East vs. West: Brutality in the Western church

» pfeller - East vs. West: Brutality in the Western church

This article posits an interesting thesis -- that the differing anthropologies of the Eastern and Western churches fostered differing levels of organized violence. Unfortunately one of the major premises is simply incorrect. Far from there being "very few instances of violence in the Orthodox church, and none that we would define as widespread," a cursory glance reveals many examples of organized and widespread violence.

To make for fair comparisons, I will look at the examples of Western violence mentioned in the article -- the Crusades, the Albigensian crusade, the Inquisition, and the conversion of the "New World." I will examine whether there exist examples of violence instigated by the Eastern church 1) against Islam, 2) against dualist heretics, 3) against religious dissenters within the Empire, and 4) in support of the conversion of pagans in newly-conquered territory. It will be seen that, in the three cases where analogous situations exist, one need not look hard to find examples.

The one case in which we lack an obviously analogous situation is the conversion of conquered peoples. For much of its history, the Byzantine Empire struggled to maintain the territory that it had, beset by first Persians, then Arabs, and finally Turks to the east, and by the Slavs to the north. The few instances of conquest were largely of territories already inhabited by Arian or Orthodox Christians.

The Crusades, and violence against Islam, are complicated, but offer a possible comparison. The complications stem in part from the difficulty in determining the extent to which religion and politics influenced events. When the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus sent envoys to Pope Urban II, asking for aid in protecting Christian sites and pilgrims in Palestine, his motives were largely political. However so were the motives of Urban's predecessor, Gregory VII, when he unsuccessfully called for the West to assist Byzantium after Manzikert, and so were Urban's in calling for for the First Crusade. To the extent that the violence of the crusades flowed from religious motivations, both East and West must take blame.

The situation becomes clearer when looking at persecution of religious dissent. If the West had the Inquisition, the East had Justinian. He destroyed the Egyptian temples, closed the pagan University of Athens, persecuted and then crushed the Samaritans, deprived Christian heretics of civil rights, and rooted out Arianism from Africa. Justinian also attempted to suppress Monophysitism, but found it too powerful. Justinian's persecution is the best known, but other theologically-minded Emperors also bore guilt for acts of violence, such as Leo III's persecution of the Jews, and Theophilus' cruelty against the iconodules.

In particular, the persecution of dualist heretics offers a good example the widespread violence that was said not to exist in the East. The horrors of the Albigensian Crusade are well known, but the Empress Theodora's destruction of the Paulicians was perhaps worse. The Paulicians were a dualist sect in Asia Minor, whose beliefs resembled those of the Manicheans. The Eastern church persecuted them off-and-on, and in the wake of the Iconoclasm controversy, clamped down brutally. Perhaps as many as 100,000 were killed in 844.

Perhaps the differing Eastern and Western anthropologies have influenced behavior, but we should not romanticize the East as free from violence. Regrettably both churches have proven themselves human, flawed, and capable of sin.

-- posted by pfeller

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions