The rise of Christianity: a sociologist reconsiders historyRodney Stark, Princeton University Press
Prince Vladimir I of kyiv is a fratricide, a rapist, a drunkard and a pagan. Yet it has its moments of quiet contemplation. In such a mood, Vladimir begins to question his pagan faith. He sends ten wise men to investigate the four “civilized” religions: Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
After a while they come back. Of the Muslims they say: “There is no happiness among them, only sorrow and a terrible stench.” » Of the Catholics: “We saw no glory there. » But of the Orthodox:
The Greeks led us to the buildings where they worship their God, and we did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor and beauty, and we do not know how to describe them. We only know that God dwells there among men and that their service is more righteous than the ceremonies of other nations. Because we cannot forget this beauty. Every man, after tasting something sweet, no longer wants to accept what is bitter, and that is why we cannot linger here any longer.
Shortly after, Vladimir was baptized in the Orthodox Church.
A cynic might point out that the prince was also courting Anna, the sister of the Byzantine emperor, at the time. Yet no one can deny that his conversion was sincere. After he and Anna became engaged, Vladimir dismissed his four other wives and 800 concubines and renounced excessive drinking, rape, and plunder. The prince spent his last years on earth traveling the country, building churches and monasteries, and being the baptismal godfather of countless peasants.
Thus began the Christianization of the Slavs. In time, Vladimir would be raised to the altars as Saint Vladimir the Great, Equal to the Apostles.
His story is remarkable, but it is not unique. History is full of leaders who converted to Christianity, ostensibly for political reasons, and yet found themselves becoming truly pious, sometimes fanatically. There is Boris I of Bulgaria, Æthelberht of Kent, Clovis I of the Franks and, of course, Constantine the Great.
These stories are the stuff of reactionary dreams and progressive nightmares. Oddly enough, both sides take for granted that this is how Christianity came to be. Left-wing historians have long argued that Christianity was spread primarily by cynical tyrants who used the Church as a tool of religious terror to intimidate their subjects. In recent years, more and more conservatives seem to believe that the masses will never succeed in choose Christianity (or Western Civilization, or “Judeo-Christian Values,” or whatever you want to call it) freely. It must be imposed on them by a political elite – for their own good, of course. This is the basic assumption behind ideologies like Catholic fundamentalism and Christian nationalism.
Now, I love a good theocracy as much as the next man. The problem is that neither the liberal left nor the illiberal right know much about history.
As Rodney Stark points out in his magnum opus The rise of Christianity, the Church grew at a rate of about 40 percent per decade for the first three centuries. He did this by entirely peaceful means and despite almost constant opposition from the Roman authorities.
According to Stark, “projections reveal that Christianity could easily have reached half the population by the middle of the fourth century without miracles or mass conversions” – or even without state assistance. “As long as nothing changed in the conditions that sustained this 40% per decade growth rate,” he continues, “Constantine’s conversion would be better seen as a response to the massive exponential wave underway, not as its cause. »
Father John Strickland, in his book The Age of Paradise, puts it more clearly: “Christianity did not take control of the empire because Constantine converted to it. Constantine converted there because he was taking over the empire.
The question is, how? Stark examines the evidence through a sociological lens, and his insights are invaluable not only to historians but also to Christian missionaries, conservative activists, and all those who cherish Western civilization.
Conventional wisdom holds that the Faith spread first among the poor and especially among slaves. This notion helped inspire Nietzsche to reject Christianity as a “slave revolt in morality.” It also became the cornerstone of “liberation theology,” a fusion of Christianity and Marxism popular in the Americas. Like most preconceived ideas, this is false. All evidence, past and present, suggests that the earliest converts were from the middle and upper classes, many of whom undoubtedly “encouraged” their slaves to embrace their new faith.
What would cause a well-established Roman citizen to join an illegal religious sect? Stark’s answer is quite simple. The upper classes tend to be better educated, and more educated people are more likely to adopt radical new religions. This is true even in our time. According to Stark’s research, more than 80% of converts to modern cults – Scientology, Wicca, etc. – have completed university studies. In fact, they are the most educated religious demographic, surpassing even Jews (76%). During this time, only about half of Roman Catholics attended college. Stark also notes the inordinate popularity of pseudo-religions like Christian Science and Spiritualism among the Victorian elite.
Thus, although their economic and political status might incline them towards religious conservatism, the Roman elite in fact constituted the group most likely to embrace the new faith. On the contrary, the “edginess” of the new religion adds to its appeal.
Now the question becomes: why Christianity? Among the thousands of strange cults spread across Pax Romana, why choose this one? Stark agrees with contemporary sources, which suggest that the Romans were amazed by the courage and compassion of these early Christians. He cites two Church Fathers, Tertullian and Dionysius, who say that Christians quickly developed a reputation for love: love for the sick, the poor, the elderly, the widows, the orphans and, above all, the for each other.
As Stark points out, this was no idle boast. This is confirmed by pagan sources. No less than Julian the Apostate wrote an open letter to his priests complaining: “I think that when the poor were neglected and neglected by the priests, the ungodly Galileans noticed it and devoted themselves to benevolence. » Also: “The ungodly Galileans support not only their own poor, but also ours. Everyone can see that our people lack help from us.
For this benevolence, Christians were crucified in the streets. They were tied to poles and set on fire to serve as lampposts. They were fed to the lions of the Colosseum for the pleasure of all good pagans. Additionally, as Stark pointed out, they remained loyal to the Emperor. It is true that they would not offer this pinch of incense to his idols. But even their scriptures commanded them to “honor the emperor” and warned that “whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God.” Their kindness, courage, docility, and even joy in the face of persecution caused thousands of noble Romans to repent and accept baptism.
Conventional wisdom holds that Christianity grants women a higher status than paganism. According to Stark, this is indeed true. Women were the most successful missionaries in the early Church. They also weren’t afraid to “flirt into conversion.” On the contrary: Saint Monica converted her husband through her holy life. Their son, Augustine, grew up to become the greatest theologian in Christian history.
Subscribe today
Receive daily emails in your inbox
We must also remember that, as Stark says, in ancient Rome, “many more babies were born than were allowed to live.” The main causes of death were infanticide followed by abortion. Contraception, sodomy, and homosexuality were all considered socially acceptable. The Church, however, prohibited all these practices. So while the Roman birth rate fell overall, the Christian birth rate remained consistently high. Simply put, they were more inbred than the pagans.
Stark points out that during these early centuries, faith spread primarily through interpersonal relationships, what sociologists call “social networks.” Most conversions were not carried out by street evangelists. The most effective proselytizers appealed to their friends and family, those with whom they had a relationship of great trust. I don’t know if the Romans thought it was rude to talk about religion at the dinner table, but if so, the early Christians didn’t care.
This is just a glimpse of Rodney Stark’s study of both historical records and modern sociological data, much of which he compiled himself. The rise of Christianity sparked a revolution in the study of the early Church, inspiring several much more “popular” titles (notably that of Tom Holland Domination). It offers a useful counterpoint to controversial stories that have gained popularity on the right, for example: The Church of the Apostles and Martyrs by Henri Daniel-Rops, republished last year by Cluny Média. A new pocket edition of The rise of Christianity was long awaited. To all the people of Princeton UP, you are doing God’s work.
