The Crusades: From the Editor - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Recently, a group of Christian leaders, mostly missionaries to the Muslim world, gathered in Jerusalem, at the spot where 900 years earlier Christian knights and soldiers stormed the walls. They read historical accounts of the Jerusalem massacre. Then they formally apologized for the Crusades. I apologize for their apology.
Not because I’m a cheerleader for the Crusades. I cringe when I think of the centuries of slaughter and pillaging done in the name of Christ, with the blessing of the church. I’m saddened by what Muslims and heretics suffered. As philosopher David Hume put it, the Crusades stand as a “durable monument to human folly.”
But it’s too easy, when we repudiate actions of Christians of other times and places, to subtly repudiate those Christians. They become the distant uncle with the dark and troubled past—someone we don’t talk about. And when we’re forced to, we shift nervously and turn a little red.
For too long, modern Christians have assumed the crusaders are not spiritual parents but distant uncles: “If these crusaders were real Christians, they wouldn’t have done such a thing!”
But the crusaders were real Christians. They deplored their sins. They longed for forgiveness. They loved fellow Christians in the East. They yearned to do something noble and lasting for their Lord. They prayed and fasted before battles and praised God after victories. Their devotion and courage make ours look juvenile.
So much of what they did was wrong. Yes, and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So there’s little point in becoming judgmental. Better to try to understand the crusaders in the context of their times.
This issue focuses on crusades to the Holy Land, made between 1096 and 1291, especially on the First ...