Christianized Culture in the Middle Ages

NickImageRead Part 1 and Part 2.

Whether cultural Christianization is possible is a question that provokes considerable debate. The answer to that question will, of course, depend upon what one means by Christianization. If the term means that most people within the culture are regenerated, or even that the gospel is rightly and generally understood, then no culture has ever been Christianized. If, however, Christianization simply means that a generally Christian worldview and morality has become the dominant perspective of a culture, then Christianization is not only possible, but actual. In fact, Western civilization experienced a predominantly Christianized culture for something like a thousand years.

Three objections can be raised against this thesis. The first is that the civilization of medieval Europe was Roman Catholic and, therefore, from a biblical perspective, not truly Christian at all. The second objection is that the morality of the Middle Ages was mixed, and that certain forms of immorality were even celebrated. The third objection is that the thought of medieval Europe was so influenced by pagan philosophers that the Christian elements were greatly diluted.

To take the last objection first, the non-Christian philosopher who exercised the greatest influence on medieval theology was Aristotle. His thought was mediated chiefly through the theology of Thomas Aquinas, who wrote some 800 years after the beginning of the Middle Ages. Even then, Thomas did not appropriate Aristotle uncritically, and others (Bonaventure, for example) sharply opposed the use of Aristotelian categories. To be sure, Aristotle did exert an influence, especially during the late medieval period. People who study medieval philosophy, theology, or culture, however, rarely claim that the most influential categories in the medieval West came from pagan philosophers.

As for medieval morality, one can certainly find instances of moral license. The fabliaux of the jongleurs could be—well, bawdy. The troubadours sometimes idealized sexual immorality. And who can forget being introduced to Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale in high school literature?

Even though the culture tolerated (and sometimes reveled in) such expressions, however, it still subjected them to censure. Much as Chaucer might snicker at the miller’s tale, he formally expresses his disapproval. Lancelot and Guinevere paid a severe price, and Dante places Francesca and Paolo in the Inferno. Whatever medieval practice may sometimes have become, the culture of the period recognized a transcendent morality by which all would be judged.

What about medieval Catholicism? Two considerations are worth pointing out. First, Catholicism during the Middle Ages was actually a mishmash of competing influences and ideas. Some critics of Romanism habitually confuse medieval Catholicism with Tridentine Catholicism, but this is a significant historical mistake. The trends that the Catholic church canonized at Trent did develop during the Middle Ages. Most of the time, however, those trends had to compete with other perspectives and influences within broad Catholicism.

The strength of those competing influences can be illustrated by the success of the evangelical protest movements such as the Arnoldists, Waldenses, and Lollards. Unlike the truly heretical movements (the Cathari and Bogomils, for example), the evangelical groups were launched by emphases that they found within institutional Catholicism. A fine line existed between those who ended up outside the Catholic church and some of those who stayed in. Writers like Groote, Tauler, and Thomas à Kempis managed to preserve several evangelical emphases inside the medieval Catholic church. These evangelical influences ultimately led to the Reformation, a movement that began within the medieval Catholic church. So strong were the evangelical influences within medieval Catholicism that even the Counter-Reformation could not extirpate them. Remnants of the older, evangelical influences survived in people like Fenelon and Guyon.

In any event, a Christianized culture does not necessarily require a widespread understanding of the full gospel. In a non-technical sense, the word Christian can be used to distinguish those who affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy from infidels, pagans, and cultists. In that sense the Catholicism of the Middle Ages can be called Christian, and that is the sense in which the Middle Ages were influenced by Christian categories.

To claim that medieval Western culture was shaped by Christian ideals is simply to assert that the categories in which people thought reflected certain ideals that came from Christianity. Almost no one doubts that the civilization of the medieval West was profoundly influenced by Christianity. Even where some superstition from the ancient paganisms remained, Christian categories came to dominate. The result was a synthesis of ideas that could rightly be called a Christian consensus. This consensus was shared by all classes: by clergy and laity, by statesmen, merchants, artists, and peasants.

The medieval consensus affirmed the existence of a personal-infinite God. This God, acknowledged as the Creator of the world, was both transcendent and immanent. He took a continuing interest in His creation. He ruled over and intervened in the course of history, either by miracle or by Providence.

Medievals saw the universe as an ordered place. This order was thought to be transcendently imposed from the mind of the Creator. The universe was also governed by moral categories, because God’s order included His moral law. Since God is just, violation of His law was thought to bring retribution.

Furthermore, medievals viewed human beings as sinful, finite, and contingent. They understood that they needed divine help and forgiveness. Their recognition of human limitation and flaw, however, was balanced by a vision of human dignity based upon the imago Dei.

Westerners during the Middle Ages believed that Jesus Christ was the God-man. They confessed Him to be the unique revealer of the Father: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.” They worshiped Him as the unique redeemer of humankind Whose death on the cross and resurrection from the dead make salvation possible.

Central to the medieval consensus was the necessity of faith and religion. To the medieval mind, faith provided the framework for the acquisition of knowledge. This is not to say that medievals resorted to revelation for all their information about the world. Nevertheless, they sensed that reality was so penetrated by mystery that mere observation of facts would not by itself disclose truth. The particulars could not be understood apart from the larger context provided by universals. In the acquisition of universals, the Scriptures and the church held a privileged position as repositories of truth. When they spoke concerning particulars, the Scriptures and the church were considered to be accurate, but more importantly they revealed universals and provided the context within which the particulars made the best sense.

This medieval consensus produced a social order that was thought to reflect divine order and authority. This order developed slowly over the centuries. Early feudalism brought stability out of the chaos that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. To the feudal system were gradually added other elements, the most important of which were the rule of law and (as a rather late accretion) the divine right of Kings.

In the medieval social order, the church (in the sense of institutional Christianity) stood above culture. It not only communicated Christian content, it also perpetuated forms that helped people to grasp the significance of that content. High culture (“official” culture) embodied the ideals of Christian theology and tradition: philosophy, music, art, architecture, politics, and jurisprudence were profoundly influenced by Christian categories. The folk cultures also came to be permeated with Christian ideals, which manifested themselves in everyday arrangements such as work, home life, crafts, and folk art. To participate in these folk cultures was to gain a practical knowledge of several key Christian categories.

Why did this consensus begin to fracture? Scholars offer different explanations, but one of the most persuasive involves the triumph of Nominalism over Realism in late medieval philosophy. By focusing attention upon particulars, nominalism led to Baconianism, then to the Enlightenment itself. By the time of Descartes, the “Ages of Faith” had ended and the Christian consensus rapidly unraveled.

With the arrival of the Enlightenment, the medieval world gave way to modernity. An entire conception of reality was slowly rendered obsolete. The process of secularization began to erode even the vestigial authority of Christian values. The secular consensus of the modern world displaced the older medieval consensus almost point by point.

Hymn 2:34
Breathing after the Holy Spirit; or Fervency of Devotion Desired
Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove,
With all Thy quick’ning powers;
Kindle a flame of sacred love
In these cold hearts of ours.

Look how we grovel here below,
Fond of these trifling toys;
Our souls can neither fly nor go
To reach eternal joys.

In vain we tune our formal songs,
In vain we strive to rise;
Hosannas languish on our tongues,
And our devotion dies.

Dear Lord! and shall we ever live
At this poor dying rate?
Our love so faint, so cold to Thee,
And Thine to us so great?

Come, Holy Spirit, heav’nly Dove,
With all Thy quick’ning powers;
Come, shed abroad the Savior’s love
And that shall kindle ours.

Discussion

[Charlie]
[Ed Vasicek] I might be all wet (no pun about baptism implied), but I would rather be in a secular nation no dominated by a Christian worldview that allowed us to practice and share our faith than in the Middle Ages (where the lost around you agreed with many of your views but refused you the freedom to practice and share your fait). Is that the choice you would make Charlie, or no? The complexities of rearing children in such an environment are many, I know.
I don’t know. I think it’s clear that, all other things being equal, non-repressive societies are better than repressive societies. But, other things are never equal. For example, what about colonial New England? It produced works like John Cotton’s The Bloody Tenet, justifying the persecution of Baptists (or was that Quakers?). So, I would be fine, but you would not. Still, though, you would have to admit that New England did practice and even support evangelical faith. Not only that, but Christianity was central to all the institutions and facets of life. So, although I find it easy to choose modern America over medieval Spain, I find the choice between now and colonial New England more complex.
Not me. I’ll take “now” hands down.

"The Midrash Detective"

This is one of the most interesting articles and discussions that Sharperiron has had in a long time. Thanks to Kevin for writing on the subject and for all those who have contributed to the discussion. I can’t help but add that one of the most important outworkings of the pervasiveness of Christian knowledge in the Middle Ages was the Jewish belief that God created everything, and that since that time, history has been heading in one direction. Several philosophers of science have argued that this perception of the universe was essential for the development of modern science

Jeff Brown

Ed, I am a little surprised you did not mention this. Though the Middle Ages were bad for the Jews (were the early days of the Reformation any better?), the Jews were good for the middle ages. They were the primary people involved in international trade. And without their moneylending, the feudal system would have collapsed.

Jeff Brown

[Jeff Brown] Ed, I am a little surprised you did not mention this. Though the Middle Ages were bad for the Jews (were the early days of the Reformation any better?), the Jews were good for the middle ages. They were the primary people involved in international trade. And without their moneylending, the feudal system would have collapsed.
That’s true, Jeff. Hard to say whether that was good or bad, but probably good. If it were not for a somewhat developed Europe that could unite behind Sobieski centuries later against the Muslims, Europe would very likely have been a Muslim continent. And without the Jews, Europe probably would not have had the identity and wealth it did have. Funny how one thing affects another and on and on down the line.

Since the Jews were not allowed to own land in certain areas in certain eras, they had to take to business to survive. Still, I do not think that the Jews contributed toward monotheism in Europe much at that stage; their contribution came primarily in the first century and before. If they had been more influential, the rampant idolatry and performing acts of worship to others besides God might have been thwarted. As it stands, they were more or less considered a testimony to God’s judgment, a people group in shambles because of their harsh treatment of Christ.

Like Christianity, the Middle Ages was a rough time on Jewish beliefs, too. Many superstitions and occult-like mysticism invaded Judaism, as evidenced by the Kabbalah and Zohar.

"The Midrash Detective"

I think the latest post does a lot to clarify what what Kevin means in this one… and to explain why our times are a step down.

http://sharperiron.org/article/western-culture-and-abandonment-of-faith

Of course, some things are certainly better. Freedom is a great thing to a point and hot water to shower in in the morning is priceless.

But culturally… it’s been all down hill since the Enlightenment.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.