http://www.rodneystark.com/

I bet he would find them interesting.

I think it would be! The book is a mainstream academic work, but has been positively reviewed by catholicity.com as well [1]. An excerpt is available online from PBS. [2]

PS: May she convert you soon!

[1] http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/riseofchristianity.html
[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/starksociology.html

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/riseofchristianity.html

It is certainly a good book for a Catholic to read.

Anyway, to those who have read it, was Christianity “spread by the sword?” It would seem as if Christianity was spread rather peacefully until it got to Rome. I've had discussions with Muslims who claim that Islam was spread peacefully and that Islam was very “tolerant.” The early spread of Islam was somewhat tolerant, however, I can hardly consider conquest to be “peaceful” no matter how “tolerant” it was towards Jews and Christians. This “tolerance” was probably more out of necessity than anything else. At the same time, these Muslims say “Christianity was the religion spread by the sword.” It would seem as if early Christianity was spread peacully throughout lower class social networks and later (Rome) was spread via the sword (The rest of Europe). Islam appears to have been spread by conquest but those who were conquered were not forced to convert (Just pay taxes to their Muslim overlords).

So, what do you think? Was Christianity “spread by the sword.” Maybe? Sometimes? Yes? NO?

– If you are looking to compare it with initial spread of Islam, you must consider that Islam originated in a very different social and political environment in the 7th c. which is 600 years later.

While Early Christianity was not “spread by a sword” to start with, later on as it became a legalized religion with appointed religious authorities, this had changed.

Papacy in charge of a church even had its own army. Also it used assistance of secular rulers and their armies in going on to Crusades which were partially meant for winning converts and capturing the city of Jerusalem, (this was a lot later in the 11th c.) Christian warriors who went on Crusades did so for variety of personal reasons:
– some did so because they were paid to do so, often in land or looting
– others because they were promised a guaranteed salvation by the Pope and were convinced that it was a will of god,
– and there were also those who were influenced by the Papacy and speeches describing their fellow Christians being marginalized and discriminated against in foreign territories who were in need of a defence.

Papacy and secular ruler involved also had their agenda, – financial gain from looting goods, and political advances through acquiring new lands.

– Something we must consider is that Christianity originated as religious movement, and only later it became associated with politics and armies. Islam, originally began as both religious and political movement. Muhammad was both political and religious leader to start with, while Jesus was a religious leader, or at least his first followers were exclusively religion oriented leaders (not much of actual factual data is available about the figure of Jesus, other then possibly bias literature created by early christians).

Interestingly, around the historical time period when Islam originated, Christianity was already becoming a religion that was associated with politics and was not tolerant of Jews, heretics or other faiths.
– It appears to me that when a religion is associated with politics and governing body, and is a type of religion that seeks new converts (some religions don't), and has control over army it had demonstrated to be “spread by a sword”, in both cases of Christianity and Islam starting approximately from the middle and late Medieval Period. (600-1300)

I hope this helps