Religion and Chivalry

[Sir Edward]

An interesting thread just got started on the ArmourArchive forums, concerning whether religion is necessary for Chivalry. Personally I don't think it's necessary (though obviously it has been heavily intertwined historically). To me it's personal choice as to how one integrates it into other aspects of life. I'm curious to see whether my response will kick up the hornet's nest.

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1142192

[Sword Chick]

Hi Ed,

Allow me to kick up my own hornet's nest.    I think the replies you get are going to be colored by the faith or lack thereof of the person that replies.  It's been my own experience that those that claim a disbelief in God are the most defensive about belief not being necessary for <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>  Those that do have a strong faith can't imagine how it can be separated from <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>

I admit to falling into the latter category.  Though I really really need a trip to the confessional , my faith is an important part of my life.  From that perspective, I agree with the person that posted after you, that

whether it is to serve a Higher Being, or to serve a societal ideal, Chivalry involves acknowledgment of a purpose greater than the one, something worthy of one's own service and sacrifice.

  But I would argue that purely serving a societal ideal is not much better than serving one's own purpose.  If your society benefits, you might also.

I've used the example of Scouts before, I think the Scout Law and Oath provide a nice framework for modern chivalry.  However, the Scout Law states that a scout is "reverent"and the Scout Oath promises a "duty to God."  In the Scouting organization, it is not required that you follow a specific faith, but it is expected that you have some belief in a power outside of yourself.

Don't most 12 step programs (No, I'm not speaking from experience.   ) involve a belief in a higher power as well?  The idea that you can't do it on your own?  I would argue that "being chivalrous" without belief in a power outside of yourself really isn't.  It becomes self serving in a way.

This was too quick of a response and I didn't take time to formalize my thoughts completely, for that I apologize.  I was just eager to start getting some of my thoughts down.

Thanks, Ed.  Good topic!  (Those hornets are buzzing now I'm sure!)

[Sir Edward]

Allow me to kick up my own hornet's nest.    I think the replies you get are going to be colored by the faith or lack thereof of the person that replies.  It's been my own experience that those that claim a disbelief in God are the most defensive about belief not being necessary for <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>  Those that do have a strong faith can't imagine how it can be separated from <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>

That's probably true in most cases. Generally I stay away from religious discussions, since people can get very defensive, and speak in strong absolutes no matter which side of the particular discussion they may fall upon. It boils down to an idealogical difference. Those who have strong belief can't understand how others can separate it in their minds. Those who don't have such strong beliefs don't understand how others integrate them.

I admit to falling into the latter category.  Though I really really need a trip to the confessional , my faith is an important part of my life.  From that perspective, I agree with the person that posted after you, that

whether it is to serve a Higher Being, or to serve a societal ideal, Chivalry involves acknowledgment of a purpose greater than the one, something worthy of one's own service and sacrifice.

  But I would argue that purely serving a societal ideal is not much better than serving one's own purpose.  If your society benefits, you might also.

I've used the example of Scouts before, I think the Scout Law and Oath provide a nice framework for modern chivalry.  However, the Scout Law states that a scout is "reverent"and the Scout Oath promises a "duty to God."  In the Scouting organization, it is not required that you follow a specific faith, but it is expected that you have some belief in a power outside of yourself.

I'll echo my response on the other thread to what the person was saying... I'll agree that a person can't truly claim to be chivalrous if they place themselves too high on a pedestal. One can not see themselves as the pinnacle of the pyramid, so to speak. The ideals, and the society at large, at the very least, must be seen as higher than the self. Otherwise, what else is there to strive for?

Don't most 12 step programs (No, I'm not speaking from experience.   ) involve a belief in a higher power as well?  The idea that you can't do it on your own?  I would argue that "being chivalrous" without belief in a power outside of yourself really isn't.  It becomes self serving in a way.

I've never been in a 12-step program, so I don't know. However, there's a part of me that wants to be cautious about saying that it requires something outside yourself and that you can't do it alone. I'm not talking about external ideals and challenges. I think those are a given. And I'm not talking about religious belief as a source of strength and inspiration either. What I mean is, I don't like the thought that one must admit defeat in order to succeed, as if one is not entirely responsible for their own actions. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation, but I'm having difficulty escaping that line of thought.

This was too quick of a response and I didn't take time to formalize my thoughts completely, for that I apologize.  I was just eager to start getting some of my thoughts down.

Thanks, Ed.  Good topic!  (Those hornets are buzzing now I'm sure!)

No problem, always glad to kick up the bee hive!

[Sword Chick]

I've never been in a 12-step program, so I don't know. However, there's a part of me that wants to be cautious about saying that it requires something outside yourself and that you can't do it alone. I'm not talking about external ideals and challenges. I think those are a given. And I'm not talking about religious belief as a source of strength and inspiration either. What I mean is, I don't like the thought that one must admit defeat in order to succeed, as if one is not entirely responsible for their own actions. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation, but I'm having difficulty escaping that line of thought.

I see it more as you are responsible for more than yourself.  You have Someone/Something to answer to.

buzz.

[Sir Edward]

I see it more as you are responsible for more than yourself.  You have Someone/Something to answer to.

buzz.

Ah, I see   I think we can agree on that.

[Sir Edward]

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=83604

Well, it looks like the thread has continued on the Armour Archive, and I didn't really fan the flames of a firestorm too badly, it seems.   That's probably a good thing. Sometimes I intentionally word things strongly and regret it later. Some very interesting discussion there.

Interestingly, I just got to the part in the book "Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe" which talks about the piety and daily religiousness of historical knights (I realize it's early in the book, I tend to put books down for weeks at a time). I find it difficult to separate in such historical accounts how much was cultural versus truly being pious.

Clearly chivalry began as a warrior ethos. It was distinct from the church, and yet it was considered important through most of the period that knights be pious. The book I mentioned discusses how knights frequently used flowery language invoking religious contexts to a greater degree than other writers of the time. To modern readers this can seem at odds with the violent jobs that they had to undertake. This sort of dichotomy, and how it was viewed (and encouraged) by the church, is an interesting topic.

Thoughts?

[Sir Edward]

I've used the example of Scouts before, I think the Scout Law and Oath provide a nice framework for modern chivalry.  However, the Scout Law states that a scout is "reverent"and the Scout Oath promises a "duty to God."  In the Scouting organization, it is not required that you follow a specific faith, but it is expected that you have some belief in a power outside of yourself.

I forgot to finish my thought in the previous message-- I like your comparison to the Scout Oath. There seem to be very few organizations around today that have a similar set of ideals comparable to chivalry as such. This seems to be a good source for it in the modern world. Thanks for mentioning it


*crickets chirping*

I think this thread is dead

[Sword Chick]

I think this thread is dead

Attempting to administer CPR...

I hadn't replied to your previous post, because I was hoping someone else would join in the discussion.  Looks like it's just you and me, Kid.

I'm lacking on the history, years of math geekdom have left me sadly behind in the social sciences, but that won't stop me from expressing my opinion.    I think the piety and faith provided an important balance to a knight's life.  Not so much as a conflict or dichotomy with the job of a warrior as much as a needed perspective, a way of preventing a too casual attitude towards violence.  Those of you better read than I am should feel free to correct me here.

[Sir Edward]

Attempting to administer CPR...

I hadn't replied to your previous post, because I was hoping someone else would join in the discussion.  Looks like it's just you and me, Kid.

Yep, looks like it. We don't have that large of a user base here yet, so it's to be expected, especially with a topic that includes something that is very personal (religion) on a public forum. The Armour Archive has a much larger and very vocal readership, many of which are SCA knights or squires. I'm glad to see people are discussing it openly there.

My post there took a page from Geoffroi de Charny in a way. I took his logic about why nobles are more praiseworthy for the same deeds as commoners, and re-used it in a an attempted comparison between those who are devout and those who are not. I suspect Charny, who was quite pious, would not be happy with me for that. But I suspect he wouldn't be happy with me in other respects as well. Still, I was trying to make a point and stir up the discussion in one shot.

I agree with what you said about a knight's balanced life. I think it's more the modern mentality that would see it as a dichotomy, whereas I think the knights were probably pretty clear on it.  I need to read further, but I'm under the impression that the church had sort of a love-hate relationship with the Chivalry (using the word here to represent the body of knights as a whole), as they fulfilled a necessary function, were pious and yet flawed, often battled amongst themselves and caused collateral damage, and represented a wide range of adherence to the religious ideals. They were an entire spectrum, just like any other cross section of society.

[Sir Wolf]

hmmmm. i think it really depends on your view of the world. weither man is truely good, or born with sin needing something to make himself better. religion had played a large role within chivalry but now i don't think its that interlaced do to the time frame and peoples ideals.

[Sir Edward]

Talk about "kicking the hornet's nest"... On the Armour Archive, this message I'm quoting below takes it to a whole different level!

(http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1146118#1146118)

Chef, unless I misunderstand you, I find your conception of chivalry to be hidebound, rigid, antiquated, regressive, and yes, vile.

For you, as best I can tell, to be chivalrous, one must be Christian, European, of Noble Birth, and quite willing to victimize anyone who is not those things.

Chef, in your opinion, can a Jew be chivalrous? An Episcopalian? A Lutheran? A Baptist? A Lollard? A woman?

Chef, do you consider yourself chivalrous?

Do you eat meat on Friday?

Do you beat your children?

I'm amused.

Just a side note, as this is probably a good time to mention this. If the subject of this thread (on this forum), or any other topic ever makes anyone uncomfortable, everyone is always free to message me privately, as I'm the moderator. My intention is to allow civil discussion of a wide range of topics. A heated debate is fine, but the message I quoted above is perhaps getting a bit too personal, and if it were on this forum, I'd probably be posting reminders as such at this point.

[Sir Edward]

I just wanted to quote one more fragment from the Armour Archive's discussion, then I'll shut up for a while. I really enjoyed these paragraphs. Very well said:

(http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1147103#1147103)

Not being a man braver -or less brave- than anyone, I am always drawn to a chuckle when I read about valour in the SCA field. I find it immensely easy to charge three or four fighters VASTLY superior to me technically (but then who is not superior to me technically) with complete knowledge that I am about to get creamed. If you look at Urusus pics of me at events, you can see I have a large, sh** eatin grin every time too.
Nothing is going to happen to you! except a bruised ego if you allow yours to be bruised by something as obvious as losing to a technically superior fighter. Or a bunch of them. Valor in the field is no different than lack of hesitation in a Football quarterback, or a fierce dive by baseball player. It shows commitment and determination, but not courage in the narrow sense.
One offends REAL war veterans by the comparison.

No Sir , your chivalry, or your assumption of it must come from somewhere else. You must develop your knowledge of a just, gentle and morally and ethicall corageous living. And choose how you behave according to that knowledge.
If faith helps you develop that knowledge, I salute you. If you reach it by other means, I salute you as well. The important part is the final result.

[Sword Chick]

Hi Ed,

Great comments.  It reminds me of a piece of advice I was given long ago, I don't even remember by whom, and I passed it on my Cub Scouts many times when I was den mother.  You can't be brave, unless you are scared.  That doesn't mean going out and doing something risky just to prove you are brave.  It means soldiering on when faced with your fears.  (This was usually in reference to spiders in the cub's tent.) 

[Sir Edward]

That's true, and that was something I had to figure out for myself a long time ago. Courage is not a lack of fear, but rather an ability to face it. IMHO, fear is healthy and makes us strong, as long as it doesn't take over. Doing what must be done, despite those fears, is what makes one brave.

[Sir Brian]

IMO the entire concept of Christianity being a requirement for Chivalry is a bit absurd because
both ideals are so dynamically opposed to each other. TRUE faith in the teachings of Jesus, in no
shape or form condones violence. The stronghold of Christianity during the middle ages, which
coincides with the advent in the modern conceptions of the chivalric (Bushidō) code, was the
Catholic Church whose foundation in the teachings of Jesus was dubious at best and for sale to
the highest bidder at the worst. 

The ministry of Jesus was far more than just pacifistic teaching. His pacifism wasn’t based solely on
mankind having a spiritual love for each other but also upon a de-emphasis of our flesh and earthly
lives, including the very preservation of our earthly lives.
 
Here is some relevant scriptures if anyone would like to check them out here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
Luke 22:35-38
Matthew 26:52-53
John 18:36
Matthew 10:16
Matthew 10:39

I hadn't replied to your previous post, because I was hoping someone else would join in the discussion.  Looks like it's just you and me, Kid.

and then there were four!