The Real History of the Crusades

I don't think it's a stretch to say that we're hearing more and more references to The Crusades of late, generally by liberals, leftists and those into political correctness.  Certainly the frequency of those references has climbed since 9/11.

Mike, over at Waving and Drowning (a definitive christian blog with a decidedly leftist bent), becomes the latest to do so in the context of, amazingly, his desire to see the spread of Christianity stopped:

While scanning an article a few days ago I came across this line which stopped me in my tracks.

"The spread of Christianity is changing lives..."

Some seemingly random thoughts came to mind, the only connection being that none of them made me feel very good about the statement in question. This is certainly not a criticism of the article, which I can't find online anyway. What it is, at a rudimentary level, is a reaction to the language embedded in the statement, and perhaps some of the thinking behind it that the language reveals.

First, there is the historical context of the statement. The reference to the spread of Christianity may evoke very different responses from the aboriginal peoples of North and South America than from those of European descent. The terms "small pox" and "residential schools" spring to mind. For example, it would be informative to get the perspective of an Incan native of Peru, were there any left to speak with.

And then there are the crusades to consider, which I won't do here.

The smear against all Christians seems less than subtle to me.  And I think I understand why Mike would rather not discuss the crusades. 

In the course of researching the topic, I came across this article over at Christianity Today written by Thomas Madden, associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University:

With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word crusade in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?

Well... Mike certainly seems to think the Crusades are to be blamed for one thing or another yet Madden goes on to speak specifically to this common leftist fallacy:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman's famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

Mike is, at times, wonderfully entertaining as well and maybe this is why I find myself returning to Waving and Drowning just about daily but in all seriousness, I think Madden is suggesting that Mike (and his like-minded cohorts) need to learn a tad more about what really took place during medieval times, especially if that period of time is going to be used as fodder for rather off the wall causes:

It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and his Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

I think it would behoove Mike and other leftists to focus less on stopping the spread of Christianity (and using the crusades as ammunition for doing so) and more on stopping the spread of Islamofascism.  In some ways, the crusades are being fought all over again and too many people are afraid to admit it. 

In the midst of a war on terror, the calls to stop the spread of Christianity seem... simply moonbattish.

Comments

[Mike]

Thanks Rick. I feel much better knowing they were there to kill them and not convert them. That's a relief!

[Rick]

Mike,

There's no way that you read Madden's article...

Simply no way...

[Mike]

No - read your post, though.

[Rick]

I recommend you read the article Mike and then maybe, just maybe, my post would make more sense...

Of course, I'm confused by your "convert them" reference... I'd concluded that you don't believe much in conversion...

[John]

Why does everyone think that the crusades were begun by the Christians? They were in response to the Muslim desire to take over the world. There was of course one bad crusade, the fourth. The pope excommunicated those that sacked Constantinople, which was the correct thing to do. I'm saddened that people ignore true historians to believe what is convenient for them and popular in general.

[Leslie]

It's too easy to say the Crusades of the past were bad, as it is too easy to say the war of the present is bad. Initially, a message of peace in our time sounds noble, until you come face to face with the realities of appeasement.

Christians these days face a harsh double standard. Live a life of peace at the expense of their neighbours, or lay down their life for their neighbours and face the critics. Condemnation in the form of conscience or public opinion encroaches, waiting for the right moment to pounce.

It's disappointing when the condemnation presses from within, and especially disappointing when it presses from Canada.

[MarcV]

I have not visited Mike's site, and probably won't after seeing this cited:

--While scanning an article a few days ago I came across this line which stopped me in my tracks.

"The spread of Christianity is changing lives..."

Some seemingly random thoughts came to mind, the only connection being that none of them made me feel very good about the statement in question.--

If the statement of "Christianity changing lives" brings about a negative response, I wonder about the author's claim of being a Christian. Throughout the Bible there are many references to the joy that God has when lives are changed, when people are saved, when His children turn towards Him.

I hope Mike can find joy in his relationship with the Lord, and turn from the negative to delight in God just for who He is.

[Mike]

MarkV, I hope you do drop by some day and say hello. Perhaps if you read the complete post it will make a little more sense to you. (My issue is with the language of "spreading". For the record, I am a follower of Jesus, it has changed my life, and I am grateful.)

[Rick]

MarcV,

At one time in my life I was pretty quick to ponder whether or not someone was a Christian. I don't anymore.

I still consider myself to be one but as regular readers would know, I'm no example, no model, no Christian to emulate. I can say that there was a time when I probably was or pretty close to being one. Not anymore. And I'm not saying this with any sense of pride.

Bottom line is that I think it's best to leave these things up to God and the individual.

But I second Mike's request for you to visit his blog. I do pretty much daily. I see things I don't like, I'll not lie. But I also think I see something in Mike worth... looking into...

There's no doubting his passion for the poor and for women. And I do see he's enamored with Christ. I just think he's enamored with one side of Him.

And perhaps Mike provides the balance for those who are enamored with the other side of Him.

Maybe.

In any case, I encourage you to go over there and check him out, and engage him.

But only when he's deleted one (or two or three or four) of your comments will you know the Mike I'm familiar with.

[MarcV]

I did wrestle with my previous comment, on whether or not to question Mike's faith. It's something I rarely do, and if anything I try to err on the live and let live side. I realized I was going on just the post here, but that is part of the blogging experience, only getting part of the story. Mike's and Rick's comments afterwards confirmed my feelings though.

My fault is expecting that Christians should have their hearts on fire for God, willing and wanting to advance His kingdom, humbled by His presence and taking delight in His glory. Is there room in the definition of Christian for "followers", for people who do good things but are put off (or fearful) of a commitment to Jesus? We are all on different paths and at various levels in our relationship with the Lord.

Mike, if I made my comment too personal I do apologize. I will question the spirit of the argument that spreading the Gospel is wrong. Yes, mistakes were and will continue to be made when people from different cultures meet and one of them wants to evangelize. Whether or not "aboriginal peoples of North and South America" get smallpox, iPods, McDonalds or name-your-Western-decadence from Christian missionaries, anthropologists, salesmen or conquering hordes, they will eventually get it. The Lord asks us to give them the Gospel message.

For Rick: "I'm no example, no model, no Christian to emulate. I can say that there was a time when I probably was or pretty close to being one. Not anymore." I don't know much about your "fall from grace", but I'm getting more and more pieces. You know that there is only one model, one person to emulate. Everyone else is just a dim reflection, some dimmer than others. Everyone falls short but we need to keep trying. I'm praying Psalm 73 for you, and that you will come to the place where you can give from your heart and not worry that your gift is imperfect.

I pray that both of you will find more joy through Jesus.

[Rick]

MarcV,

You know I appreciate (and need) your prayers.

Just to clarify, I do see myself as a Christian, just not a very good one as I've written about here and here.

[Mike]

Thanks from me too for the prayers, MarkV.

[Rick]

MarcV wrote:

My fault is expecting that Christians should have their hearts on fire for God, willing and wanting to advance His kingdom, humbled by His presence and taking delight in His glory. Is there room in the definition of Christian for "followers", for people who do good things but are put off (or fearful) of a commitment to Jesus? We are all on different paths and at various levels in our relationship with the Lord.

There was a time when I would've nodded my head in agreement with the above and I think I would've understood what was being said. Now, I'm finding myself asking Marc for clarification. Although my faith walk isn't what it used to be, I don't think I can say (or have anyone else say) that my commitment to Christ has weakened. If longing and desire for God can be measured as having a heart on fire for Him, then I'm still aflame. And I'm all for advancing His kingdom, I simply find myself questioning what that might look like. For example, Mike's definitely looking to globally defeat poverty and ending the oppression of women worldwide. Is that advancing His kingdom? I think yes.

I also think that there are many believers committed to confronting evil and oppression, via that governmental authority He uses as His agent of wrath against the wrongdoer (Romans 13). Is that advancing the kingdom. I think so. (Mike may not).

So although the phraseology resonates, I now find myself asking, well what exactly do you mean.

So Marc... what exactly do you mean?

[MarcV]

Now, now Rick ... asking for "exactly what you mean" in a blog is a tricky proposition, given the limitations of this medium. I'll still try to answer.

I was not questioning your commitment, Rick, since you brought up the subject and defended the Crusades.

Evangelism is at the center of Jesus' ministry. He came to seek the lost and save them, and before He left he asked us (first to the Apostles and now by the Holy Spirit) to continue His work. If your heart is on fire for Jesus, then you should rejoice when the Gospel message is spread to the four corners of the world and Christians are seeking to save the lost.

Were mistakes made in the past? Sure, and it's easy to sit in a judgement seat with our modern sensibilities and declare some of our forefather's efforts as failures. Hopefully we can learn from the mistakes and improve the presentation of the Gospel. Maybe that's Mike's point, maybe not, but I just went on what was quoted.

I made that statement you quoted partially for myself, but in general to question what does it mean to give yourself or others the label of "Christian". If someone spends some time with me, can they tell that I'm "... on fire for God, willing and wanting to advance His kingdom, humbled by His presence and taking delight in His glory"? How long would they need? Is there enough evidence to convict me if someone accuses me of being Christian (depending on who's doing the defining!)?

We can all make nice noises about social do-gooding, fighting evil, etc., but if my relationship with the Lord is not right, everything else is non-sense. I'd like to see the definition of a Christian as someone who has given their life to Jesus, is in a good (on-going) relationship with Him and seeking to improve that relationship each day. I don't think there's room for that definition in our secular world.

[I hope that clarified things somewhat, but not exactly!]