes in the face of persecution, as in Uganda under Idi Amin, Ethiopia, and in some tribes.)
(9) Latin Protestants, 1900-2009
The number of Evangelical Christians grew from negligible in 1900, to some 60 million by 1997. (First Things, Pedro Morena, June / July 1997) Few converts seem to have been zealous Catholics; most seem to have been religiously apathetic, or Christo-pagans. Few, if any, came to Christ "at the
point of the sword," or any other weapon.
(10) Indian Christians, 33 AD-2009
Aside from the case of Goa, where Catholic inquisitors forced the mixed-race population to adopt Christianity, the vast majority of converts to Christianity in India came to faith of their free will.
Even during British rule, compulsion to Christian faith was seldom used; some were even persecuted for belief. Today, there are between 25 and 50 million Christians in India. The free spread of Christianity has worried some "Hindutva" fanatics to the point of persecution and other pressure on
Indians to abandon Christianity.
(11) Korean Christians, 1900-2009
Again, Korean converts adopted Christianity freely, not under compulsion. Much of the conversion went on in the face of communist or Japanese oppression. Some 30% of South Koreans are Christian today, often zealous.
(12) Tribal Christians, 1900-2009
Taiwan: About 12 tribes (Ami the largest) converted to Christianity, under no political compulsion.
China: Lisu, Lahu, Wa, Jingpo, some Yi, Miao, Bouyi, small groups of Dai, all converted freely, or in
the face of anti-Christian persecution.
Southeast Asia: Karen, Kachin, Lisu, Lahu, Wa, Hmong, all converted freely.
India: Naga, Mizo, other tribes in eastern states, Santal, Kholli mountain tribes, also converted freely.
New Guinea: millions of Christians among the Dani, Yali, and other tribes, became Christians without being forced to it.
Polynesians also adopted Christianity because they wanted to, not because missionaries threatened to
kill them if they didn't.
Tribes in North America have generally either adopted Christianity of their own free will, or not at all. Some exceptions may be found among Indian children who were forced to go to Christian schools during the mid-20th Century.
Summary: So clearly, Richard Carrier and those who believe with him that Christianity has always or usually "spread by the sword" are just plain wrong. Use of force has been the exception, not the rule. Only in some parts of Latin America, and in some cases in Northern Europe, did Christianity
spread to new people groups primarily by force. In the vast majority of cases, peoples adopted Christianity because they wanted to.
The same is even more clearly true if we look at individual conversion, rather than the conversion of groups.
.................
Christianity is thriving in huge swaths of the world today. Under no compulsion, tens of millions of Africans and Latin Americans will engage in fervent worship this coming Sunday. Millions more will meet throughout China, praying with fervency, singing and bringing friends. Christians will
meet in huge mega-churches in Singapore, and then go out to eat in outdoor food courts, side-by-side with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and "freethinkers," as they call them there.
The freer the market, the better Christianity does. In fact, the problem with Europe is its state religions.
As Stark, one of the world's leading sociologists of religions, has demonstrated through decades of empirical research, monopoly religions lose their fervency:
"Christianity might have been far better served had Constantine's faith been pretended. For, in doing his best to serve Christianity, Constantine destroyed its most vital aspect: its dependence on mass volunteerism." (One True God, 61)
"From a popular mass movement, supported by member donations and run by amateurs and poorly paid clergy, under Constantine Christianity was transformed into an elite organization, lavishly funded by the state, and bestowing wealth and power on the clergy. Thereupon, church offices became highly sought by well-connected men, whose appointments greatly reduced the average Christian leader's level of dedication."
"The Christianity that triumphed over Rome was a mass social movement in a highly competitive environment. The Christianity that subsequently left most of Europe only nominally converted, at best, was an established, subsidized, state church that sought to extend itself, not through missionizing the population, but by baptizing kings . . . corruption and sloth as well as power struggles and enforced conformity, became prominent features of the Christian movement . . . Most of the evils associated with European Christianity since the middle of the 4th Century can be traced to establishment."
Stark traces that trend through the history of Europe to the modern day. (In our interview, he suggested that it is precisely the beginnings of competition in Europe that offers the most hope that Christianity will revive there.)
The atrophy of grass-roots fervor, and the corruption of the clergy by money and wealth, sent European Christianity into a long decline. There were still faithful Christians, but they were always a minority. And they tended to come from the margins of society, like Francis of Assisi, or of the clergy, like Martin Luther. Most Medieval "Christians" also could not read, the Bible was prohibited them, and they knew little about their supposed faith.
..................
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2014/12/did-christianity-spread-by-sword.html
|
