 |
| Photo: Kingdom of Heaven (2005 film) |
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, July 23, 2015
Crusades
versus Christianity
Many
persons object to Christianity because of the horror of the Crusades (c. 1096-1291). I think this objection can be diffused with four points.
First, contrary to popular opinion, the Crusades were not acts of
unprovoked aggression against the Islamic world. The Crusades were in fact a belated
response to centuries of Muslim military aggression. As Steve Lee points out in
Apologetics Study Bible for Students,
"Christian Europe had to defend itself or be overcome by Islamic
invasion."
Second, though much evil occurred during the Crusades, the
Crusades weren't as bad (comparatively speaking) as many think. Historical
perspective is helpful. Compare the goings-on of some officially atheist societies
with that of some predominately Christian ones.
The
major horrors of Christian Europe—i.e., the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition—amounted to the killing of 1.4 million people. This is terrible and
wrong, to be sure.
Significantly,
however, the following body count under two officially atheist regimes should
also be noticed: China 80,170,000; USSR 61,911,000. Total: over 142 million!
Two officially atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times as
many killings than predominantly Christian societies!
(Note:
The above numbers are from Rudolph Rummel, a Nobel Peace Prize nominated
political science professor at U of Hawaii. Rummel's specialty is the study of
genocide and deomcide.)
Third, Christianity's track record is far from wholly negative. Pros—not
just cons—should be considered.
Near the end of his seven-volume A History of the Expansion of Christianity (Harper,
1945), Yale historian Kenneth Scott Latourette concludes as follows:
"[Christianity] has been the most potent force which mankind
has known for the dispelling of illiteracy, the creation of schools, [and] for
the emergence of new types of education."
Latourette adds: "The universities...were at the outset
largely Christian creations.... Music, architecture, painting, poetry, and
philosophy have owed some of their greatest achievements to Christianity."
Latourette continues: "Democracy as it was known in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries was in large part the outgrowth of Christian
teaching. The abolition of Negro slavery was largely due to Christianity. So,
too, were the measures to protect the Indians against exploitation of the
whites.... The elevation of the status of women owed an incalculable debt to
Christianity...."
In fact, according to Latourette, "No other single force has
been so widely potent for the relief of suffering brought by famine and for the
creation of hospitals and orphanages."
(Recent social-religious historical work by Alvin Schmidt, Rodney
Stark, Vishal Mangalwadi, and others confirms Latourette's work.
Fourth, whether the central doctrines of a worldview are true doesn't
depend on the failure of adherents to live up to that worldview's moral
standards.
For example, if the claim that the God-man Jesus in fact lived,
died, and resurrected is true (as I believe it is), then it is not made false
by my evil actions. My evil actions only show that I'm a lousy follower of
Jesus.
Moreover—and significantly—whereas my wicked behaviour is
condemned by Jesus' teachings, Stalin's and Mao's wicked behaviour—i.e., their
murder of millions—is not condemned by their philosophies.
Stalin and Mao acted consistently with the Marxist-Leninist
principle that a utopian end sometimes justifies dastardly means (such as
murdering anyone who disagrees). The Crusaders and Inquisitors, however, when
they did evil, acted inconsistently with Jesus' command to love others.
Yes, much evil occurred during the Crusades. But these evils are
not inherent to Christianity. They are due to people who claimed to be
Christians (and many weren't Christians) but didn't live up to Jesus'
teachings. Christians who sin make Christianity unattractive, not false.
The objection to Christianity's truth based on the Crusades is
therefore weak.
To recap, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, not
an unprovoked attack; the Crusades were, compared to the evils of officially
atheist regimes, not as bad as many believe; Christianity has been a huge force
for good in the world; the truth of Christianity centers on Jesus Christ—God
come to earth as a human being—not the failings of His followers.
Further reading/ listening:
2 comments:
Generally good thoughts, Hendrik. I would note in your summary that you say "the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, not an unprovoked attack". That is true, but I would add the words "not simply" to unprovoked" and "among other factors" to "a response to Islamic aggression. Those other factors include some that are justifiable, and some that are not.
In general I agree that the automatic condemnation of the Crusades is misguided. There is much to be said pro and con, not simply a condemnation of Christian aggression.
Daryl, yes, sure, there are other factors, some justifiable, some not. Sure, things aren't wholly simple. But from what I can gather, e.g., from Paul F. Crawford's "Four Myths about the Crusades," the Crusades were PRIMARILY a response to (centuries of) Islamic aggression, and thus not an unprovoked attack.
Post a Comment