Answering the Crusades' Critics: Part 4
A Theological-Apologetic Response
Not all critiques of the Crusades stem from a willful disregard of historical accuracy. Many attacks are levied against Christians and Christianity. These deserve thoughtful responses as well. Perhaps a good starting point is to clarify what it means to be a Christian.
First, a Christian is, by definition, an adherent of Christ’s teachings. To be a Christian requires one to hold a specific set of beliefs. One cannot knowingly reject Christ’s teachings and still call himself a Christian. Christians have tirelessly pursued right doctrine for thousands of years, and many have lost their lives for it. Critics’ notion that anyone who labels himself a Christian is a Christian, regardless of what he actually believes, is just simply wrong and illogical.
At the very least, those who commit acts such as rape and murder do so contrary to God’s will, not because of it. The Bible is clear that these are wrong and certainly not “Christian.” The critic should not be surprised to find hypocrites among pro-fessing Christians. The Bible is replete with examples of Christ Himself denouncing hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5, 22:18; 23:13 and so on).
Second, true belief will result in an outward expression of that belief. In other words, those truly born again will behave differently than the unsaved. “In fact,” according to Dr. Clay Jones, “some sins are so contrary to God’s work in the Christian that the Bible tells us that they should be taken as evidence that one isn’t saved.”[25] While it cannot be said that no true Christian will ever commit an egregious sin, it is done contrary to God’s will, not because of it.
Third, Jesus’ parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13 makes it clear that Satan sows false believers among the true believers. The Lord makes clear that we are not to try to uproot the “tares” among us but are to leave the sifting for Him in the afterlife. Thus we can expect there to be Christians in name only among us.
Fourth, Jesus’ admonition that “the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter it are many, [but] the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to eternal life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13-14) supports the Christian belief that there has never been a majority of Christians in any age of the church. Luther himself makes the same observation in his tract On War Against the Turk in 1528 when he observes, “It is against His name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ. This is the greatest of all sins and one that no Turk commits, for Christ’s name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored.”[26] Luther makes it clear that precious few can be considered true Christians and that abhorrent acts committed by crusaders are neither sanctioned nor condoned by God.
While it may seem convenient to argue that there are very few true Christians among those who profess to be His followers, we have only to consider a few examples today to see that Christ’s words still ring true. Consider that in a recent ABC News poll, eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians.[27] How then should we explain the divorce rate in this country? Better yet, what are we to make of the fact that the divorce rate of the churched and the unchurched is practically the same? How should we explain the widespread support of homosexual marriage or the overcrowding of our prisons? And of course, how do we explain that we still terminate one out of five pregnancies, just shy of one million a year, in the United States?[28] Of the women receiving abortions in the U.S., 37% identify themselves as Protestant and 28% identify themselves as Catholic. Are we to believe that fully 65% of the women aborting their pregnancies each year are followers of Christ, not to mention the fathers of the children aborted?
But if actions speak louder than words, then those who plundered, raped and murdered betrayed their true hearts by their deeds. Likewise, concerning attacks against Jews and even fellow Christians, Rodney Stark says, “It is important to note that almost everywhere… bishops attempted, sometimes even at peril of their own lives, to protect the Jews.”[29] Furthermore, Thomas Madden wrote:
Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of
the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary:
Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews
of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war,
we call tragic deaths like these “collateral damage.” Even
with smart technologies, the United States has killed far
more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever
could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose
of American wars is to kill women and children.[30]
Dr. Clay Jones puts the matter well when he says, “Consider that no one argues that the Russians shouldn’t have fought against the Nazi invasion of their country because Russian men later raped hundreds of thousands of German women.”[31]
It is overly simplistic to say that Christians and the Crusades have gotten a bad rap; Christians always have, and it is not likely to stop any time soon. But we have demonstrated quite clearly that attacks against Christians and Christianity regarding the Crusades are misguided at best and malicious at worst. I am reminded of something I once read: to paraphrase, the actions of the Crusaders, or of anyone really, are an indictment of no one but the actors themselves; they are not an indictment of Christ or of Christianity.
The Crusades, on the other hand, have been getting a bad rap since the Enlightenment, but a new generation of scholars seems intent that it not continue. As demonstrated herein, practically none of the observations about the Crusades from the Enlightenment until very recently bear any weight histori-cally. Crusading professor Thomas F. Madden recently summed up the historical case for his class this way:
Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on
the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war.
They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim
conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world. While
the Arabs were busy in the seventh through the tenth
centuries winning an opulent and sophisticated empire,
Europe was defending itself against outside invaders and
then digging out from the mess they left behind. Only in
the eleventh century were Europeans able to take much
notice of the East. The event that led to the crusades was
the Turkish conquest of most of Christian Asia Minor
(modern Turkey). The Christian emperor in Constanti-
nople, faced with the loss of half of his empire, appealed
for help to the rude but energetic Europeans. He got it.
[32]
[25] Clay Jones, “Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-hunts, etc.” Available at: <http://www.clayjones.net /2014/04/crusades-inquisitions-witch-hunts-etc/> [Accessed 4/20/16], emphasis mine.
[26] Martin Luther, On War Against the Turks. Available at: <http://www.lutherdansk.dk/ On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror/On%20war%20against%20Islamic%20reign%20of%20terror1.htm [Accessed 4/21/16]
[27] <http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356&page=1> [Accessed 4/21/16]
[28] < http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/> [Accessed 4/21/16]
[29] Stark, God’s Battalions, 126.
[30] Thomas F. Madden, “The Real History of the Crusades” Available at: < http://www.crisismagazine.com/ 2002/the-real-history-of-the-crusades-2> [Accessed 4/23/16]
[31] Clay Jones, “The Truth about the Crusades” Available at: < http://www.clayjones.net/2014/04/the-truth-about-the-crusades/> [Accessed 4/20/16]
[32] Thomas F Madden, “Crusade Propaganda” Available at: < http://www.nationalreview.com/article/ 220747/crusade-propaganda-thomas-f-madden?target=author&tid=901578> [Accessed 4/23/16]