History

---

THE CRUSADES IN RETROSPECT


While the Christian faith has been faulted for the Crusades, this criticism has often overlooked critical features. “For starters,” professor Thomas Madden observes, “the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.”
In context, Islam posits two realms: characterized by peace as the result of submission and conflict. In this regard, Madden allows: “Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule but, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.”
This is not to overlook other factors which were involved, since there were at issue a wide range of political and social concerns. For instance, “The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions.” As with the wanton attack on Jews, although condemned by the church.
Robert Clouse edits the Christian range of options to aggression in War: Four Christian Views. These consist of nonresistance, pacifism, just war, and preventive war alternatives. The nonresistant stance permits Christians to participate in armed conflict only as non-combatants, while pacifism maintains that they must assume no role whatsoever.
The just war theory sets out as criteria: just cause, just intention, last resort, formal declaration, limited objectives, proportionate means, and noncombatant immunity. For instance, the only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved. Consequently, neither revenge, nor conquest, economic gain, or ideological supremacy are permissible. Other considerations are sometimes introduced into the just war equation. As in the case of requiring a feasible plan in place for withdrawal, once the conflict has terminated.
Finally, the preventive war option allows for engagement to prevent an attack or to address blatant injustice. While said to be in anticipation of conflict. Which recalls the sage saying, “Prevention is the best cure.”
All of which seem to solicit several pertinent observations. (1) “You will hear of wars and rumors of war, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come” (Matt. 24:6). So that we must not be carried away by some utopian fantasy, but make provision for armed conflict.
(2) Even so, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). Which will be variously understood, so either to disallow Christians from participation in warfare or encourage them to do so in some instances.
(3) The term peace in Scripture implies not simply the cessation of overt hostilities, but a healthy society. So that what passes for peace may be by way of justifying oppression. Which, in turn, is a concern which the preventive war alternative seeks to address.
(4) The failure to act may imply that we are also culpable. John Calvin reasoned in this regard that if we fail to save a life, we are guilty of murder.
(5) Fred Abrahams, special adviser to the Human Rights Watch, reports: “We had shocking stories of forced religious conversion, forced marriage, and even sexual assault and slavery—and some of the victims were children.” Not to mention that some were beheaded. As if to cast the Crusades in an existential context.
(6) Everyone can do something. If nothing else, one can pray, and more is accomplished through prayer than this world realizes. Most can contribute to meeting the needs of those being oppressed. Corporate action can also be taken to reduce or eliminate the oppression. As we earnestly reflect on the Crusades in retrospect.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE