Troubling Questions About Boniface

Troubling Questions About St. Boniface Greg B. Rast, M.Div. 19 August 2009 There are three things that bother me about the story about St. Boniface “The Apostle to the Germans.” After reading his several biographies and some other source materials, several things stand out to me about his story. First of all, when Boniface came to Germany, the gospel was already here and there were at least a good number of “independent” Catholic churches. Who started them? The early church father Irenaeus writes about “the churches in Germany” already in the 2nd century and by the time Boniface arrived in Germany he had been preceded on the continent by other Irish / Celtic missionaries. Although we read about several power encounters with local pagan culture, most of Boniface’s story is marked by his passion for starting monasteries and bringing churches into line with the practice of Rome. What is most obviously missing from his biographies are evangelistic conversations with anyone about the nature of the Christian faith. In what sense then can we name him “apostle” or credit him with bringing Christianity to this part of the continent? Secondly, Boniface’s attitude towards the Celtic mission and existing churches is troubling if viewed in light of his connections with Rome. Boniface’s standard critique of the Irish churches was that they were “weak” and “full of heresy.” We should well question his standard of measurement. If we grant that Europe at that point in time was still a tribal society then the non-systematic approach to church development taken by the Celts was a perfect fit, not weak, but deliberately unsystematic. And to what extent “full of heresy?” By whose judgment? By Rome’s judgment of course. Boniface celebrates when the Celtic monasteries in England finally submit to Rome and adopt the Benedictine rule. His whole effort is guided towards the end of bringing the churches in line with the practices of Rome, and many of his letters to Rome inquire about Rome’s thinking on issues of church practice and polity. To say that the independent Catholic churches already extant before Boniface’s arrival were perfect would be of course ignoring facts. There was immaturity in church leadership in at least some places, and in others the ego of the local leader obscured the gospel. Such issues are still common leadership issues today. Should we side, then, with Boniface’s condemnation of the results of the Irish mission? They after all did start at least some of the churches. Thirdly, Boniface’s system is troubling. What Boniface would do is build a church and culture system that would be the forerunner to one of the worst catastrophes the faith could have suffered on the continent. Within a generation military force and the force of the State would be used by Charlemagne to force everyone into the church system created by Boniface. The result? A pseudo-culture that claimed itself Christian and which in the same moment lost the essence of the faith. Why do we hear so much about Boniface, and there hardly seem to be records of the people who really did the work of bringing the gospel to what was then a tribal, European, society? Could it be that Boniface’s biography was preserved because of what his story meant for securing Rome’s interests in the region rather than sheer missionary achievement? And if Boniface is to be viewed as an organizer who brought existing churches under the system of Rome… how far back do we have to look to find genuine missionary activity on German soil?