“After the fall of Rome in the late 400′s, the Germanic Tribes launched the dark ages by destroying classical civilization.  The western church would be a willing participant in this, and together the Germanic tribes and centralized church shut down learning and knowledge for almost 1,000 years, until the rediscovery of classical paganism during the Renaissance.  Meanwhile, the Arab/Islamic world was a flourishing and enlightened civilization, which brought Europe out of the dark ages and kept classical learning alive.” 

As mentioned in previous posts, this myth became enormously popular especially during the French Enlightenment with anti-Christian figures such as Voltaire and Rousseau, and of course the famous historian Edward Gibbon.  Thankfully, the failure of the modernist worldview, the test of time, and continuing discoveries in archeology have made this wishful narrative laughable, in spite of those who hold to it due to anti-Christian and anti-western prejudices.

It is in this spirit that Emmet Scott has released his book “Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: A History of a Controversy (New English Review, 2012).” What Scott has done is relaunched the findings of early 20th century Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, who discovered that the fall of classical civilization in the west did not occur until the mid 600′s, due to the Arab/Islamic conquests.  Since Pirenne did his work in the 1920′s, Scott has much more archeological evidence to back up the original thesis, along with advances in sociology and the failure of the modernist worldview.

Visigoth Coin in the Name of Justinian

For example, up until the 600′s, the Goths, Visigoths, Franks, and other Germanic groups continued to mint coins with the picture of the Byzantine Emperor, and virtually every system of government was based on Roman law and models.  Most courts employed native Romans as officials, and many of the Germanic rulers were “adopted” by the Byzantine Emperor and given Roman titles.  Emperor Justinian adopted Theodebert, and Sigismond received the title of “patrician” from the eastern emperor Anastasius.  Scott notes that in almost all cases (the borderlands such as Anglo-Saxon England and certain parts of Germany being possible exceptions) the Germanic tribes were basically a local military caste, who willfully wanted to adopt the classical models, and continued to acknowledge the Byzantine emperor as a superior, governing as local “kings” (a more localized title).  Further evidence of the Germanic adoption of the conquered culture is that the heresy of Arianism disappeared as they assimilated into local orthodox Christianity.  The impact on the local languages was also minimal, as what became Italian and Spanish had virtually no loan words from the Germanic rulers, and French only had 300, which makes sense given its large border with Germany and proximity to England.  In short, Scott demonstrates that the Germanic rulers not only adopted and encouraged the classical and Christian cultures, but that they also advanced them, with a bit of a revival taking place during the early 600′s (He uses evidences of trade, agriculture, population growth, and the continuing influence of Byzantium to demonstrate this).

So what happened? During the mid 600′s, trade seems to cease, papyrus (enormously important as an import from Egypt for literacy and trade) no longer is found, the cities start to de-populate, and massive amounts of soil erosion is evidenced by archeologists.  It so happens that these events coincide with the rise of the Islamic conquests, and their resultant complete disruption of the Mediterranean world both politically and economically.   As a result, people literally and figuratively “fled for the hills,” forming what would become the first medieval castles and feudal systems, as local economies and contact with Byzantium dried up.  It was only then that local rulers started minting their own coins, and the culture became more what one would call “middle ages.”

While I won’t spend more time providing the volume of evidence Scott cites (he uses plenty of footnotes, and engages with those who believe the popular myth academically), the case he outlines is politically incorrect, and enormously challenging to the modernist mindset.  His work gels nicely with Stark’s work on the Crusades and Kamen’s work on the Inquisition.  With such resources, there is simply no excuse for traditional Christians in the west to be bullied or overwhelmed by the assumptions of modern chauvinism, especially when it comes to history.

“Occupiers” throw condoms at Roman Catholic School girls and Disrupt Pro-Life Rally.

Roman Catholic Bishops Refuse to Comply with Obama Mandate

Washington State Attempts to Redefine Marriage

Stand Up for Traditional Marriage and the Scriptures and you are a “Bully” or “Ignorant”

University Shuts Down Christian Groups as “Discriminatory” for Requiring Leaders to Be Christian.

While I could provide several other examples, it is clear that the current secularist and pluralist worldview is increasingly hostile to the classical Christian faith of the West, and that Christians and traditional-minded Westerners should be prepared for it to continue. Gird Thyself!

I am routinely asked what sort of starting point there can be in regards to forming a comprehensive worldview and culture in light of the well-attested cultural and moral decline of the West.  As has been noted elsewhere, when incompatible worldviews are at war, it is difficult to reach any sort of cultural consensus whatsoever, meaning that top-down litigation and force seems to be the only solution (or decentralization, which is almost never entertained).  The first thing that Christians in the West could (and I believe should) do is become knowledgeable, conversant, and eventually apologists for the classical Christian faith of the West that has all but disappeared in some circles.  In many cases, the Fathers of the church provide a good starting point, as the “pre-modern” worldview and proximity to the early church they represent serve as an “antidote” of sorts.

This beautiful summation by John of Damascus of what the beginnings of a Christian worldview should look like should serve as a good starter for a “mere Christian” faith to work from.  John is simply providing a statement of what has been handed down to him as the Christian faith, based on Scripture and the Fathers of the church that came after.  I highly recommend the entire work, entitled “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.”  He is admired in the church both east and west, and is one of the most brilliant minds in the history of the church.

“We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreated, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognizable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence; and that he is known and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are One in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession;

And that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, in His bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good pleasure of God and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, being conceived without seed, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will, and energy, and freedom, and, in a word, perfect to the measure and proportion proper to each, at once to the divinity, and to the humanity, yet to one composite person; and that He suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for thee days submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which also He came to us, and shall come again.  And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and the whole choir of the Saints” (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, Book I Part II). 

When this basic premise is agreed to, discussing a worldview becomes much easier and mutually intelligible.

“The Teacher of children became Himself a child among children, that He might instruct the unwise.  The Bread of heaven came down to earth to feed the hungry.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures)

“What he was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself.” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations)

“Nor did he lose what he was, but he began to be what He was not.” (Augustine, Homily on John)

“According to our nature, then, He offered Himself that He might do a work beyond our nature.” (Ambrose, The Incarnation of Our Lord)

This next selection from John of Damascus is quite beautiful, and deserves to be read slowly and “digested.”

“The Son of God became man in order that He might again grace man as He had when He made him.  For He had made him to His own image, understanding and free, and to His own likeness, that is to say, as perfect in virtues as it was possible for human nature to be, for these virtues are, as it were characteristics of the divine nature–freedom from care and annoyance, integrity, goodness, wisdom, justice, freedom from all vice.  Thus, He put man in communion with Himself.  But, since by transgressing the commandment we obscured and canceled out the characteristics of the divine image, we were given over to evil and stripped of the divine communion.

But, since He had shared with us what was better and we had not kept it, He now takes His share of what is worse, of our nature I mean to say, that through Himself and in Himself He may restore what was to His image and what was to His likeness.”—(John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 4.4)

And finally, this profound poem from Anselm:

“As death entered through one man’s disobedience,
So life is restored through one man’s obedience;

As sin came through the temptation of a woman,
So salvation came through one born of a woman;

As the enemy conquered humanity by tasting of a tree,
So Christ conquered the enemy by bearing suffering on a tree.”

(Anselm, Why did God Become Man?  (Cur Deus Homo).

Merry Christmas, and “Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!” (II Corinthians 9:15).

This also relates to a question I asked in a post quite awhile ago, relating to whether or not America is even a nation anymore, or a variety of nations held together by geographic accident and state control. If a nation or people is defined as those who share a common faith, heroes, history, holidays, festivals, language, the arts and the like, the U.S. and many countries of the West have ceased being nations long ago. Instead they are supposedly bound together by some sort of romantic, “progressive,” idealistic idea of egalitarian democracy as a sort of savior (based on an ever-increasing list of rights that come from “natural” sources).  While there may be pockets of what one might call consensus cultures, most large cities on the coasts and the states they reside in have abandoned any semblance of cultural unity for the sake of “diversity” as some sort of inherent value.

In summary, as the West increasingly abandons its own heritage, look for a great increase in the amount of litigation and legislation to try and either “preserve ” or “change” society, while individuals and communities become increasingly “tribal” in order to foster some sort of healthy, culture-sustaining community.  Those who try to do this, will of course be labeled “bigots,” “racists,” “______phobic,” etc…Perhaps we will see the rise of city-states/principalities again?

Any comments or solutions?

Lutheran perspective (also introduces the other views as well)

Reformed (Calvinist) series

Eastern Orthodox view

*It also important that from a “mere Christianity” perspective, all orthodox Christians recognize Christ’s second coming, and the final judgement (see the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds).

“From  the day whereon I renounced the things of the world to consecrate my soul to luminous and heavenly contemplation, when the supreme intelligence carried me hence and set me down far from all that pertains to the flesh, to hide me in the secret places of the heavenly tabernacle; from that day my eyes have been blinded by the light of the Trinity, whose brightness surpasses all that the mind can conceive; far from a throne high exalted the Trinity pours upon all, the ineffable radiance common to the three.” (From a poem in Greek)

“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illuminated by the Splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.  When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me.  I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest.  When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light. (Orations, 40.41, On Holy Baptism)

How often in our society to we actually think, write, and pray like this?  In a sense, these thoughts can be seen as an extension of this earlier post on Anselm, and the idea of God being too small for too many.  This is yet one more example why I highly recommend the church fathers.   Any thoughts on these beautiful passages?

1. The Stick-figure and Michelangelo.  Imagine for a moment that you know someone who is a master of drawing the childhood stick-figure.  These stick-figures are perfectly done, excellent by anyone’s stick-figure standards, and are the best that this person is capable of.  One could say, “his heart is in the right place,” as he uses his talents to bring joy to others who only know stick-figures as the most relevant and easy to participate form of visual art.  Does this mean that this artist is one the same level of Michelangelo or the Dutch realists? Because “his motivation is pure,” does his art become the work of a master, worthy of being studied, emulated, and placed at the front of western art? Does this mean the average person should be content with only viewing and imbibing stick-figures, because they are easy to do and relate to? The average person laughs at such a scenario (treasuring parents aside), but many people make similar arguments when it comes to other aspects of culture, even if the materials being studied are less obvious.  In this case, the medium itself is self-limiting, even if it is done excellently.

2.  Skittles.  Imagine holding a bag of Skittles.  There is nothing inherently evil about the candy (unless you are trying to lose weight perhaps), and they can be enjoyed.  They could even save your life when lost in the wilderness or with certain medical conditions.  However, they are still Skittles, and certainly should not become a regular part of you diet, or even worse, ever become the majority of your diet (or perhaps we could add McDonald’s for some protein).

Now imagine replacing the “s” on each Skittle with a cross (changing the lyrics), and making sure it is marketed as a Christian product.  Does that make the candy healthy? Perhaps if we pray over the Skittles, does that make them nutritious?  No doubt God can work miracles, and can use anything for good, but as a general principle, the Skittle (or Big Mac) is still junk food, and should only be enjoyed rarely or in moderation.  With this in mind, how does this apply to our fast-food culture?

3. Going on a Date (taken from Kenneth Meyers’ excellent book, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes):

“…let’s separate three different “cultures” of the preparation and service of food: high (gourmet), folk (traditional home cooking), and popular (fast food)…the categories work as a rough approximation of different food cultures.  Most people would agree that fast food has deficiencies that the other two categories do not, not simply in nutritional value or in taste, but in ethos, the way the food is served, consumed, and experienced.  Most young men of moderate means trying to make a positive impression on a young woman do not treat her to a meal at the nearest Burger King.  They realize there is definitely something missing in the meal’s social experience.

“Now, if every meal you ever ate was from a fast-food joint, would that affect your outlook on the meaning of meals? If there was never any elegance or grace, any ritual or decorum as part of your meals, if all the food you ever ate was delivered to you by a person in a funny-looking hat, and was wrapped in cardboard or styrofoam, would that affect your impressions of the Biblical metaphor of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?”

These three analogies demonstrate why traditional Christians are concerned primarily not with “words” or “motivation” (although these are certainly important), but with the form or medium of what is being presented itself.  In other words, the form or medium communicates a message in and of itself, such as the fast-food dining experience above.  I submit that certain churches have adapted the sort of thinking in the analogies above, “baptizing” them in the name of “relevance” or “efficiency.”  While none of the items in the analogies are necessarily evil (a mistake some traditionalists make in arguing against specific instruments for example), the argument is that they would be imprudent to use, or especially, imprudent to make one’s majority “diet” of culturally.  In this way, it parallels the Apostle Paul’s statement that “everything is possible, but not everything is beneficial” (I Corinthians 10).   Any thoughts? How does this impact the Church?

See Also:
Chart on different forms of culture (related to the Meyers analogy)
Chart on different views of the church (Useful for seeing why evangelicals in particular struggle with this issue. I would argue it is in part because they forget about the second column in particular).

For this, I have adapted a couple of charts based on Thomas C. Oden’s amazing work, Classic Christianity (highly recommended), which systematizes what Christians have always generally agreed on, especially in the first 5-700 years of the church (based on scripture and the fathers).  One of the easiest ways in which to see how these divisions exist is to look at how the church itself is viewed by differing Christian traditions:

 Church Patterns Chart (note: these are not absolute columns, but general trends that often intersect.  Also, please ask if you need a definition or explanation of any terms. Google is your friend.)

In the interest of disclosure, the present author was raised mostly in the first column on the left, and has enormous sympathies with and in some cases, has embraced the second column as well without leaving the first.   The third when isolated tends to give birth to heresies and false teaching in the name of “love and inclusion” at the expense of truth and correct doctrine.  However, there is truth in this view as well, which should naturally flow from the previous two views.  So perhaps I am arguing that the first two views will give birth to the third, but that the third cannot be divorced from the others without the loss of historic Christian orthodoxy.   Oden goes on to argue that all three views need each other, which I have difficulty disagreeing with.  Interestingly enough, some young evangelicals are trying to marry the first and third (especially politically) while ignoring the second completely.

These divisions can also be seen in the doctrines of the atonement and humanity.   It is asked, what did Christ accomplish through his life, death, and Resurrection, and how does that work itself out when it comes to the human condition?  Again borrowing from Oden, these views can be broken down in a chart:

Atonement and Humanity Views Chart   (like the first chart, these are not absolute categories with many crossovers)

Oden himself admits that the last two columns (Substitution/Sin and Victory/Bound Will) are the closest to a consensus within Christian history.  Most western Christians will recognize much of the third column as “the gospel message” when it comes to “how does one become saved?”  The fourth column has always existed in the west, but has been emphasized more fully in the east.  These views are highly complementary, and taken together can be safely called the classical Christian view.  This being said, there are truths in the first two columns as well, but these are not as well represented in the historical church and consented to by the majority of believers.  Many churches of a more “liberal” or “modernist” mindset hold to the first column alone, with perhaps the second column thrown in for the sake of politics.  Such a view however is at odds with the classical teachings of the church and what seems to be emphasized in scripture.

Any thoughts or comments on the charts or this post at all?  Can you see why these divisions can exist while orthodoxy is still be found and promoted?

One of the first ideas of God being the “greatest possible,” is in the area of attributes.  Classical Christian theology uses positive terms such good, just, merciful, beautiful, etc…and ascribes them to God “to the max (or infinite).”  However, one must be careful to not make the attribute greater than or equal to God, because that would mean God is less than or equal to that concept.  In other words, it is wrong to say “God has justice,” but completely proper to say “God is justice.”  Put another way, the very idea of what we view as universal virtues and goods are a reflection of the divine nature, who is these attributes by nature.

The same idea applies to the natural world. If time, matter, or any part of creation is believed to have existed before or at least always with God, this means it is either greater than or equal to God.  This is incorrect, and is one of the reasons (there are several) the church (and many Jewish traditions) have God creating the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing).  This means God is outside of time, even when he chooses to act within time (such as the incarnation).  Many debates both within and outside of Christianity often forget this idea.

Finally, Anselm posits that the very idea that the God of the Bible exists is better than him not existing.  Since it is better to be alive than dead, or to exist rather than not to exist, God must exist, otherwise “your God is too small.”  In order for him to be the greatest being, he must exist, otherwise he is not the greatest being.  One might have to read this a few times in order to completely “get” this argument, but if you ponder the first few “greatest” ideas it will start to make sense.  Remember, this argument only works for the “greatest possible” being, of which there can only be one.  So arguing that this can prove Santa Claus or Atlantis means you’ve missed the point (a mistake Anselm’s critics made even in his day).

In a climate that emphasizes immediacy and efficiency, such contemplation of God is often deeply unpopular or considered “irrelevant” or “impractical.”  For this reason (and many more) I highly recommend reading Anselm and other church fathers, since they are “anti-trendiness with a vengeance.”  Even if one disagrees with what’s read, it forces a 21st century post-Christian culture to “think differently.”   Thinking about such greatness makes our ever increasing list of invented psychological problems seem rather trivial and unimportant by comparison. The Triune God truly is “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and we owe him his due.