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?