Horner1

Andrea Horner Humanities 111 Ms. Harper 30 May 2012

Early Christians in Europe

The earliest development of Christianity came from the arise of the Roman empire dating back to the crucifixion of Jesus in 29 AD. The context of Jesus revolves around the Jewish religion, believing that Jesus was the manifestation of Gods divine intervention to European society during this period. The use of the newly found religious dogma, whereas the New Testament being the foundation of social, political and economic rule, gave rise to the body politic of this period. To the first members of the Christian movement, Jesus was both a prophet who proclaimed the power and purpose of God and the Messiah whose coming heralded a new age (Western Civilization...177) This whole notion leads to the masses grabbing ahold of Jesus being the messiah, the direct descendent from God. Furthermore, with these teachings it was the first time in human society, with the rise of Constantine, that the body politic was formed based off of religious doctrine. It is clearly seen throughout European history that the whole question of life or death, heaven or hell, manifested itself in the minds of the people. This whole question of hell in other religions did not exist. Now, with this development the loyalty of the people was seemingly focused on the religious leader i.e. the Pope.

Horner2

Increasingly, what formed was a caste system that hindered any type of upward mobility. When we speak of caste, we are speaking of a governmental structure that stagnated upward mobility of all people. For example, in Europe, in the eyes of the population theres a strong popularity of the Pope, of the ruling elite, culminating into a monarchy. This monarchy was ordained by the Pope, arguably. The Pope had complete control over all segments of society. The Pope ordained the so-called kings and queens of the land based of this new form of religious identity. Meaning, that the Pope convinced the masses that the Earth was the center of the universe. Next in line in this series of hierarchy was the Pope, himself. Next in line after the Pope of this notion of maintaining order in this newly formed society was the monarch. The monarch consisted of a bloodline of kings and queens who could rule the land based off of the blood, leading to absolute control of the people. This whole question of direct rule is interesting coming out of Roman dominance; this shaped the mindset of the people to evolve quantitively. In this whole system, the people who benefited from this were the knighthood. Soldiers became the protection of the monarch. Expanding their ideas, believing this was Gods way of dealing with things. When we speak of expanding we are speaking of the notion that it is their religious duty, ordained by the New Testament to indoctrinate by force. Furthermore, protecting the monarchy and the whole entire system that was emerging in this period. There was no sense of individualism, there was a sense of protecting their way of life. In this society, of course as Karl Marx would say, there has to be the have-nots. The have-nots indicate an idea that they can attain capital or some type of upward mobility. This is not going to happen here, because in this new system, which will emerge into capitalism has to have a foundation of servitude. This would be the indication of the people, the masses, identified as peasants. Peasants were the work force. When we say work force we say they were not working for a wage,

Horner3

they were working to survive. After the peasants, there was a lower class of individuals, the serfs. The serfs served only for one reason, as a leased system, leasing their labor to maintain the order of the monarch. This whole system was ordained by the notion of God being the center of all. This question of manifest destiny starts in this period. We have been taught that the Crusades were a religious movement to maintain the spiritual body of Europe(Christianity). We are also taught that the original manifestation of Christianity was a dogma or a doctrine based on conversion, when its historical fact, as we learned in class, that the Crusades were mainly for the necessity of resources that the Persians controlled on the Indian Ocean trade. So where was God here with this conclusion I have? If the body politic of this period was based off of exploitation of their people with no sense of upward of upward mobility? Where was the religious fervor of the New Testament in this time? Of course this system of control cannot last, it has to go through a qualitative change. Here we see the revolution of Martin Luther questioning the religious notion of Christianity. He went so far as to nail his criticisms on the Vatican door. This is exactly what the Bible tells us that Jesus did; he went against the church and he was crucified by the Roman empire. So, can we conclude that Martin Luthers direct action toward the body politic was Christlike? Can we say that this action sped up the separation of religious belief systems from Protestant, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.? I will say yes, strongly yes. Because in history we find there are contradictions within unity and conflict within society. Furthermore, these contradictions from the inception of religious rhetoric led to these revolutionary actions, leading to the dispersal of ideas. Fast-forward past the Middle Ages, because we all know the Middle Ages were just the continuation of expanding the contradiction within society. Within the late Middle Ages is where we see the rise of the Renaissance period where the Italians had so-called intellectual enlighten-

Horner4

ment. When we say so-called enlightenment we are addressing the notion that suddenly man or European man started thinking. Basic mathematics is associated with this period. Arguably, I would firmly stand on this, how could one come to a mathematical or scientific conclusion and own it when in fact it is a universal truth. Who is to say that the Nubians of ancient Eastern Africa did not come to these conclusions of mathematics and science. Who is to say that the Mongolians did not come to the same conclusion that what goes up must come down. These are inherent truths, theres nothing definite with a conclusion, its just what theyve come to. We clearly see, subjectively, that the developments of Europe with the rise of Christianity gave way to Capitalism. I would say this is the foundation of the very notion of exploitation of your brethren for economic and political gain. When we say exploitation we are talking about the serfs, the peasants. We are addressing the notion of no upward mobility. Though it seems that we came from a system of Feudalism to Capitalism, quantitatively, the qualitative change needs to be Socialism, a system without debt. Through my studies thus far, these are the conclusions Ive come to, but, this is just one working-class females opinion.

Works Cited

Horner5

Perry, Marvin: Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society Volume 1: To 1789, New York: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 2009. Print.