The one development in the Dark Ages that intrigues me more than all others is the startling success of the Islamic invasions beginning in the 7th century. Islam, founded by Mohammed following his flight to Medina in 622, was the first new religion to confront Christianity since its inception. Though it was a mixture of Christianity, Judaism, and Arabic religions, it claimed to be superior to them, since Mohammed’s was the final revelation. For all practical purposes at the time, Islam won out over Christianity. Even in strongholds like Palestine and Egypt, where Christianity had flourished, Muslim invaders converted the people with what appeared to be relative ease. The question is: Why? Why did Islam prevail? What was lacking in Christianity that was fulfilled in this new religion? Why was the Eastern Church unable to stand under Islamic attack?
The East Was Vulnerable.
The Persian warfare of the early 7th century, in which Alexandria, Egypt, Antioch, Chalcedon, Syria, and Palestine were captured and thousands of Christians killed, and the subsequent reclaiming of these territories by the Emperor Heraclius left both Persia and the Byzantine Empire “impoverished and vulnerable” to the Islamic invaders. Not only was the Byzantine Empire exhausted, it was also divided. The Monophysites of Egypt and the Nestorians of Persia, along with other forms of Christianity, were regarded by the Eastern Church as unorthodox and even heretical. The Muslims were much more tolerant of Monophysite views. The Muslims conquered Egypt (a land of 15 million people) with an army of only about 12,000 men, in part because the Egyptians saw Muslim rule as preferable to Byzantine.1
There were incentives and disincentives.
The Muslim military victories were evidence to the superstitious of divine favor. From that standpoint, it was preferable to be on the winning side. Just as many had turned to Christianity under Constantine for political purposes, so now many converted to be associated with the ruling religion. One of the immediate benefits was exemption from the heavy taxation imposed on Christians. Conversion from Islam to Christianity was punishable by death. Christians were severely restricted from any public religious expression (even ringing church bells) and from building new churches.
“The effect of these regulations and of this administrative system was to place the churches on the defensive and to render them static, encysted minorities. They resisted change and held to the patterns which had come down to them from their fathers. They feared that any departure from the traditions of the past would be followed by the disintegration of their entire life and their faith… churches in the Arab realms were extremely conservative.”2
Christianity had become merely social and political.
Many of the “Christian” countries that made up the empire had originally become so by force. They remained Christian by tradition. The threat from earliest times was that they might become Orthodox in belief without ever truly experiencing the life-changing salvation offered through Jesus Christ. The Byzantine Church’s emphasis on public services and the liturgy of the Eucharist, with all the ornate pomp that accompanied it, resulted in the “tendency to regard religion as primarily the correct performance of the liturgy.”3 As Latourette notes, “In some areas the majority adopted the Christian name but much of this was superficial and could not stand the test of adversity. When Islam came… the churches shrank and slowly became fossilized and sterile.”4 The question, then, is what was lost to Christendom? Perhaps the Eastern Church lost something it never really possessed. Even the Crusades failed to win back those who were lost.
There was no apologetic conviction.
Since the era of the apologists, the average Christian had not much need to read the Bible or to develop an apologetic understanding of it. The Eastern Church held mostly to Chalcedon, so there was no new theological discussion during this period of history (unlike the West). Beliefs and doctrines were set and defined (and even enforced) by the church. Apologetics had once played a prominent role in the church; now it was replaced with a reliance on tradition. Gregory I had even gone as far as putting the tradition of the church on equal footing with Scripture. When Muslim invaders shared this “new” revelation that superseded Christianity and even seemingly embraced some parts of it, the people were easily deceived and converted willingly.
The controversies of this period also contributed to the Islamic successes. The discord relating to theological and philosophical arguments over Monophytism and Monotheletism, not to mention the inconoclastic controversy, no doubt exhausted the common folk who just wanted a simple religion. The strength of Islam was that its basic tenets were easy to learn and easy to convey.
Lessons to be learned for today…
These considerations of the Islamic conquests are vitally important for the church today. Islam claims between 1.8 billion adherents nationwide, and African Americans are flocking to it. The Islamic Research Institute claims 200,000 Americans convert to Islam each year.5 But that isn’t the only threat to Christianity. New Age philosophies, cults and a new surge of secular humanism (seen especially in our political and educational institutions) threaten the church on every side. There are important lessons to be learned from the failures of the Church in the East.
First, we must realize that as a religion we are vulnerable to “invasion.” There are many divisions within Christianity that make it difficult to develop a united front against our attackers. There are signs that this is changing. Recent efforts of Catholics and Protestants to unite on issues such as abortion reveal a willingness to focus more on what unites us than on what divides us. We must also realize that there are many “disincentives” to being a Christian today. Though Christianity used to be equivalent with the term “American,” that is no longer so. A new “Empire” has arisen that derides Christians and uses “religious right” as a derogatory slur. It is no longer socially acceptable to hold to orthodox Christian views. But we must be careful not to respond as the Eastern Church did – by becoming conservative, stagnant, and defensive. They resisted change and held tenaciously to tradition. We must allow for new expressions of the faith (without, of course, compromising the Gospel) and move ahead on the offensive. We must not be so caught up in preservation that we neglect expansion.
Another important lesson to be learned is that we must seek genuine conversions, not just legislative conformity to Biblical principles. Perhaps much that has been apparently lost to Christianity in recent years in the U.S. was never really gained; many here may have been Christian only by tradition or association. We cannot turn the tide by new “Crusades” to force a Christian culture on our nation. History has proven that that tactic doesn’t work. We must introduce people to the Savior one by one, just as the earliest Christians did. They lived a genuine faith and they confessed a genuine faith. Interestingly, one convert to Islam cites his reason for conversion this way: “Islam provides clear direction, discipline, conservative family values and intellectual encouragement. ‘It’s not just a religion. It’s a way of life…’”6 There was a time when those words would have described Christianity. Instead, modern “Christianity” is little different from the surrounding culture. Major gains have always been made when Christians stood apart from the culture and were worthy of emulation. We must raise a Christian Church that displays a clear commitment to Christ and His holiness.
We must also seek to build up Christians in the knowledge of the faith. They must have a sound biblical apologetic so they can discern truth and error. We must seek new, fresh ways to make Christianity understandable and easy to convey. Then, when Christians are confronted by a secular society or seduced by deceptive philosophies, they will have the biblical foundation to stand strong in spite of any adverse consequences.
The period of history from AD 500-950 was a dark one for the Christian Church. But even with the abuses of power, the lack of morality, the stagnation, and loss of ground, the true “Church” was still alive. A “remnant” was preserved to bring about the tremendous transformations that would come in subsequent centuries. The same holds true today. Though Christianity may appear to be defeated and losing ground (in the United States, at least), God’s Church still thrives and will be revived in America. Though the hour may seem dark, there are yet “faint gleams of Light” and a growing anticipation of what God will ultimately do.
What you can do right now: enroll in our In-Depth Discipleship course to ensure you’re grounded in your own faith and know how to explain it to others. Then, enroll in our “Proof That Christianity Is True” (introduction to apologetics) course so you understand how to defend the Christian faith accurately. Find ways to share what you learn on social media or one-on-one in Bible studies or casual conversations.
Other “Lessons from Church History”: Part 1 — Part 2 — Part 3 — Part 4
[PHOTO: The Dome of the Rock is an Islamic shrine located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It was initially completed in AD 691. Photo by Ralf Roletschek / www.Roletschek.at ]
References:
1 JD Fage. A History of Africa. (New York: Alfred A Knopf), 1978, p. 154-155
2 Kenneth Scott Latourette. A History of Christianity, Vol. I (San Francisco: Harper), 1953, p. 290
3 Ibid., p. 313
4 Ibid., p. 325
5 Bruce Frankel, “Tide of Conversion to a ‘Universal Religion,'” USA Today, Jan 27, 1994, p. 6A
6 Ibid.