Chivalry is the Christian form of the military profession; the knight is the Christian soldier. -- Leon Gautier
Leon Gautier's classic work on Chivalry has in the first three sections of the book a bold, Roman Catholic presentation of what he argues is the Christian view of warfare. Guatier asks the reader to consider whether the advancing threats in Medieval Europe (Barbarians, Musselmen, & Pagans) could have been turned back if it weren't for the Church's support of the political powers. In other words, was the "Christianised soldier" an oxymoron, or can the Kingdom of God -- whose characterstics are peace, love, and joy in the Holy Spirit -- have in its citizenry men at arms?
Gautier argues that Chilvary, while not traceable to any one event or person, spontaneously emerged across Christianized Europe though rooted in what he terms "a German custom which has been idealized by the Church" (p.2). It seems that the Germanic people's historic appetite for unbridled destruction needed an ideal to temper it and dress it up nobly. Christianity was able to do this.
On the flip-side, what business has the Church mingling with worldly powers and supporting the cause of war, especially in the light of what Her Lord had expressly stated, "My Kingdom is not of this world?" And, "He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword?" There is an apparent contradiction that weakens the idea of Chivalry, and the pacifist has explicit statements from Scripture which seem to reign in on the concept of a Christian militarism.
The theology of the medievals, in Gautier's presentation, possessed an underlying historicism which interpreted national affairs in the light of God's sovereignty. No nation was simply "attacked" -- it was either being judged for wickedness, or chastised so as to purge it, or perhaps even "punished for others" (p.3) since even individuals are personally afflicted for the salvation of others, so it can be with nations. Here's how Guatier explains it:
As soon as a nation ceases to be manly and self-sacrificing, as soon as it enters into its era of decadence, and becomes capable of rendering other nations effeminate; or again when in the midst of its prosperity and splendour it becomes tyrannical; oppresses the human conscience, and threatens the free destiny of the truth on the earth--God makes useof another people to chastise this corrupt, haughty, and dangerous nation. (p.3)
This understanding didn't detract from the reality that the Church officially "hates war" (p.2), as it is a great evil, but that she authorizes wars is philosophically defensible for those nations whose cause is just. Therefore the Old Testament war mandate to conquer by the sword in the name of Jehovah is taken away from the New Testament Church, the New Israel. She has no forcible means of advancing the Kingdom. However, since God has not abrogated government, and that institution exists for peace and justice, the Church has every right and duty to encourage the maintenance of that peace and justice. Since Europe was largely Christianized by the 9th century A.D., there was no practical way for the Church to neatly divide the Two Kingdoms. There was an overlapping in effect. The Church's worldview demanded that Christians be upright and contributing citizens, and that included participating in the affairs of the state even if the affair was war.
Gautier reminds the reader that while the general thrust of the early Church was to avoid war, and even some notable figures like Tertullian and Lactantius boldly denounced Christian participation, nevertheless the council of Arles in 314 "separated from the communion those who refused or abandoned military service" (p.7). There could be no absolute refusal to fight for a nation's cause if it conforms to the will of God.
Even if the reader does not finally agree with Gautier's explanation and defense of the history of Chivalry -- after all, it's not hard to see such entanglements in the world easily corrupting Christian testimony -- one can't but help to feel a certain gratitude that our Christian forebears had sense enough to fight under the banner of the Kingdom of God, which no doubt influenced our freedoms we have today in the West. It's also a warning to us all that no nation is exempt from conflict (maybe Switzerland is the exception to this) -- but every nation can choose either righteousness or wickedness. We can only pray that Chivalry is not lost to us in our time.
3 comments:
In other words - chivalry is baptised militarism.
I like his analysis - it makes differentiation possible at a level where it was not previously possible - like in analysing the actions of the first couple of crusades for instance.
How well the ideal of Chivalry was played out in the Crusades is another matter, and I plan on devouring a few volumes on the Crusades to gain some insight on this. But, yes, bapitsed militarism is how Gautier explains it.
Tongue-in-cheek: As I've been thinking and writing on the influence of Norse mythology of late, we could alternatively say that chivalry is what happened when Thor became a Christian...
Post a Comment