Main > The Round Table

Religion and Chivalry

<< < (4/7) > >>

Christian Tobler:
This is a very interesting topic.

First, the equation of Christ with pure pacifism has some challenges. Jesus violently overthrows the money changes' tables, scatters their coins, and drives away livestock with a whip in the incident in the temple. He also instructs his followers to arm themselves in the garden of Gethsemane.

The knight's role as an agent of violence can also be excused in Scripture because of their service: "Render unto Caesar..."

Regarding the broader scope of the topic, the medieval knight in the image handed down to our time is the product of diverse forces, and these were layered into the concept across a span of centuries. The earliest knights, or miles, were elite soldiers. The Peace and Truce of God movements connected this elite with the concept of defense of church and keeper of God's peace. Still later, the courtly love movement and chansons de geste gave him his romantic aspect as champion of ladies.

It is the Church that 'civilizes' knighthood, taking a warrior elite and giving them an even more sacred charge. Without the Church, knighthood would doubtless have been a very differnent institution.

All the best,

Christian

Sword Chick:
Hi Sir Ed,

As to your remarks about who is the more noble, the chivalrous Christian or the chivalrous atheist, from my own admittedly faith based point of view, I would argue that just because the atheist doesn't believe in a higher power, doesn't mean he isn't being guided by it, though unknowingly.

This comes from someone who has felt the beatings of a guardian angel's wings on more than one occasion.

Buzz.  :)

Sir Edward:

That's a good point, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The atheist could make the same argument in reverse, that the devout Christian is really just (unknowingly) following a set of philosophical ideals that aren't actually driven by an external force. :)

Just covering all the angles. :)

This reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw, which read "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"

But getting back to the religious acceptance of the violent nature of a knight's duties, one of the points that was also brought up on the Armour Archive was that there are forms of acceptable killing (particularly in the medieval mindset), not the least of which is self-defense or saving the life of an innocent. Perhaps war can thus be justified as an extension of these.

That also brings up an interesting point. There are many who feel that killing is never justified. Many others would accept killing in self-defense as justified. Personally, I think defending oneself steps into the realm of being your duty. To allow yourself to be killed, when you had the means to prevent it, is allowing evil to prevail. Thoughts?

Sword Chick:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2008-07-24, 14:55:59 ---This reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw, which read "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
--- End quote ---

How about the dyslexic agnostic who wonders if there is a dog?

--- Quote ---To allow yourself to be killed, when you had the means to prevent it, is allowing evil to prevail. Thoughts?

--- End quote ---

I agree there absolutely.

Sir Matthew:
In an attempt to revive this most interesting discussion I shall add my two cents.  I do not think that it is necessary to have a christian or even a traditional organized religious base for the broader use of Chivalry.  In the historical context, then I believe that an organized religious base must be applied for the term to apply.  I do believe that chivalry requires some belief in an external power, God, for lack of a better term.  It is my experience that there are very few people who are actually atheists.  Most are more like myself in that they may not believe in the traditional organized religions but do embrace the idea of a God.  I refer to this as spirituality.  I follow a Judao-christian God and idealology without belonging to any particular faith.  I would argue that the Warrior Code or Bushido, while similiar to Chivalry is different because it lacks that intermingling of religion.  Both were developed by the powers that be to control the warrior classes and ensure their loyalty.  In the wrong hands, both have also been used for ill as well as good.  Ok, well I guess now I will sit back and see if I have stirred up any hornets.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page