the crusades · the baseball and basketball crusaders. for others, however, the crusades are...

Church History to the Reformation

Transcript - CH506 Church History to the Reformation © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 14

LESSON 16 of 24CH506

The Crusades

Church History to the Reformation

This is lecture sixteen—The Crusades. Greetings once again in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and join me in prayer, if you would, as we being. Let us pray. Eternal God, we ask that once again you might open us up to that which you have to teach us today. Guide us by your Spirit, that we might faithfully serve you. For Christ’s sake. Amen.

Few events within the history of the church have produced as many divergent and vigorous reactions as have the Crusades. For some the crusader’s spirit is the true spirit of militant Christianity crushing the enemy and promoting the truth of Christ. We even name some of our sports teams after them. I can recall as an undergraduate at Wheaton College cheering for the football and the baseball and basketball Crusaders. For others, however, the Crusades are exhibit A in the case against the faith, illustrating how corrupt and perverse it is possible for Christians to become even in quest of good goals. What some have called an unconscionable foreign policy for the church. All of us; however, whatever side we take need to stop to look specifically at the Crusades to see what occurred there and to see what we can learn from them, particularly as they relate to the church/state relations and the specialized interest in Christians in our attitude toward war.

Now when we say Crusades, we’re talking about the eight major and many more minor military religious expeditions which were carried out between the late eleventh century beginning in 1096 AD and the late thirteenth century ending in 1270 AD. All of these were occasioned by the political and military success of Islam, especially that of the Seljuk Turks. All of them were given sanction and, in fact, encouragement by the church with the rationale that they were holy wars to recapture the holy land from foreign hands.

As we come to this study, we need to be aware that there are some wonderful resources available for us. Those of you who are following Latourette’s text will want especially to look at

Garth M. Rosell, PhD Experience: Professor of Church History

and Director Emeritus, Ockenga Institute at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary


The Crusades

2 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

pages 408-415. Others of you may want to refer to the Cambridge Medieval History Volume 5, which deals with the Crusades. Or the older volume still very useful of Archer Kingsford, The Crusades, published by Putnam Sons; or Steven Runciman’s A History of the Crusades, a Cambridge University Press publication in 1951. These and others can be very helpful to us in understanding the nature of the Crusades not only in terms of their specific content, but in terms of the kinds of issues which they raise for us. Christianity, you see, has always taught the depravity of human persons, that outside the grace of God, people tend to act selfishly, unkindly, sometimes even viciously—robbing, plundering, abusing, blaspheming. So it shouldn’t be surprising to us that we find in all societies evidence of this kind of depravity. It shouldn’t be surprising to us either that all societies tend to put sanctions against those who break the social guidelines and laws.

What do we do, however, when nations or groups of nations break the social law of other nations or groups of nations? How are we then as Christians to respond? This is a particular difficult question, I think, for Christians and, in fact, the Christian community has answered that question in three major ways across its centuries of existence. The first of those is nonresistance, often called Pacifism in which people do not involve themselves in war as Christians.

The second position is the just war position. Its war allowed for defensive purposes only and even then within very tight qualifications. The third position is often what we call the crusader position. It’s the use of force not only to defend, but also to promote the faith, to promote righteousness, to do evangelism, and we had occasion to see some of that in the Medieval Missions Outreach which we have talked about already in this course.

It’s interesting to note that the New Testament and the early church practice was almost completely uniform in its adherence to the nonresistance position. The early church asked the question Should Judea revolt against Rome? and most were prepared to say no, though there were some zealots who wanted to say yes. Should Christians use the protection of Rome to preach the Gospel? Clearly yes. Should Christians take arms to protect that right? We don’t know. That question didn’t seem to come up. We do know that from the New Testament period to the time of Constantine, no Christian writer of whom we are aware approved of or endorsed Christian participation in war. It seemed to be an era of almost complete nonresistance or Pacifism. We do know that some Christians were in the army, but we don’t know how the communities viewed that


The Crusades

3 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

other than by inference by a number of other things that were said. Let me give you a few examples.

Athenagoras commented, “Christians do not strike back. They do not go to law when they are robbed. They give to them that ask and love their neighbors as themselves.” Or if you look at Justin Martyr and I’ll refer to that section of his writings again that relates to this little collection of Richardson’s Early Christian Fathers that we’ve been using before, page 266. Chapter 39, Justin comments, “When the prophetic spirit speaks as prophesying things to come, he says, ‘For the law will go forth from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and he shall judge in the midst of nations and rebuke much people. And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and nation will not lift of sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore.’ We can show you that has really happened,” he writes. “For a band of twelve men went forth from Jerusalem and they were common men, not trained in speaking, but by the power of God they testified to every race of mankind that they were sent by Christ to teach all the Word of God. And now we who once killed each other not only do not make war on each other, but in order not to lie or deceive our inquisitors, we gladly die for the confession of Christ. For it would be possible for us to follow the saying, ‘The tongue is sworn; the mind remains unsworn,’ but it would be ridiculous when the soldiers whom you have recruited and enrolled stick to their loyalty to you before their own life and parents and native land and all their families, though you have nothing incorruptible to offer them. For us who desire incorruption, not to endure all things in order to receive what we long for from Him who is actually able to give it.”

That interesting paragraph from Justin’s apology in the middle 2nd Century reflects again the kind of attitude toward war which the early Christians seemed to have. We see this again in Tertullian when he said, “Christ in disarming Peter ungirded every soldier.” Or Cyprian when he wrote, “God designed iron for tilling not for killing.” Isn’t that a marvelous little quote?

What we know of early Christian life points almost exclusively in the direction of nonresistance or Pacifism, so that what we discover is that over the first three centuries under enormous persecution in this time of martyrdom, Christians tended to stand before their enemies, turning the other cheek, and going even to their death for the purpose of giving witness to their faith, but refused to participate actively in the killing of others. This


The Crusades

4 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

position, however, began to change when Constantine came to power. And you have along with the coming of Constantine in the fourth century the emergence of just war theology. We see that reflected very clearly in the work of St. Augustine with whom we are now familiar.

His own attitude toward war as a foundation for the just war theory is described beautifully for us in Roland Bainton’s little book, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Reevaluation. This book was first published in 1960 by Abingdon Press and now in 1986 in the fifteenth printing it has come out with a revised format and it’s a handy little paperback which some of you may want to pick up to read more thoroughly. On page 95 of this book, he describes Augustine’s own attitudes toward the just war. He says, “It was the code of Plato and Cicero now with Christian editions. War must be just as to its intent, and what is its intent? To restore peace. Peace should be the object of our desire. War should be waged only as a necessity and waged only through it that God may deliver men from that necessity and preserve them in peace, for peace is not to be sought in order to kindle war, but war is to be waged in order to obtain peace. Therefore, even in the course of war you should cherish the Spirit as a peacemaker. If injustice can be corrected without bloodshed, how much greater the victory! A higher glory it is to stay war than to slay men.”

And then he describes the basic elements which are part of just war theory. First, the object of the just war is to vindicate justice. Those wars may be defined as just which avenge injuries. What sort of injuries? An attack on the existence of the state, Augustine held, was ordinarily an injury to be repulsed by war, but not always. Other injuries to be forcibly rectified included failure to make amends, refusal to grant passage, etc. A war then first of all must be waged to vindicate justice. Secondly, it must be just in its very disposition, which is, in fact, Christian love. And this Augustine felt was not incompatible with killing because love and nonresistance are inward dispositions. Third, the war must be just as to its auspices. It must be waged only under the authority of a ruler. When Christ took the sword from Peter in the Garden, that taking of the sword was condemning the practice of private warfare. Only when the prince, only when the properly constituted ruler who was responsible to call for war does so and under proper conditions, can soldiers, including Christians, participate and involve themselves in killing.


The Crusades

5 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

The war then must be just in its vindication of justice. It must be just in its disposition. It must be just in its auspices, and fourth, the conduct of the war itself has to be just. The rules basically for Augustine were taken from classical antiquity. Faith must be kept with the enemy, there should be no want in violence, profanation of temples, looting, massacre or conflagration, vengeance, atrocities, and reprisals are excluded. Ambush was allowed, but the war was to be conducted properly and according to Christian principles.

Furthermore, clergy, monks included, were not to engage in warfare at all. And finally, when one entered war, one must do so in a mournful mood as Augustine described it. War should not be entered with joy and thanksgiving and singing as we’ll see later happened in the Crusades. War is always a tragedy. It’s something to be avoided if at all possible, but entered into properly, if properly constituted, if properly called, if properly conducted by Christians for the purpose of defending against the want and violence of a depraved society.

We see then the movement from the early church in its dominant Pacifism to a dominance of just war theory which characterizes the church from the time of Constantine in the fourth century up to the tenth century in the time of the Crusades, and then we are going to see in a moment when we come to the Crusades, the predominance of the Crusader attitude—the desire to promote the faith, to promote righteousness through the use of the sword. Now it’s interesting to note that all three of these positions base their positions on Scripture. And what Scriptures do they tend to use? Well, the Crusaders like to turn to texts such as John 2:15, the cleansing of the temple, or Matthew 10:34 with the words “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Or Luke 22, “He that hath no sword let him sell his garments and buy one.” You can see how these might be useful for the argument by the Crusaders.

The just war people tend to focus on texts such as Mark 12:17, “Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” The nonresistant or Pacifist folk tend to turn to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and that famous passage with which I think most all of us are familiar. Let me read just a portion of it for you and you can get some of the flavor of the Pacifist’s argument. This is Matthew 5, beginning at verse 38, “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’” This, of course, is the old lex talionis principle. “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on


The Crusades

6 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

the right cheek, turn to him the other. If someone wants you to be sued and take you to court, wanting your tunic, give him your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’ but I tell you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Then he ends the chapter, “That you may be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Now you can see how this might easily be used by nonresistant or Pacifist advocates. A classic text, however, that has engaged the interest of all three groups is Romans 13, and I want to read that and then try to describe how all three positions deal with this one text. Listen carefully to the text. It’s familiar to you I’m sure. Romans 13, beginning at verse 1: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves, for rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what’s right and he will commend you, for he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience. That’s also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him. If you owe taxes, pay taxes. If revenue, then revenue. If respect, then respect. If honor, then honor.” Isn’t that a fascinating text?

Now how do these folk deal with that? Those who take a Pacifist position tend to see this text as arguing that the coercive power of the state is indeed ordained by God and the reason it’s ordained by God is because of depravity and sin. Therefore, it ought to be administered by sinners only. Saints ought to submit unless it breaks their conscience, but they should not participate.

Now if you want an interesting historical illustration of that, you can turn to the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, which emerges out of the radical or leftwing Anabaptist wing of the Protestant Reformation. This actually comes from a Swiss brethren, was


The Crusades

7 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

written by Michael Sattler who was put to death very shortly after he wrote this confessional document. Let me read to you, and I’m reading out of John Leith’s Creeds of the Churches. It’s a nice little paperback by John Knox Press which includes a lot of the creeds and confessions of the church. But on page 287, there is a description about force and war. “Therefore there will also be unquestionably for the Christian an elimination of the devilish weapons of force, such as sword, armor, and the like, and all their use either for friends or against one’s enemies by virtue of the Word of Christ, resist not him who is evil.” And then later, “The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked and guards and protects the good. In the law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and their death, and the same sword is now ordained to be used by worldly magistrates—worldly magistrates, you understand. Therefore, should a Christian employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and the protection of the good or even for the sake of love? The answer is no. Should a Christian pass sentence in worldly disputes and strifes such as unbelievers have with one another? The answer is no. Shall one be a magistrate if chosen as such? The answer is no. One should not even take an oath.”

You see there in historical setting the kind of position that is taken by the nonresistant wing illustrating their attitude toward this famous Romans text, but dealing with it in their own particular way.

Those who take a just war position see this text as teaching the necessity of restraining evil doers because of the fallen nature of the world, and, in fact, the advocacy of Christians to be involved in that if properly conducted according to the kinds of rules that Augustine set down and that I read for you a few moments ago. We see this illustrated in a parallel movement in the sixteenth century through the Augsburg Confession, and I suggested earlier that the Lutheran tradition picks up this basic attitude toward just war in the sixteenth century. This document written by Philip Melanchthon takes clearly a just war position. This and the little Leith’s collection of Creeds of the Churches, page 72. “It is taught among us that all government in the world and all established rules and laws were instituted and ordained by God for the sake of good order and that Christians may without sin occupy civil offices or serve as princes and judges, render decisions, and pass sentence according to the imperial and other existing laws, punish evildoers with the sword, and (here) engage in just wars, serve as


The Crusades

8 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

soldiers, buy and sell, take required oaths, possess property, be married, etc.” Condemned here are the Anabaptists, the ones I just read, who teach that none of these things is Christian. Here you have through the Lutheran tradition a picking up of the just war concept, which runs again and again throughout the history of the church. Wars can be waged, if properly waged, to restrain sin and to stop the advances of the evildoers.

The third position, that of the Crusader, sees the use of force not only to restrain sin as was true for the just war people, but also to promote righteousness. It is a tool given by God to promote the faith and, in fact, in some cases to do evangelism. Now we are going to see that emerging particularly in the Crusader period among those Crusader people who are involved in not only defense of war, but not in promoting righteousness through the use of physical force.

Therefore, we see this pattern emerging. Three positions—the nonresistant position dominating the church from its beginnings up to the time of Constantine, the just war concept spelled out so clearly for us by St. Augustine, dominating the church from the fourth century up to about the tenth, and now we are going to see emerging the third of the positions in the period of the Crusades, this joyful militancy, entering into war as a holy cause, as soldiers of God, and this is exemplified in many places across history, but no more clearly than we find them in the Crusades.

Let’s talk then a bit about the Crusades specifically. The Crusades were rooted in the doctrine of penance. Sins committed by the faithful and confessed to a priest had during the Middle Ages increasingly brought a response of penance. This penance or this response to sinfulness could be fulfilled in a variety of different ways—through fasting, through manual labor, through prayers, and through pilgrimages. Now pilgrimages became very popular during the Middle Ages, particularly pilgrimages to holy sites in Israel. From the 700s on this penitential pilgrimage became the penance of choice for many within the church and the most popular site of all was Jerusalem.

Many of the pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem in groups, sometimes under arms. Indeed, when the first crusade finally came in 1096, it was actually a penitential pilgrimage under arms with the additional goal of recapturing Jerusalem from the Islamic forces that had taken it over. A knight who joined that cause could pursue a military career under the church and at the same time gain


The Crusades

9 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

forgiveness of his sins through this penitential process. As one somewhat cynical writer phrased it, “He might butcher all day ‘til he waded ankle deep in blood and then at nightfall kneel, sobbing for very joy at the altar of the sepulcher, for was he not red from the winepress of the Lord? One can readily understand the popularity of the Crusades when one reflects that they permitted men to get to the other world by fighting hard on earth and allowing them to gain the fruits of asceticism by the way of obedience to natural instincts.” That may be a little harsh. These are actually the words of Barker in his book on the Crusades, but they point at least in a direction for many has a ring of truth. For the church generally, the Crusades allowed an opportunity to vindicate Christ’s cause by recapturing the holy places and also to diffuse Christianity by force of arms. We saw that process in the European mission, but here again it’s picked up as a desired end and good.

What then caused the Crusades? Along with the system of penance, which was placing increased importance upon Jerusalem and the holy places in Israel, the Crusades were occasioned by the enormous success of Islam. We’ve talked about this a little, but let me refresh your memories again. Muhammad, the great prophet, was born in Mecca, a commercial town in Saudi Arabia as we call it now. He had very little education. He was a caravan trader. He became a religious leader in his late thirties. In 622, he left from Mecca to go to Medina. There he fused religious and civil authority and came back and reclaimed Mecca. After his death, the conquest began in earnest under the principle of the Jihad, this holy war, or righteous cause battle for the Islamic forces. Damascus, Jerusalem, Persia, India, Egypt all fell. Within a few years of his movement to Medina, Jerusalem was in the hands of Omar and it remained in Islamic hands until the very end of the first crusade in 1099 AD.

In that interim, relations were continued actually between the Western Church and the Latin Church in Jerusalem. The Islamic conquerors allowed this to go on and, in fact, they even promoted some of this. Especially close relations were cemented with Charlemagne when in 800 AD he was sent keys to the city of Jerusalem by the Islamic leaders there. In 807 AD, Harun al-Rashid proclaimed Charlemagne protector of Jerusalem and owner of the holy sepulcher. In turn, Charlemagne sent money down to found a hospital and a library and to fund other good things within Jerusalem. Western Christians often sent contributions to Christians in Jerusalem. Now all of that relationship between Christians and Islamic forces lasted until a fanatical caliph


The Crusades

10 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

named Hakim took over power in 1010 AD. Now a caliph is the head of the government of that area of the world. It had been in the hands of the Umayyad family, this dynasty from 661-750 and then transferred to the Abbasid family from 750-1258. The Umayyad capital was at Damascus; the Abbasid capital was set up at Bagdad. So this caliph Hakim not only took over power, but in so doing destroyed the church of the sepulcher; he ended this Frankish protectorate of the church and patronage of holy places, and he placed enormous restrictions on pilgrimages.

Now it’s interesting to note that in our day we find people quite interested in going over to Jerusalem or to Israel for kind of a modern form of pilgrimage, but in the Middle Ages this had become a big business. In fact, we have evidence that there were guidebooks put out giving details as to how people should prepare for pilgrimages. They ought to settle their debts before they leave. They ought not to travel alone, but go with groups. They need to hire the proper kind of ship and captain and that usually took about a month to get from Europe to Israel. Only licensed captains ought to carry pilgrims, they said, and the ships must be seaworthy. They ought to make sure that there’s proper food on board and that they will not be exacted prices beyond that which were originally agreed. They were given specific instructions as to what to bring with them—a feather bed, a mattress, two pillows, two pairs of sheets, and a quilt, a long overcoat for chilly times at seas, laxatives to cover problems with the stomach, biscuits, bread, cheese, eggs, fruit, and so on. And they went right down the things that they ought to study and that they ought to prepare for before coming on one of these trips. It was big business and people vided with one another in order to gain pilgrim tourists to carry them over to Israel. Hundreds of them came into Israel for these purposes, so that you can understand that this was not a small matter when this whole possibility was cut off by this caliph who wouldn’t have that going on any longer.

Furthermore, the strife between the East and the West, especially after the schism of 1054, made the possibility even more difficult. In fact, some of the Eastern Orthodox areas even charged tolls to their Western Christian counterparts for pilgrims traveling through, so that all of these elements are beginning to emerge as part of this larger picture. Islam has taken over the holy places. This wouldn’t have been so bad if the arrangements could have continued so that people could visit back and forth, but now that that was cut off, now that it was complicated by these growing tensions between East and West, something had to be done. And


The Crusades

11 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

as a matter of fact, the Crusades emerged now out of that kind of context as a holy war to regain those places in Jerusalem that are to be visited by the pilgrims, and also to restore that holy area of the world back to the church itself.

In 1094 then we have ambassadors from Byzantine, Europe—Emperor Alexis in particular—requesting military aid against the Turks. You’ll remember that they were struggling in their battle against those forces. Pope Urban II planned a small expeditionary force. He called for knights to join the cause. He offered a plenary indulgence, a full forgiveness of their sins if they came, and hinted that they might have more material rewards if they became a part of these crusading activities. The response was much beyond anything that he could have anticipated. It was overwhelming. And that great group of folk descended upon Constantinople, some of them desirous for adventure, others of them wanting forgiveness of their sins, some wanting added wealth, which they thought would be a kind of pot of gold at the end of rainbow. All of these different motives were brought together as they descended on Constantinople, and Emperor Alexis was embarrassed that so many had showed up. He didn’t know how to feed or house them, and, in fact, they had a difference of opinion as to the ends of this military expedition. Alexis wanted the land for himself; the Westerners, of course, wanted it for themselves.

With reluctance, however, the crusaders, because they needed his supplies, took an oath of allegiance to Emperor Alexis and crossed the Bosporus; they captured Nicea, gave it back to the emperor, and then took Antioch. They ultimately marched on Jerusalem. Amid bloodshed and great rejoicing, on July 15, 1099, they took Jerusalem back for Christian purposes. This is, as a matter of fact, the only successful military campaign in all of the crusader history. All of the subsequent campaigns, and there were many—great major ones as well as minor ones—were militarily failures.

After taking Jerusalem, most of the crusaders returned back to Europe. Some, however, set up camp in the new parts of the country that they had just visited and conquered. Four major colonies emerged out of these crusader activities—Jerusalem, which we can understand would have drawn a number of them, the country of Tripoli, a port area in Northwestern Lebanon, the principality of Antioch, and the county of Odessa. Tripoli and Antioch survived until the last decade of the thirteenth century. Odessa fell to the Islamic forces in 1144. These were kind of experiments in colonization and are interesting to study in and


The Crusades

12 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

of themselves, but we’ll not occupy our attention here.

The second crusade was occasioned by the capture again of Odessa, one of these four colonies in 1144. Led by Louis VII of France and Emperor Conrad II of Germany, they marched to return these lands to Christian auspices and control. This crusade ended in failure and then they had further problems, Saladin and the Islam forces recaptured Jerusalem in 1187 and this led to the third crusade. The third crusade was actually led from the west by Richard the Lionhearted of England, Philip Augustus of France, and Frederick Barbarossa, the holy Roman emperor. Cyprus was recaptured from Byzantium, but Jerusalem still remained in Islamic hands. They were not able to recapture.

The fourth crusade brought forces to converge upon Constantinople in 1204. Now these folk didn’t originally intend to take Constantinople, but they needed to repay the Venetians for the fare that had brought them to Constantinople. So they attacked this Eastern Orthodox city, putting a little more strain on East/West relationships, and it remained in Western hands, as what is called Latin Constantinople, from 1204 to 1261. Pope Innocent, meanwhile, excommunicated the leaders, but the Byzantine Empire was damaged badly by that conquest and in fact East/West relationships were hurt almost beyond repair.

In between the fourth and fifth crusade was the famous children’s crusade of 1212. Thousands of children were sent to liberate Jerusalem. The feeling was that children would not be attacked, but that they would be joyfully welcome and they could do what armed adult soldiers couldn’t do. They didn’t get any farther than Italy, as a matter of fact, and many of them were sold into slavery, and it’s one of the real tragic stories as part of the Crusades.

In the fifth crusade, Christian armies were defeated in Egypt. In the sixth crusade they went against Jerusalem again and again failed. The seventh and eighth crusades, directed by Louis IX of France, both crusades failed. In short, militarily we have to say that the Crusades were basically a failure. They ended not with the overthrow of Islamic forces and the return of these Christian areas to the church, but in fact ended up largely by reinforcing the power, authority, and solidity of the Islamic forces in those very areas they were trying to liberate. So I think that any fair person would have say that the Crusades were from a military standpoint almost uniformly failures.


The Crusades

13 of 14

Lesson 16 of 24

The Crusades, however, did offer some very helpful and productive additions to the life of the church. Certainly they spurred missionary activity not so much by the sword, but through a peaceful conquest of souls. The Crusades brought the Eastern areas of the world to a kind of new consciousness among Christians in the West. There was a growing awareness that there was need for mission outreach through many of those parts of the world, particularly those that had been taken over again by the forces of Islam. How is Christianity to spread in those areas? Well, new strategies, new impetus, and motivation emerged out of these strange events to bring missionary activity once more into the center of church life.

Some of the Eastern missionary activity was spawned by St. Francis, whose name is familiar to all of us, who attempted on the fifth crusade to convert the Sultan of Egypt in the 13th Century. He and a number of others attempted to promote Christian missionary activity. In addition, the Crusades tended to encourage colonization, and you have that whole interesting story about those four colonization experiments and many others that came as a result of those. There was also an encouragement of trade, of mobility, obviously with great numbers of people moving back and forth, there’s new interest and awareness of other parts of the world, and trade activities, immigration, colonization are all going to be spurred as a result. They did also tend to aggravate already strained relations between the East and the West, and we talked a little bit about that in earlier lectures, but here you have an illustration of another way in which those relationships tended to be strained and those divisions tended to be supported.

The Crusades also raised serious questions about the spreading of the faith by military conquest, that issue that we’ve already talked about in Medieval missions. Faith, you see, doesn’t primarily come by the sword and some would argue it never comes by the sword, but by the loving and joyous encounter of people with a living Christ. Missionary activity ought to be done in a persuasive and winsome way, but perhaps not at the point of a sword.

For many of us the Crusades, however, served the purpose of crystalizing the issue of war. How are Christians to relate in these church/state ties with the military, with war? And I’ve suggested that the three classic positions which have emerged across the history of the church remain with us as options today for good Christians who are honestly trying to struggle with and understand this issue—Pacifism, just war, crusade. And I would


Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

14 of 14

The CrusadesLesson 16 of 24

encourage you as a result of our exploration of the Crusades to think again about your whole understanding of that important area in relationship. Restudy those texts that we’ve talked about and rethink your position. It’s not something about which any of us dare be neutral, but it’s an important element that we have to wrestle through until we come a conclusion that we feel is an appropriate one for us and is consistent with the great teachings of God’s Word.

the crusades · the baseball and basketball crusaders. for others, however, the crusades are...

Documents