CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE CRUSADES ADVANCED THE CAUSE OF CHRIST?

There is no debate as to whether or not the Crusades were successful for all historians agree that after the triumph of the first crusade, the success of subsequent battles declined to a dismal failure. To say that the Crusades advanced the cause of Christ is to say that the body of Christ grew in quantity or that Christianity reached new frontiers as a result of the Crusades either directly or indirectly. However, the Church felt that they had just cause to ignite holy wars on God’s behalf to further Christianity and defend the church from the infidel. Although their efforts and intentions seemed noble at the onset of the Crusades, the papacy twisted their motives around their missions with every advancing crusade and the result was a barely indirect advancement of the cause of Christendom.


As head of a Christian empire and the guardian of Christian orthodoxy, that emperor of Byzantium was responsible for the defense and expansion of Christendom. This role was inherent in his title and was part of his legacy as successor to the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great, and the rescuer of the Holy Cross, Emperor Heraclius.



The attitude of Emperor Heraclius at the time of the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land in 1009 was fueled by pride and not by a sincere obligation to protect artifacts of Christianity. It damaged the emperor’s ego not to be able to protect what he held so much pride in and what was the basis of his authority. The church idolized the religious relics and places even more than the teachings of Christ.

What better solution, than the Roman church coming to rescue its older less competent, weaker sister- the Eastern Orthodox Church. When Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called on Pope Gregory VII, surely the pride of the papacy was boosted. The papacy wanted to sit on the throne of the earthly Jerusalem as the highest office on in the world. What better way to show who was the more powerful, and favored by God than to launch and win a crusade on His behalf. The first crusade was nothing more than the papacy’s, drunk with power, infected with the barbarian fever, attempt at yet another chance to exert its authority over not only its rival, but over the object of its desire. Since Pope Gelasius self exalted his throne in 492 to declare himself the Vicar of Christ, the papacy has methodically raised his position from lowly bishop to the Holy Roman Emperor, even to God’s only representative above all earthy rulers by the decree of Pope Gregory VII. The struggle of investiture was evidence of this argument.

When the church under to rule of Urban II waged a counter attack in 1095 the church used bribery also known as Indulgences, charismatic preaching and propaganda to rally support to fight against the infidel. The church had declared that the bible is to interpreted by the church, therefore, the lay Christian of that time relied on the church for the interpretation of God’s will.

The spread of Christianity meant the spread of the pope’s power. The church fathers swore that the crusade stood for the advancement of the gospel, defenses against the infidels that plagued the Eastern Empire and travelers to the Holy Land, and protection for the safe passage for visitors to the Holy Land. The Crusaders took an oath and were promised immediate forgiveness of sins if they were to perish in battle. Aside from the questionably harsh brutal that they carried out, the intentions of the crusaders seemed to be a pure sincere love of Christianity.

Some theologians of that time tried to argue against or limit Holy War. However, the time called for a strong church that was triumphant against the enemy that oppressed the Church century after century. Chivalry was celebrated especially among the descendants of the barbarian tribes. War still ran through their veins and the western European catholic Christian was too eager to ride out to war in exchange for wealth, honor, land, and forgiveness of sins. Prowler writes,

The Christian Citizen has a fundamental problem to face: Is he entitled to fight for his country? His religion is a religion of peace; and war means slaughter and destruction, the earlier Christian fathers had no doubts. To them a war was wholesale murder. But after the triumph of the Cross, after the empire had become Christendom, ought not its citizens to be ready to take up arms for its welfare ?



One could argue that God was not a pacifist, and there clearly are biblical examples of war. And God could have erected an earthly army to fight for his glory or any reason he could choose. However, Jesus left very specific instructions for how the body of Christ is to deal with enemies, how to deal with authorities and rulers, and how to spread the Gospel. In Matthew 5:44 Jesus tells his disciples to love their enemies, bless them that curse them, do good to those who hate them, and pray for those who persecute them. He tells them in Matthew 22:21 to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul tells us in Romans 13 to submit to authorities and that rulers are put in place by the Father and that they are given authority by God to punish evil doers. The bible says in Galatians that “if any man preaches any other gospel …let him be cursed.” What gave the bishop of Rome the right to use the gospel to wage war? Had the Christians of the Middle Ages been encouraged to study the bible for themselves, they could know what the truth and the truth would have set them free. The Holy Wars were not a justified method of spreading the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel did just fine.

Even though the wars were ill-conceived they still could have been an overall success, but they weren’t. The capture of Jerusalem was preceded by and followed by losing crusades. No reason for any of the subsequent crusades even surpassed the first. After Jerusalem was captured by the crusaders the church could not deliver on its promise to populate the Kingdom of Jerusalem with enough settlers and the siege of the nation was short lived. In the East the Christians were outnumbered by Muslims, and Jews. After the Crusades the knights wanted to return to the west. The crusaders technique of conversion was bloody and encouraged the hate of Christianity among the Muslims and Jews.

The crusades were still ingrained in the hearts of the Europeans in the fifteenth century. Time passed but the crusader never died. In the 14 and fifteenth century the crusader reemerged as the spirit of exploration. The explorers remembered the chivalry and cause of the crusades and vowed to Christianize the new world. Christopher Columbus wrote, “The Gospels need be diffused all over the world and the Holy city of Jerusalem has to be given back to the Christian Church .” Although the main motivation for exploration was to conquer new lands for the crown, because of the misconception that the world was smaller than it was, there was a notion that Islam could be attacked from its back door from the east.

History can attest to how successful the exploration age was in establishing Christianity in the new world. The crusade spirit indeed succeeded in the advancement of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but not immediately as the Church thought in the eleventh century. By the age of explorations most of Europe was Christian. In the end God get’s the glory, because, regardless of the motives of sinful men God is in control and his agenda remains intact. God’s will was and is that the gospel reaches the end of the earth. History shows that He used a corrupt church to bring about his will. As for the Roman Catholic Church, the bible says that God will not be mocked, for that which you reap; you shall also sow (Gal 6:7). What the Church reaped for all of the corruption and ill-conceived activity was Reformation and collapses of absolute power.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Oxford, England: Lion Publishing Plc, 2006.

Prawler, Joshua. The First Crusade. London: The Folio Society, 1951.

—. The World of the Crusaders. London: Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1972.

Riley-Smith, Jonathan. What Were the Crusades? London, England: Thr MacMillan Press, LTD., 1977.

Robinson, J. John. Dungeon Fire & Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades. new York, New York: M. Evans and Company. Inc., 1991.