Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Colonialism and the spread of Christianity
Topic Started: Tuesday, 9. June 2009, 18:57 (182 Views)
william of bow
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Perhaps the making of a new thread, on the influence of colonialism on the spread of Christianity.


Well Penfold, you asked!

Well, to start somewhere; it is a circumstance freely acknowledged that Christianity would probably have remained a minor cult of Judaism, hiding in dark little rooms in Jerusalem if it had not been for the Imperial Roman Empire. And Trade.

But as we can read in the second Gospel of Luke, Acts, the Roman merchant fleet and the robust and elaborate Imperial road system managed to spread Christianity throughout the known world; Rome itself before 60 AD; the Rhone valley by about 120 AD. And travelling East Christianity had penetrated deeply into the Greek Diaspora at least as far as the northern shore of thr Black Sea before 90 AD.

William
William of Bow

Quote:
 
Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed: a passage which some have considered as a prophecy of modern journalism.
[G.K.Chesterton]



Check my Blog: http://www.williamonthehill.typepad.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD


History was certainly not one of my faqvourite subjects.

Given that - what place does Constantine have in this discussion?

and what place does the validity of conquest have (or are we keeping strictly away from the moral order and concentrating on historical observations/opinion?

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Quote:
 
(or are we keeping strictly away from the moral order and concentrating on historical observations/opinion?

To learn we need to accept all the moral implications of the actions of the past and the foundation upon which we have grown. As for Constantine he found Christianity to be a useful focus for the declining empire and used it to unite and expend his powerbase. I shall return to him another day if someone else doesn’t beat me to it ( :pl: )
However to go back to the beginning, The Apostles and early Christians using nothing other than the inspiration of faith and the Power of the Scripture took the tales of Jesus to the four corners of the known world. Following trade routes they reached Spain to the West, Alexandria and Egypt to the south, India to the South East and Parthia to the East and Mzchet (in modern Georgia) to the North east and Mainz on the Rheine to the North West.
Some of these early contacts failed to take off but by the time of Constantine and the Edict of Milan 313 AD http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/milan.stm , Christian Communities were established in Tipasa in modern Algeria, Lyons in modern France, Ctesiphon on the Tigris in what is now Iraq. There were also fledgling communities all over the Roman Empire and the slaves were the main source of the spread. Slaves were often the poets, scholars and domestic servants and basically some had a very good life, relatively speaking, and we should not view slavery of the Roman times as we would the slave trade of the 16 - 19 centuries in the West.
I shall return to this later but for reflection it is worth considering that with a few well chosen words and a determined faith a few people were responsible for taking Christianity to a great many people and not a sword was used p until Constantine in the proclamation of the Gospel, if we forget the business of the Ear in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"if we forget the business of the Ear in the Garden of Gethsemane."

I don't want to distract from the topic here Penfold; so this question can understandly be ignored.

Would you say in principle here that Our Blessed Lord had earlier replaced the use of physical force by that of 'separating the sheep from the goats'?.

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

PJD
Wednesday, 10. June 2009, 07:39
"if we forget the business of the Ear in the Garden of Gethsemane."

I don't want to distract from the topic here Penfold; so this question can understandly be ignored.

Would you say in principle here that Our Blessed Lord had earlier replaced the use of physical force by that of 'separating the sheep from the goats'?.

PJD

Not sure I follow, separating sheep from goats is a physical act but can be done gently. The difficulty lies with what happens to the goats after they are separated. This takes us to the matter of judgment and in the context of the theme the judge is God and so we are encouraged to acknowledge the difference between sheep and goats and to hope that by our conduct and the way we live we are considered to be sheep when the final judgment comes but it is not our place to make the final judgment. This suggests to me that we should not pre-empt the judgment by killing those we consider to be goats. The big problem is then how do we account for the millions who have died in the name of religious crusades over the years and the whole business of the Just War Theory?

The basis of the Just War Theory is rooted in the principle of self-defence not the judgment of others. Sadly through human failings the interpretation of self-defence has been stretched over the years and often misapplied.


Jesus encouraged us to spread the Gospel by imitating his method, which was peaceful. By and large up until the time of Constantine this is what the Church had done. After that, things get a little confused and the defence of Christianity became linked to the defence of the state and the rule of law in the empire. So people who did not follow the sate law were punished, even executed, and the state law was presented as a law of the church. People, therefore, were considered to have been executed for failing to obey the church. A confusion of interests and the relationship between temporal and spiritual authority still confronts the church in our own time. Some see my participation in the military as aiding the state and giving justification to the conflicts in which we are engaged, I see my role as being available to the troops and their families when they are in greatest peril. It is a matter of perception and a matter that can and will be debated in many forum.


Many will perceive the enforcement of Christianity on barbarians and pagans as an act of the church others will view it as a political and state matter, the truth is woven into both and yet stands alone if you can find the right perspective, like some of those three D puzzles they only reveal them selves if you look at them properly. If you know how to tell the difference between sheep and goats and can make the final judgment, in other words in the end we shall have to face the judgment of God and until then do the best we can with the information at our disposal. The more we acquaint ourselves with the scriptures and the more we live them out the closer we shall be to being full members of the Family of God. I refer you to last nights LD.


Sorry a longer sermon than I had intended. If I had taken time to explore the question more carefully my answer may have been shorter.
Sorry a longer sermon than I had intended. If I had taken time to explore the question more carefully my answer may have been shorter.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

Thank you for that acknowledgement and reply Penfold.

Now back to history - others that is (smile0

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I was thinking more of centuries later when countries of western Europe started taking over North, Central and South America, Africa, the then India and countries beyond. Commercial interests and a widening of or greater supplies of products for our predecessors were perhaps uppermost in the minds of the respective authorities. Sadly the indigenous people were often exploited badly, restricted or even persecuted. However, missionaries followed the authorities and often provided education as well as the Faith. Also on the plus side the colonial authorities were often able to enforce peace between otherwise hostile communities. Some independent governments have not been able to do so and sometimes have stirred it up. Of course it is hypothetical now but would such countries have progressed without colonisation? I would venture to suggest they may not have done, but colonisation could have been much better. In South Africa, for example, could the provision of much more education and training for manual and supervisory skills for the Africans have reduced the problems it faces now? Apartheid has a lot to answer for.
Edited by Derekap, Wednesday, 10. June 2009, 16:49.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It is an interesting thing that we do seem to think of Christian expansion in terms of the expansion of the European Empires from the 15 centaury onwards but it is worth remembering that Christianity often got to these places long before and also the influence of Christian philosophy and thought which certainly spread far and wide and was absorbed into other religions, such as Islam.
China had Christianity in the 5th century and again revivals in the 13th century but by the 16th century most of this was dismissed as being 'Nestorian' or in some other way defective rather than recognised as a starting point upon which to build.
There has been a Christian community at Basrah in Iraq since 50 AD and it was one of my pet 'Bug Bears' while out there that so many people would make comments along the lines that we should not be forcing 'Our' religion on the Arabs. I could rant on but you get the drift. Knowing the early history helps put the mid to later histories into context. This is particularly true should you wish to discuss the Crusades, who attacked who? In untying the knot of history one must always remember that if you succeed you will end up with two ends of a tale and all you have to figure out is which end is which or put simply in the well worn phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
william of bow
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I was thinking more of centuries later when countries of western Europe started taking over North, Central and South America, Africa, the then India and countries beyond.


Derek, obviously Christianity did not get farther west than the Skelligs (if we ignore the Hagiography around St. Brendan) until Columbus took it there. But East, well, a fascinating history opens up of which Penfold has given us but a tiny tease ...

The so called Silk Road has been a trading passage between China and Europe for at least 5,000 years and must have been well known to Greeks, Romans and most of the merchant adventurers of the eastern Meditterranean basin. I mention the Silk Road because at least two, very ancient proto-churches have been discovered along the route, one just inside what is now modern China.

Christianity was certainly brought to India by the Apostle St. Thomas, he who doubted. We can't 'firm' the claim up but it is historically possible. A well known trade route goes between Alexandria, the Red Sea, what is now Mombassa, and the Keralian coast. In a Sea Port called Cochin there is a Synagogue which is in possession of Torah scrolls at least 2,500 years old. We know from St. Paul that the small Jewish trading communities were essential to the spread of Christianity at this time. The present synagogue stands on the site of at least three others and the local Jewish community (now less than 20, alas) claim they have been trading in that city since the time of Solomon's Temple. The Greeks visited the Keralian coast, so did Roman Triremes. Roman Amphora have been found on the seabed all along that coast and what is thought to be a Roman Trade post was recently excavated (2001) in Keralia.

There is some evidence to say that Pilgrims have been visiting the mountain near Madras where Thomas is said to have been martyred since at least 200 AD.

The Christian communities in Keralia have very ancient Liturgy. I went to a Syrian/Coptic Mass there in 1989. It certainly came over as being very 'Jewish' and old. The Churches are quite reminiscent of synagogues interiorally. An Bishop Emissary sent to the community in circa 240 AD from Damascus discovered they had a Gospel of Mathew even then.

Of course, when the Portuegese arrived with Da Gama they began to 'convert' the local Christians to the Roman Rite. St. Francis Xavier I am afraid rather destroyed his reputation with the Indians. He thought they were all heretics and heathens and demanded that the King of Portugal send the Inquisition. Which the King did and they arrived about 8 years after Xavier had died. The Inquisition was very cruel and they murdered many thousand of Keralians, including Bishops of the local Church. A sorry business.
Edited by william of bow, Wednesday, 10. June 2009, 18:43.
William of Bow

Quote:
 
Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed: a passage which some have considered as a prophecy of modern journalism.
[G.K.Chesterton]



Check my Blog: http://www.williamonthehill.typepad.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

william of bow
Wednesday, 10. June 2009, 18:41
Quote:
 
I was thinking more of centuries later when countries of western Europe started taking over North, Central and South America, Africa, the then India and countries beyond.


Derek, obviously Christianity did not get farther west than the Skelligs (if we ignore the Hagiography around St. Brendan) until Columbus took it there.
Well actually some got there a little ahead of Columbus records have established that Iceland was Christian by 1000 AD and Greenland about a hundred years later. Leif Eriksson is the name to check and some put him in Greenland in 1000 ADAs for Brendan's Voyage I shall let others debate that one.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
I read on a forum that some of the Roman who settled here, and were Christians, went to Cornwall because they felt more comfortable away from the Romans who worshipped false Gods. Is there any evidence there were Christians in Cornwall in Roman times>
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
william of bow
Member Avatar

I am writing some essays on Christianity in India for a Catholic publication. It is thought that European colonisation brought in its wake Christian missionaries, often zealous, often willing to use sword and terror to spread the Gospel. And, alas this picture is all too common in history.

So the Portuegese brought terror and conversion at the point of the sword (or perhaps, conversion at the Auto de Fe).

Interestingly, The British East India Company actually forbade missionary activity in its territories until as late as 1819. In changing the rules the Company was caving in to a strong pressure group in London, Wilberforce among them, who believed that the spreading of Christianity (actually, the spreading of the Anglican church) was a necessary part of the so called 'civilising mission' of Britain to the world.

The Company thereafter sought to control missionary activity after 1819 and they issued very expensive, very 'tight' contracts of permission to mission to the Indian natives. They were quite content if Anglican mission activity was confined to the establishment of colleges for the natives since the Company was interested in developing a class of Indian middle ranking managers to take up some of the burden of governance. Hospitals it also didn't mind as also 'soup kitchen' type activities. The governing policy of East India Company was always about not wanting to antagonise the Status Quo and paying off the local rulers. They knew that introducing too much Christianity, especially a proselytising Christianity, would upset the locals indeed, as it still does today.

There is some evidence that points to the fact that some of the grumblings and complaints among the Sepoy Regiments immediately before the Mutiny was concerned with the activities of some missionaries. Other factors of course included the Victorian society itself. In the 18th century it was entirely acceptable for East India Company men to 'go native', taking Indian wives and converting to Hindhuism or Islam and learning the languages and the philosophies. This changed and the Victorian rulers became altogether more racist - spouting the creed of British Racial superiority. Young British officers came out to command Indian regiments without any intention of learning the language, bringing their wives with them. This meant that the gap between those who cammanded, and those they led, grew wider as the century wore on. It all helped to fan the flames of the Mutiny.

William
William of Bow

Quote:
 
Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed: a passage which some have considered as a prophecy of modern journalism.
[G.K.Chesterton]



Check my Blog: http://www.williamonthehill.typepad.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

William of Bow
I look forward to reeding the completed work if you could let us know when it will be published. I found the sample very interesting and would love to read the rest.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

St Piran's chapel in Cornwall dates to 450 AD and several Celtic missionaries and saints are known to have been active in Cornwall in the decades around this time. The general consensus among historians is that Britain ceased to be part of the 'Roman Empire' in 410 AD. There is evidence of Christianity elsewhere in Britain prior to the departure of the Romans and there where certainly Christian settlements elsewhere in the British Isles. It would seem to be illogical that the Romans would have excluded Cornwall from the spread of Christianity but there is no record of it and so one can only make a reasonable assumption that Christianity had been preached in Cornwall during the Roman Occupation" The main reason being that Cornwall was an important source of TIN which was being traded all over the known world at that time.
Sorry Rose that's all I can come up with for Cornish Christianity under the Romans.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
william of bow
Member Avatar

I seem to remember that the last Roman Legion in Britain marched out of York in 410, and out of history so to speak.

The Western Empire was by then already falling apart and Rome itself fell the same year (see the writings of Ss Augustine and Jerome).

There is a lot of evidence to indicate that Roman rule continued in these isles for a century or more following 410. The Auxillaries remained behind to protect the Saxon Shore; these would have been Saxon and Germanic tribal mercenaries. Presumably some sort of civic authority continued; taxes were collected, law was administered by, we assume British Roman citizens.

As to Cornwall; well, it was the 'western fringe' and it was towards the fringes that the Celts, the original British, were pushed by the Romans - Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scottish Highlands. In Gaul, what is now Brittany. Which is why they are still linguistically and culturally 'different' to the rest of us.

However Cornwall was well permeated by the Romans,; as you say Penfold, Cornwall had plenty of Tin, a very important ore for the Empire.

We cannot assume that 'Roman Britain' was entirely converted to Christianity by 410 but we can possibly make a reasonable assumption that Christianity was a common, perhaps majority religion at least among the landed and ruling classes. Certainly, there are enough Romano-Christian burial sites to make a reasonable assumption. As to proto- Christian churches between 3rd and 5th century; as far as I know one has yet to be found in Britain but I am sure it is only a matter of time before one is excavated.

William
William of Bow

Quote:
 
Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed: a passage which some have considered as a prophecy of modern journalism.
[G.K.Chesterton]



Check my Blog: http://www.williamonthehill.typepad.co.uk
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply