came to him in a dream, he says, and rebuked him for being notrnChristianus but Ciceronianus.rnOther fathers were more generous to pagan philosophy.rnJustin Martyr writes to the young Marcus Aurehus and hisrnbrother, claiming that the moral principles which paganrnphilosophers have only taught, Christians actually live out everyrnda)’, and there is no need to discuss the importance of philosophyrnto such theologians as Gregory of Nyssa and Origen.rnPerhaps the supreme example is Augustine of Hippo. Likernmany early Christians, Augustine—a learned and brilliantrnrhetorician by background^ndallied with the idea of forming arnschool curriculum based on Christian and Hebrew writingsrnalone, but in the end he had to give it up. Pagan culture, in thernbroadest sense, is part of who we are as civilized men, and to cutrnout the Greek and Roman elements from Christianity requiresrna finer blade than anyone has yet discovered. If any Protestantsrnare under the delusion that purging the church of classical paganismrnwas a main point of the Reformation, they will have tornexplain not onh’ the immense erudition displayed by the principalrnreformers but also the contributions to classical philologyrnmade by Calvinist and Lutheran humanists, such as Joseph JustusrnScaliger. Only look at the footnotes to Plato, Seneca, andrnAristotle in Calvin’s Institutes. But there are no Lutherans anyrnmore, and scarceh- any Calvinists, by which I mean theologiansrnand ministers that Calvin would deign to speak with. Calvinrnwrote in Latin and French. How many of them, today, canrnread, much less write, either?rnIf this first objection to pagan culture may be dismissed asrnobscurantism, the second is rather the opposite in being toorncleer, too progressi’e. This familiar story goes something likernthis: there is a primitive Christianity that can be teased out ofrnthe Gospels, particularly Mark, which is subsequently contaminatedrnby the Hellenistic interpretations of Paul and evenrnJohn’s Gospel. This primitive Christianity, in some versions,rnknows of no distinctions between male and female, straightrnand perverse; it is nonjudgmental and antiphilosophical. Takenrnto one extreme, this is the gospel according to the Wodd Councilrnof Churches, and to another it leads to the Children of God,rnthe Way, and countless other sects and cults that tell you, inrnJohn Lennon’s phrase, “All You Need is Love.”rnBut the facts of the case are somewhat more difficult torngrasp. Those of us who believe it is no accident that the Son ofrnGod was born to a family whose head traced his ancestry backrnto David may also find it difficult to believe that it is any accidentrnthat he was born into a world where Roman law and administrationrnmade it possible to spread ideas throughout thernMediterranean world and into Northern Europe, from thernsources of the Nile in Africa almost to the Firth of Forth. Wernmight also wonder if it is anv accident that He was born into arnwodd whose mind was shaped by philosophers who providedrnthe concepts and arguments in which the mysteries of creationrnand redemption could be expressed.rnFor a very long time philosophers have wanted to disentanglernthe Christian strand from the fabric of Christendom. The projectrnhas taken man)- forms. Among the earliest was Descartes’rnsly professions of orthodoxy that he used to mask his revolutionaryrndesign of basing all humane learning—science, philosophy,rnethics, politics—on a scientihc method that is divorcedrnfrom both tradition and revelation. In this century Leo Straussrnand his disciples (e.g., the late Allan Bloom) have carried on arnsimilarly covert campaign against Christianity, which they seernas the chief obstacle to the realization of themselves as philosopher-rnkings. However, the most spirited attacks have beenrnmade by neopagans.rnThe eadiest neopagans seem to have been Platonists like thernByzantine mystic George Gemistus Plethon, and some of thernmembers of Ficino’s “academy” in Florence. The most effectivernof all the anti-Christian philosophers has been FriedrichrnNietzsche, whose rich and valuable work I am loath to criticizernin brief. Full of praise for the nobility and grandeur of the OldrnTestament, Nietzsche regarded the New Testament as a speciesrnof degenerate rococo.rnTo put his critique in a very small nutshell, the mad philologistrnthought that Christianity, while appealing to a very highrntype of humanity, degraded the artist into self-abnegation andrna rejection of the world. “Piety, the ‘life in God,’. . . wouldrnappear as the subtlest and final offspring of the fear of truth.”rnNietzsche does concede that for the majority of men, who arernborn for slavery, Christianity makes them content with theirrnlot, and that even for those who will some day command, it isrngood for them to learn obedience; nonetheless, he consistentlyrntreats the religion of Christ as an infection, a cultural poisonrnthat has stunted human growth.rnLater neopagans have not shared Nietzsche’s admirationrnfor the Jews, and one of the principal charges against Christiansrnis that they are warped by an Oriental and Semitic superstitionrnthat has weakened the character of Western man. At the extremes,rnthis analysis serves as the justification for anti-Semitismrnand persecution, but in its milder forms neopaganism is littlernmore than a nostalgia for the childhood of civilization. Alain dernBenoist’s Indo-Europeanism is the best example of this tendency.rnAt the very least, Benoist would argue, Europe has outgrownrnthe need for Christianity and is free to return to its paganrnand classical roots. So far from endorsing Nietzsche’s glorificationrnof pagan violence, M. de Benoist contrasts the broadmindedrntolerance of the ancients with the bigotry of Christianrnwitch-hunters and inquisitors.rnBenoist and his friends have succeeded in putting their projectrnon the table, at least among European intellectuals, but thernreason does not lie, I think, in any yearnings after Odin andrnZeus (although I did recently meet an English Odinist in a pub,rnand he almost turned the beer sour with his praise of IngmarrnBergman films and a project to make Old Norse a requiredrnsubject).rnThe pagan gospel according to Benoist is attractive preciselyrnbecause its anti-Christian arguments fit in neatly with the Enlightenmentrnnotions that have formed the minds of our intellectualrnclass. Polytheism can stand in for diversity, and anyrnstick—pagan or atheist—will do to whip the Christian dog.rnDeists like Voltaire and Jefferson were hoping to preserve allrnthat is good in Christianity, while jettisoning both tlie New Testament’srnmiracles and the Old Testament’s Jewish superstitionsrnand taboos.rnIf Christianity has made the West weak, sentimental, incapablernof defending itself, it is odd that these tendencies firstrnshowed at the precise time when faith was growing faint. Forrnmore than 15 centuries. Christians served in armies, acquiredrnwealth, defended themselves from attack, fought duels, andrnsought revenge. Where is the weakness in Basil the Bulgar-rnSlayer, who blinded an entire army of Bulgars, or Chariemagne,rnor Richard of England? It was only in the Enlightenment—arnperiod of de-Christianization—that Europeans began to deridernthe Crusades, and it was a Christian reactionary. Sir WalterrnAPRIL 1996/9rnrnrn