An eighth-century depiction of the arrest of Christ from the Book of Kells.
Church historian Philip Jenkins, who studied the Dark Ages (with his apologies for the term) as an undergraduate, compares the spread of Christianity in that era to its spread in our own:
The central fact of the [Dark Ages] was the conversion of [the British Isles and Scandinavia] to Christianity, which meant thinking about the nature of mission, and the relationship between old and new faiths. When for instance a formerly pagan society accepted Christianity, how much of their old ways should they retain? How many old customs or cultural forms could be brought within the scope of church life? Moreover, Christianity meant literacy: how did that transform the older society, and what scope did that allow for the old spiritual and cultural leaders, whether pagan priests or druids?
He continues:
For many years now, my main area of research has been in Global or World Christianity, namely the historic shift of the faith’s center of gravity to the Global South, to Africa Asia and Latin America. In many instances, the issues at stake in this growth are very similar indeed to those of the Early Middle Ages. In Africa, for instance, Christianity boomed when it broke free from the constraints of the European missions, and developed a mass following among independent churches with native leadership. Often though, Western Christians were (and are) alarmed at what seemed to be concessions to old pagan ways, in matters like healing, exorcism and spiritual warfare. The debates resonate immediately with anyone familiar with Europe’s own conversion era.
Jenkins goes on to quote a letter Pope Gregory the Great wrote to Abbot Mellitus as the abbot set off to evangelize England in the year 601, a letter that shaped missionaries’ attitudes for centuries. Read the whole post at The Anxious Bench. And if you’ve never read his 2006 Erasmus lecture on Christianity in the Global South, then read that, too.
February 6th, 2013 | 10:39 am
And a few other matters. And not just Christians.
February 6th, 2013 | 11:47 am
The present does not parallel Europe after the fall of Rome. Most obviously, there has been no fall of Rome, no power vacuum created by the fall of a powerful entity.
Christianity did not spread in “Dark” Age Europe by going door to door. After the disappearance of the Western Roman Empire, it was all that was left of the organizational power of Rome. Typically, it converted a ruler, who converted his people. The ruler could then use it to secure his power, and it could use the ruler for wealth, influence, doctrinal purity.
Christianity’s situation today is very different. There is no chaos or state backing. Different branches cannibalize one another while the “nones” grow–see Brazil. It can no longer count on an influential patron for enforcement and propaganda. It is alive in Africa, but Africa can’t make friends or influence people. It is unlikely to experience wide scale conversion in China and India, as these nations don’t have traditions amenable to it, nor can it offer itself as a practical tool for their leaders.
February 6th, 2013 | 11:52 am
” healing, exorcism and spiritual warfare.”
That Western Christians are alarmed that Christians might, you know, actually believe in and practice this stuff says a lot about the state of much of Western Christianity.
Something along the lines of “holding to a form of godliness and denying the power thereof” (2nd Timothy 3:5)
I understand that Christianity in the Global South has its own share of problems (i.e., treatment of homosexual persons in many cases, the practice of polygamy – etc.) – but the alarm that many Western Christians raise often times falls under post-Enlightenment blinders mixed with a strange sense of paternalism. Western Christianity has enough problems of its own without feeling the need to meddle in and micro-manage churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
February 7th, 2013 | 9:45 am
With great curiosity I ask this question: why do you use the term “Dark Ages”? You say “with apologies” and you insert it into Jenkins’ quote where he didn’t actually say it. So why do you use it?
February 7th, 2013 | 10:22 am
@Douglas Johnson – I used the term because it’s less clunky than listing the years while still conveying to the reader what time period we’re talking about. I inserted it into Jenkins’ quote because otherwise the sentence would have merely said “the era” immediately after I had mentioned our era, thus leaving it unclear (until you’ve read further) what era “the era” is referring to. If a historian like Jenkins uses the term (which he does, in his post), I think it’s acceptable for the rest of us to do so too.
February 7th, 2013 | 12:16 pm
@Anna Williams,
I’m no expert (and I’m not even a student), but I always thought it was synonymous with the “Middle Ages.” I did a little Googling and I see some folks mean it to refer to the early Middle Ages, while others mean it to refer to the whole of the Middle Ages. So it seems as if “Dark Ages” doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of knowing the timeframe, but rather just conveys an image or an assessment.
When I hear the term a quick flash goes through my brain that says “ah, I might be talking to someone who takes a dim view of the Augustine to Aquinas era!” Probably silly of me, I don’t know.
But whenever the term is used we are beset with unanswered questions: 1) What years ARE you talking about? 2) Do you take a dim view of those years? 3) Are you aware of the controversy over the term? 4) What does your use mean in light of said awareness?
Again, I am no expert so my opinion is just impression really, but I can’t see that makes anything more specific at all.
February 7th, 2013 | 12:28 pm
“Dark” Ages should be used with quotes, as they were not characterized by genocides, wide-scale wars, and large, filthy, and disease-ridden cities, though the bubonic plague of the 7th century did affect them. One could argue that the average Western European had a higher standard of living–more food, less demanding work, cleaner living conditions–in the Dark Ages than he did in London of the 17th, 18th, and the first half of the 19th centuries.
February 7th, 2013 | 12:32 pm
@Douglas – Your impressions (about the dim view of the era implied in the term “Dark Ages,” the ambiguity of the time period, etc) are correct—that’s why Philip Jenkins included his apologies for using the term. (Historians of the period seem to disagree with the view implied by the term.) I was assuming readers would interpret “Dark Ages” to mean early Middle Ages, but since I was linking to a piece that was more specific, I didn’t worry about it too much.
February 8th, 2013 | 9:05 am
Older historians used the “Dark Ages” for the period between the Sack of Rome in 410 and the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. It is certainly true that the period is characterised by a paucity of documents, in comparison with the preceding and subsequent centuries.
Others, English historians in particular, use it for the period between the withdrawal of the legions in 383 and the Norman Conquest of 1066.
February 8th, 2013 | 11:48 am
Michael PS, yes, some historians use the term “Dark Ages,” because they are “dark” for us, not because they were “dark” for the people who lived then. Most normal folk, however, use the term “dark,” to mean that the era was full of ignorance, plagues, witch burnings, torture, inquisitions, etc. They don’t know it, but they’re describing the Renaissance or the 17th century instead. I’m not religious or Catholic, but the term is used as a cautionary tale about what happens when the Catholic Church is powerful, and drives me crazy!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact