This is one of those "gotchas", one of those accusations we get where we typically hang our heads in shame and admit, "Yeah, that was bad." One source explains it like this: "One of the most famous examples of religious violence in the Middle Ages is of course the Crusades - attempts by European Christians to impose their vision of religion upon Jews, Orthodox Christians, heretics, Muslims, and just about anyone else who happened to get in the way." Now, if you're like me, you read that and sputter a protest. "Wait, that's not right." In fact, back in 2000, the Pope apologized for the Crusades (and more). So actually answering it can be difficult.
My pat answer has been the problem of "in Christ's name". Just because something is done in the name of Christ or in the name of Christianity doesn't make it Christian. Faced with an accusation from a coworker some time ago -- "Oh, you're one of those Christians, one of those who brought about the Crusades" -- I answered this way. "Imagine that I come to you one day and pull out a gun and tell you, 'I'm going to have to kill you.' You say, 'Hey! Wait! Why?' I tell you, 'Your wife told me to.' You say, 'That can't be; my wife loves me.' Why is it that someone who claims to do something in the name of your wife is immediately discounted because you know your wife better than that, but someone who claims to do something in the name of Christ is accepted at face value even though we know Christ better than that?" Just because the claim is made that "Christianity" did it is no reason to actually accept the accusation as fact when it goes against what Christ taught and what Christianity holds.
That is a decent answer, I think, but there is certainly more. It is decent because it admits that the Crusades (and such) were a bad thing. I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. It wasn't a Christian thing, but it wasn't a good thing either. It was wrong. And, still, there is more information available to consider when thinking this over.
We live in a day of "correctness" where it's right to insult Christians but wrong to cast aspersions at Islam. This is problematic when you consider the question from a historical viewpoint. As it happens, the Crusades, as bad as they were, took place in a time period of violent Islamic expansion. Right after their prophet, Muhammad, died, the Muslims launched their own Crusades. They set out for conquest, to forcibly inflict Islam on the world. And they were good at it. Islam called the conquered "converts", but the option was "convert or die". And over a period of these Crusades, they pushed through all of the Arab world including Palestine and Jerusalem, northern Egypt, and parts of Spain, Italy, France, Sicily, Ghana, and India. They held large swathes on three continents ... all before the better-known Crusades began. The original seats of Christendom, including Jerusalem and Nicea, fell to the Muslim invasion. Finally, the closest Christian government (governments back then were not divided as much in "Church and State" type divisions) begged for help against the invading forces from the other European Christian forces. And the Crusades that we are aware of were begun.
How did the two Crusades differ? Both were bloody. Both were ruthless. Both were evil. Both were even executed in the name of religion. The first, however, was consistent with the writings of Islam and happily attempted to force their beliefs by use of offensive force. The second violated the teachings of Christianity but tried to stop the advance of Islam in response to being attacked.
Check the facts. You know that the world hates Christ and His followers (John 15:18), so don't expect an unbiased account from the world, but the facts are there for you to read. It wasn't simply a matter of Christian aggression against a peaceful expansion of the "religion of peace". It wasn't some simple act of greed or a lust for conquest and power that fueled these wars. And they were not consistent with Christianity itself. These are facts that rarely get floated when the accusation is set on your table, "You Christians ... you're the cause of a lot of death and suffering!" The truth might be in order here.
(For additional info you might read this interesting blog entry.)
15 comments:
I remind people of two things:
1. Roman Catholicism is not Christian, and it was Romanism which called and conducted the crusades.
2. It was the crusades which stopped the advance of Islam; would you prefer to be under sharia law now?
I highly recommend Robert Spencer's book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)"
I loved this post, and linked to it on my blog. The "you're wife told me to kill you" was a great analogy, although my wife has a Latin temper. I might have replied, "Are you sure?" =D
The idea of the Crusades as a response to the Muslim Crusades is very true. Radical Muslims took over the Middle East and conquered Spain in 711 AD. If France hadn't lived up to the call to repel them, they would have conquered Christendom. Glenn is right. Look at Sharia Law and Islamic countries - what a disaster! Places where the people have held on to a Christian faith are paradises by comparison. Europe's decline is directly proportional to its slow-motion train-wreck abandonment of Christianity.
I would add that another image haters like to throw in Christians' faces is the Inquisition. I grew up in a far-left household with all the propaganda that included and, as a boy, I remember wondering how many people the authors in our Lutheran hymnal killed. Everyone else was singing and I'd be imagining how the evil Isaac Watts was torturing poor souls with red-hot pokers. lol
Jim,
I want to remind you that it wasn't "radical Muslims" who where involved - it was Muslims, period. There is no such thing as "radical Muslims" any more than there are "radical Christians." These were just Muslims applying their faith.
Yeah, no one expected the Inquisition.
For another interesting perspective, see Stand to Reason's Christianity's Real Record.
**There is no such thing as "radical Muslims"**
In one sense you are correct, Glenn. The Qur'an itself is hopelessly contradictory, however. It contains uncompromising calls for peace while largely calling for a state of constant war. It is not a religion of peace, but rather a religion of peace AND war. The problem is that the Quilliam types who ignore the calls to war are always ineffective in the path of those who follow Surah 9:29-30 and the call to terrorize unbelievers in 3:151.
There is no coherent denouement in the Qur'an. It's a mess, frankly. There is no cross that reconciles all its verses.
So that's my long-winded excuse as to why I used the word "radical".
Regards
P.S. Here's Qur'an 2:62 - "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."
9:29-30 makes it just as plainly clear that Muslims should kill them. I would add that violent Muslims will say "those who believe in Allah" disqualifies the other believers but that would make the verse contradictory within it's own context. Again, it's a mess.
Our chief weaponry is surprise and fear...and a ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
The reason the Qur'an is so contradictory is because the peaceful part was written first when Mohammed was trying to woo the Jews, etc. Once they denounced him, it was war for the rest of history.
I think you forgot that the Crusades were defending the land from the Muslims at the time who were taking lands by force. The Crusades had to get permission from the Government/Church at the time, it was very much like World War II on how the US got involved.
I think you likely didn't bother to read the post, since I said that the Crusades took place during "a time period of violent Islamic expansion" and indicated that it was exactly the suppression of hte Muslim invasions that caused the Crusades.
But I'm completely baffled by the suggestion that the US got involved in World War II on the basis of permission of the government/church ... which didn't exist in the US and certainly not in the 1940's.
David, since your chief weaponry is not surprise or fear or a fanatical devotion to the pope, I would guess that this was a quote from something?
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" is a Monty Python sketch, and when you said,"Yeah, no one expected the Inquisition." that was the opening for the "Inquisitors" to arrive on scene.
He's quoting from a Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition. I'm surprised at you. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Try this.
Stan,
You misunderstood what I meant about the World War II thing. I meant that America got involved due to increasing pressure to defend themselves and later defend the entire world.
Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment