Many years ago I read a book, “The History of Anti-Semitism” by Leon Poliakov. Actually, I only read Volume 2 because that was the only one for which I had a copy. (The book is available in digital form at http://www.archive.org.) It is rather disheartening that the topic of anti-semitism would need to have multiple volumes. In the book, Poliakov goes into a bit of an excursus on the history of violence or threat to cause religious conversion. Force conversions, or at least forced rituals, under threat has a long history (consider the case of Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego in the Book of Daniel), but Poliakov sought to focus on the case study of Christianity. He suggested that violence or threat to cause religious conversion goes back to Charlemagne of the Franks. In 776AD, for example, winning a victory over the Saxons, the vanquished were ordered to accept Christian baptism, or die.
This is not to say that violence and religion did not go together before this. Back in 312AD, Constantine, supposedly, had a vision of a Cross with the words, “By this, conquer.” In 776 AD, it was only a few years before that the Muslim invasion of Western Europe was stopped and partly turned back. Christians and Muslims were pretty happy to invade and conquer in the name of their respective faiths or their (different interpretations of) God. But in some ways it is different than forced conversions. This sort of fighting and killing is about power projection— an almost overpoweringly addictive thing for nations, cultures, AND religions. Forcing people to change religion is different, and Poliakov saw Charlemagne as starting an ugly trend that Christianity struggled to toss aside. It is hard to see how any of this is seen in the words of actions of Jesus or the early church.
But as far as I can see, Poliakov wasn’t correct— at least not correct for Christianity overall. In the Byzantine Empire, violence as a means for conversion goes back well before this.
During the reign of Emperor Zeno (474-491AD) tensions grew. According to one account, the emperor had required Samaritans to convert to Christianity. When they refused, they revolted and this led to a violent response killing tens of thousands of Samaritans. Some argue that the historical record is backward and that the revolts preceded the demand to convert. Either way, conversion was less connected with embracing the good news of Christ voluntarily, and more connected to risk of harm. Choose the cross or the sword.
During the time of Emperor Justinian during the next century an edict was established that virtually made being a member of the Samaritan faith illegal. There were a series of revolts by the Samaritans that led to violent reprisals by the government. This resulted in the Samaritan population reducing from the hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.
The Islamic invasion actually gave some reprieve, for awhile at least, but special taxes and periodic forced conversions and killings, especially during the Abbasid Caliphate and Ottoman Empire, took their toll. By the end of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, Samaritanism reached its lowest point with just over 100 adherents.
—Robert Munson. Missions in Samaria, pages 43-44.
I hope it need not be said that this is NOT what we as Christians are called to do. I almost don’t want to put this in a history of Christian missions. Yet it is part of our history. We can (and must) learn from our history, but that only happens if we study our history.
