4

I studied in Methodist school from kindergarten to high school, but I never heard of Crusaders until I went to college - and people at church don't talk about it either.

As far as I know, Crusaders have a very bad reputation (at least in the movies.) But what does it really mean for the modern Christian?

Jas 3.1
  • 13,065
  • 12
  • 57
  • 106
Sufendy
  • 1,873
  • 5
  • 20
  • 23
  • 1
    You might want to catch up on history with this - here's a crash course on the crusades. Very interesting subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zudTQelzI . And unusually for me, that doesn't attack anyone's views - it merely explains the various crusades in the historical context. – Marc Gravell May 14 '12 at 19:14
  • yeah, I watched that. That's historical view, which inspired me to asked for the religious point of view here :) – Sufendy May 15 '12 at 02:06
  • If you were looking for answers from a particular tradition (Catholic / Mormon / Protestant / etc.) it might be worth clarifying that, as I get the impression the answer is heavily dependent on the tradition. – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 07:11
  • @Jas3.1, I think I'm more interested in the general view (the core believe system view). I mean, without looking at the particular tradition, the one that is acceptable by every traditions (I hope there is). – Sufendy May 15 '12 at 09:02
  • Yeah... I actually thought it was generally recognized that what I posted was true. I was disturbed to learn that there are so many people out there attempting to justify the Crusades. (But hey, I could be wrong... I'm not God.) – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 16:21

3 Answers3

9

Robert Spencer, who is one of the leading Christian authors on Islam has a fascinating insight into the crusades in this video - The Crusades, Fact & Truth.

The Crusades have a bad reputation, because, as Spencer explains, Westerners have a healthy attitude of self-criticism. Such self-criticism is completely absent in Islam. Spencer points out that it was the invasion of the Turks that began the Crusades.

While it is true that many of the Crusaders did evil acts, the Crusades in themselves were a defensive measure and not an offensive one. Should Christians be ashamed of those Crusaders who commited evil? Sure. Should Christians be ashamed of the Crusades themselves? Never.

When soldiers came to John the Baptist asking him what to do, he didn't tell them to put their swords away, but

"Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14)

The Bible also says that there is

"a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up" (Ecclesiastes 3:3)

Often, Jesus statement of "turning the other cheek" is quoted to suggest that any act of self defense is against the teachings of Christ. But I answer that somebody slapping you on the cheek doesn't kill you, whereas if someone tries to kill your body, you are obliged to defend yourself, because your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).

"If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are." (1 Cor 3:17)

The implication of this statement is that if you allow your body to be destroyed, then you shall be held accountable for it. Jesus also said,

"But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Paul says that rulers are servants of God to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer." (Rom 13:4)

The Bible on many occasions praises soldiers. One of the first gentile converts to Christianity was a Roman centurion, Cornelius (Acts 10) and we don't see any demand being made on him to leave his position as a centurion. On another occasion, Jesus marveled at the faith of another centurion (Matthew 8:10). I therefore do not see any reason why a Christian cannot serve in the army.

Had the Crusades not taken place, the entire western world might have been under subjection to Islam today. As a Christian, I shall never be ashamed of the Crusades. Many Christians gave their lives for saving their brethren.

LoveTheFaith
  • 1,713
  • 8
  • 12
  • It was interesting to hear a detailed explanation of this viewpoint, but you took a lot of verses out of context to justify it. – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 06:50
  • I actually love this, but disagree. Jesus didn't fight back (which He absolutely can) when he is crucified. And until now, you still can heard that people died defending his believe in Jesus, and they are honoured as Martyrs. – Sufendy May 15 '12 at 09:08
  • 1
    @Phelios I neither agree nor disagree with your point about Christ, but it is rather off-topic and out of context. Christ did not resist because His death was His purpose in being on Earth. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Your point about martyrdom is much closer to being on topic, but I disagree also that a comparison of individual martyrs and nations with militaries is a valid comparison. – San Jacinto May 15 '12 at 15:20
  • 1
    Your arguments amount to (A) What Jesus didn't say (in Scripture), which is a dangerous hermeneutic - see John 21:25. (B) Arguments from Ecclesiastes, a book which is descriptive, not prescriptive. (C) A verse about what God will do, which is not an instruction to believers. (D) Luke 22:36, which is a heavily debated passage (you are also not considering context - see v. 49-51.) (E) An argument about authority being from God, but by that argument you could justify Nero's slaughter of the early Christians. Context: submission to authority, not slaughter of Muslims. – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 16:16
  • @Jas3.1 (A) Agreed for some of the arguments. But again, if scripture is silent on something, should we do it or not do it? (B) To whom is the verse - "there is a time to kill" addressed? (C) God will destroy me if I destroy my body. My argument takes the implications of that into consideration. (D) As you said, it's debatable. You have your opinion. I have mine. (E) "We must obey God not men" when it comes to moral issues. However, submission to legitimate authority is valid if the authority doesn't violate Christian principles. That fits with Luke 3:14. – LoveTheFaith Jun 04 '12 at 02:33
  • (A) Consult other passages of scripture in good faith and seek the interpretations of well-respected scholars. (B) This verse doesn't say anything about killing humans. Killing sheep, for example, was required for the atonement of sins when this passage was written. One cannot apply that to the crusades without more context. (C) It is [God's responsibility] to avenge. [Deut 32:35] It is not anyone else's. Would you also assume the responsibility of forgiving sins if someone killed a sheep in front of you? (D) There is a big difference between owning a sword and using it to kill someone. – Jeff Sep 09 '13 at 21:55
5

By the end of the first millenium the Turks, who held control of the Holy Land for four centuries, began to demonstrate a renewed aggression towards non-Muslims. Pilgrims to what are still considered the holiest places in Christianity were being molested and, as the Byzantine empire was not sufficiently strong to stop it (and, in fact, they were showing themselves to be incapable of defending the historically Christian territories), the option was either ignore this problem or retaliate in force.

There are a number of lessons which can be gleaned.

  • This is a direct application of one understanding of Just War theory. When, exactly, is it OK to go to war? (is it OK to cross the street so that you can beat up a mugger?)
  • While the intentions were good (even the fourth crusade, which sacked Constantinople, was well intentioned), there were a number of compromises made which made it so that despite the piety of the crusaders, they eventually did things which were less than honorable.
  • Many a well-intended cause is destroyed through pride.
  • Perhaps one of the better lessons, however, is that this does not need to be a black eye for Christianity. Rather, this was a limited military action in response to a series of massive military actions.
cwallenpoole
  • 4,993
  • 19
  • 37
-1

Why did it happen?

The Crusades happened during a time when the Bible was not widely available to believers. Only the highest Church members had access to it. So when the leaders made statements about God's will no one could really argue - except on the basis of "having a different opinion", which was received as rebellion and heresy. Simply put - they didn't know what the Bible said.

What does the Bible say?

Jesus continually made statements like the following:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” - John 18:36

When the mob came to seize Jesus with swords and clubs, His disciples were ready for a fight! But watch how Jesus rebukes them.

When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. - Luke 22:49-51

After the death of Jesus, Paul explains the following to the early Christians:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. - Ephesians 6:12

What can we learn?

I think the clear lesson we can learn from the Crusades is the importance of knowing your Bible. Yet even with such blatant examples from history, Bible illiteracy remains one of the biggest problems in the church today. Yesterday I read the following quote from a book on Spiritual Disciplines:

Do you realize that... you can read through the entire [Bible] in seventy-one hours? In no more than fifteen minutes a day you can read through the Bible in less than a year's time... And yet the majority of Christians never read the Bible all the way through in their whole life. - Donald S. Whitney

We have been given more in the way of Scripture than any generation before us. We have all 66 books, entire fields of Biblical sciences devoted to clarifying the original wording, concordances, dictionaries, online search tools, commentaries, ... the list goes on and on. It is difficult to consider this without considering the following words of Jesus:

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required - Luke 12:48

The lesson from the Crusades has never been more relevant: Read your Bible!

Jas 3.1
  • 13,065
  • 12
  • 57
  • 106
  • 4
    -1 for the, "It happened because they couldn't read the Bible." Many of the leaders of the crusades could and did read the Bible. – cwallenpoole May 14 '12 at 18:13
  • 2
    Also, saying that, "The Pope's word was law" really isn't accurate in any sense of the word... ever. – cwallenpoole May 14 '12 at 18:16
  • There is another verse in the Bible that says "and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?" (James 2:16). Sometimes we have to protect our brothers and sisters. Protection is one of the things needed for the body. – LoveTheFaith May 15 '12 at 02:18
  • @cwallenpoole I didn't say the leaders didn't read the Bible, I said it wasn't widely available to believers (i.e. the non-leaders.) I also didn't say the Pope's word was law. I said without scripture, the only basis for disagreeing would be opinion, which didn't go over so well. – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 06:57
  • @LoveTheFaith You are using a verse about providing for the needy to justify slaughter? Wow. The context of that verse is love, and letting your "beliefs" result in loving action. The context is not chopping up God's enemies for Him. Proverbs 20:22 says "Do not say, 'I will repay evil'; Wait for the LORD, and He will save you." You need to look at the entire picture of Scripture. It is very dangerous to pull things out of context. (Which ironically was what I was trying to explain in my answer.) I would recommend reading through the gospels - compare Jesus' approach with the disciples' – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 07:04
  • 1
    @cwallenpoole, i think, Jas meant that it's not sufficient to just read the Bible, it must be understood right. Anyway, there is a fact - Christ didn't fight with brute force, so crusades are wrong from Christianity's point of view. – arrowd May 15 '12 at 07:37
  • I think this is a very interesting point of view. The leaders could have interpreted the bible in their own way and as the bible is not widely available, the people can only learn it from the leader. And you can see that this still happen nowadays, different churches might have very different interpretation of the bible. – Sufendy May 15 '12 at 09:18
  • @arrowdodger Read the book of Revelation. Then you can talk to me about whether God uses brute force. – cwallenpoole May 15 '12 at 15:00
  • 1
    @cwallenpoole The question isn't whether God uses brute force, but whether God calls His disciples to use brute force. Also, you are using verses about the ultimate justice at the end of time to justify man carrying out such judgment prior to the end of time. 1 Cor 4:5 says, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes..." – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 16:06
  • @Jas3.1 arrowdodger said, "Christ didn't fight with brute force." I answered, "Yes, he does." – cwallenpoole May 15 '12 at 16:16
  • @cwallenpoole arrowdodger was right - Christ didn't fight with brute force. He will at the end of time, after it is given to Him to destroy His enemies, but that's irrelevant to the Crusades unless you think Christ returned prior to the Crusades... – Jas 3.1 May 15 '12 at 16:25
  • 1
    @cwallenpoole and Jas 3.1: Please take extended discussions like this to [chat]. Thank you. – Caleb May 15 '12 at 20:04
  • @Jas3.1 I am not justifying slaughter. I am only justifying the right to self defense and defending others. – LoveTheFaith May 16 '12 at 02:22