Germanic Belief and Religious Tolerance

The preChristian Germanic peoples have often been characterized by historians, particularly by early Catholic historians,  “hateful of a higher religion, and so, like spoilt and envious children lashed out to destroy it”. We hear the same thing, though mostly from modern historians, about their character and regard for Imperial Roman civilization, but, while fundamentally similar, that is a matter best dealt with separately and on its own.

As for this supposed intolerance of the Germanic people for Christianity; it is best exemplified in the martyring of Sabbas and other Gothic Christians in the latter half of the 4th century AD.  According to the 5th century AD historian, Sozomenus,

“Athanaric’s men placed an idol on a cart and conducted it to the tents of those who were thought to be Christians. Suspects were ordered to worship the idol and to offer sacrifice. Those who refused were burned in their dwellings.”

That however is just a snap shot of a moment in history.

In fact, the Goths first came into contact with (Arian) Christianity in the mid-3rd century AD via their raids into the eastern Mediterranean region, from which they carried home many Christian slaves. And within the space of 100 years, the Bible had been translated into Gothic and Christianity had grown enough among the ethnic Goths to invite the serious attention of their kings and nobles.

Strange is it not? That a people supposedly so “envious” and “hateful” of a foreign faith would not only allow its presence but also its proliferation within their community. Indeed, when Athanaric’s men began their persecution of Gothic Christians a number of their non-Christian kith and kin, for better or worse, attempted to shield or otherwise hide the Christianity of their loved ones from the King’s men. Good ol’ St.Sabbas however denounced got wind of this and utterly denounced such Christians. And so went and got himself (among others) martyred.

It is worth noting that Athanaric’s distaste for Christianity was not a general phenomenon, directed against all Christians, but was directly mostly against Gothic converts. It is also worth noting Sabbas’ own willful contempt for the customs and community of the Goths. It is nothing at all unfamiliar to us from the earlier interactions of Christianity with the Roman Empire, when zealous converted went out of their way to blaspheme the state divinities in hopes of being fed to the lions and becoming a martyr for the cause. And it is also all too familiar from later interactions between the Continental Germanic tribes and Christianity; as perhaps best characterized in Willibrord’s baptism of a number of converts in the sacred spring on Fosites Island, followed by his slaughter of a number of sacred cattle for a subsequent feast. For this, Willibrord was brought before the Frisi-King, Radbod, to face capital charges for sacrilege.

Yes. Our ancestors most certainly had blasphemy and sacrilege laws. More properly, they had pious thew, they were what the Anglo-Saxons called aefast, while the law was an offender’s best hope of not being executed on the spot by an outraged mob.

Just ask Willibrord.

As for Sabbas and his ilk, they refused to partake of the sacrificial meat served up at the holy tides, which is of course tantamount to publicly rejecting the community,  refusing to take part in its spirit. He refused even just a token sign that, “despite your different beliefs, you are one of us”. The kingly hostility that he and his invoked was less a matter of a rejection of the Gothic divinities, though it was that too, and much more a rejection of the (holistic) community itself, gods and all. Basically, they proclaimed themselves to be subversives; more than happy to profit from their position among the Goths, but utterly reluctant to embrace that community and take part in it’s sacral identity.

Centuries later in the Viking Age, King Hakon the Good of Norway would find himself in a similar predicament when presented with the sacral mead at one of the holy tides; which caused a lot of concern among the gathered. He found a way around this Christian inspired reluctance by making the sign of the cross over the draught before taking it, while his confidants explained that he made the sign of the hammer over it.

This saved the king from an ordeal not entirely unlike that of wretched Sabbas, and born of much the same reasons.

Nevertheless, from Clovis of Frankland to AEthelbeorht of Kent to Penda of Mercia to Angantyr (Ongendus) of Denmark to Radbod of Frisia, we see time and time and time again Heathen kings receiving Christian missionaries with a right good will; extending protection to them, provisioning them, giving them the freedom to preach and win converts, sending them off with noble youths to be educated in the foreign beliefs, and treating them about as well as anyone could honestly ever hope or expect to be treated.

Not all of these kings ended up converting. And forsooth, not all of them remained at all friendly to Christianity; as one might expect when you extend every hospitality to a guest who then goes on to repay you by “destroying your house”, but, while Germanic ethics are not at all above “putting one’s best foot forward”, they ultimately hinge on reciprocity.

In fact, it was never the Germanic peoples who had any baleful preconceived notions about Christians or had any kind of special, or even common, hatred for them, or any other religion or culture. History itself utterly refutes such an absurd suggestion. And one need not look very far to discover where the inherent contempt for foreign beliefs comes from. It is clear and evident in historical Christianity. Not so much in our regard for outsiders, their culture and belief, save in reactionary retaliation for assaults on the heart and soul of our people, and the integrity of our community.


“(King) Raedwald (of East Anglia) was long ago made acquainted, in Kent, with the sacraments of the Christian faith, but in vain; for on his return home, he was perverted by his wife, and certain perverse teachers, and having been turned aside from the sincerity of the faith, his last state became worse than his first, so that, after the manner of the Samaritans of old, he seemed both to serve Christ and the gods which he before served: and in the same temple had both an altar for the sacrifice of Christ, and a small altar for the victims offered to demons.”

— Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation

“King Penda himself did not forbid the preaching of the Faith to any even of his own Mercians who wished to listen; but he hated and despised any whom he knew to be insincere in their practice of Christianity once they had accepted it, and said that any who despised the commandments of the God in whom they professed to believe were themselves despicable wretches.”

— Bede, the Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation

“Early in spring King Olaf went eastwards to Konungahella to the meeting with Queen Sigrid (of Sweden); and when they met the business was considered about which the winter before they had held communication, namely, their marriage; and the business seemed likely to be concluded. But when Olaf insisted that Sigrid should let herself be baptized, she answered thus: — “I must not part from the faith which I have held, and my forefathers before me; and, on the other hand, I shall make no objection to your believing in the god that pleases you best.” Then King Olaf was enraged, and answered in a passion, “Why should I care to have thee, an old faded woman, and a heathen bitch?” and therewith struck her in the face with his glove which he held in his hands, rose up, and they parted. Sigrid said,”This may some day be thy death.””

— Snorri Sturlusson, Heimskringla


1 thought on “Germanic Belief and Religious Tolerance

  1. K

    In the Old Testament, the Moabites and Ammonites are condemned for not greeting the Israelites with provisions and a friendly attitude, and the Moabites are all blamed forever for hiring Balaam. The Edomites are condemned for fighting the Israelites, not letting them into their land, and for later becoming an independent kingdom after rebelling. The Amalekites, for attacking the Israelites, are to be an enemy forever. “Remember Amalek” became proverbial. 400 years after the event(according to the sketchy Bible chronology) the Amalekites are marked for a religious massacre because of the hostility of some distant ancestors.

    The question I long had was this. Why would anyone greet a marauding horde with provisions and an invitation into their borders? The Israelites by that point had carried out several mass sacrifices of entire populations, whole tribes of people, according to the text. Did it never occur to the writers that no one would trust a horde of merciless savages? That maybe the Israelites did not deserve any help from others? The same attitude persists throughout the Old Testament. There is a desire to slaughter and rule over others all throughout it. But when it happens to the Israelites, it is awful, intolerable, an outrageous cosmic injustice, or else some kind of test or punishment that is all about the Israelites. The nations “carrying out the punishment” will themselves be annihilated, once Yahweh has no more need of them, and Israel will be vindicated. This is selfishness on a cosmic level. David and Joab in their campaigns in Edom were said to have killed all the males they could get ahold of, and laid waste to most settlements. But when the Edomites later on returned the favor by allying with the Israelites’ enemies, the whole Edomite people became worthy of Yahweh’s eternal hatred(it is found in the prophetic book of Hosea) and they are condemned to extermination after horrific suffering in the prophetic ravings. “Pagans” like Cyrus and Joseph’s Pharaoh are praised for being tolerant of the Jews, but Jews are never told to extend tolerance to others. Quite the opposite, no other worship is to be tolerated where they have power. They expected infinite accommodation while giving nothing in return. This same selfish attitude was inherited by Islam and Christianity and is displayed by them to this day. “Spoiled children” does not begin to describe it.

    I have seen cases of tolerance toward the Abrahamist missionaries over and over again. It is a mistake. And to be honest, I wonder often how they initially got any converts at all among Germanic peoples like the Goths. They may have went for bondmen and foreign thralls first. If they can’t bribe the leaders, that is who they go for. And the Christians were able to cloak themselves in the prestige of Rome and of Greek learning. I think that all the Christian claims of persecution were lies or exaggerations. Most of what is described was backlash, at best. Actual persecution works, even on Christians. Muslims successfully destroyed Christianity in its old heartland, they did not do that by being nice or halfhearted in their measures. The Japanese and Chinese both managed to stop the missionaries even during the height of colonialism. The Christians have proven it among themselves, they have persecuted and killed many other Christians, and eliminated entire sects. The Donatists were fanatics for martyrdom and had their own collections of martyr stories, but it did not help them. The Romans and the Germanic peoples did not carry out a real persecution, if they had there would have been no Christians left. Letting them go on doing as they please with the occasional backlash or barrier put in their way only feeds into the Abrahamic persecution complex.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s