Podcast #53: Give Peace a Chance, Man!

60 July 19, 2015 by

53_finalIn this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian begin by discussing whether they feel like they are aging too quickly (in one of their cases) or not quickly enough (in the case of the other). We then address why it is that Christian is “really open” about his personal life (at least about the things he didn’t insist Jason delete from the final version of the show), while Jason seems to be less so. We then turn our attention to the issue of pacifism and whether religious people should be less warmonger-y than they tend to be in this country, after which we tackle the issue of why the youth in Asia are all killing themselves in Europe. Jason is biebered by the increasing obsolescence of the human brain, while Christian’s bieber involves slowing down for cops.

Also, how stoked is that teenaged Albuquerque kid that Heisenberg totally nailed his mom?

Links from this Episode:

60 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. Random thoughts…

    – I loved the Daredevil show. The action scenes were pretty brutal.

    – You’re right, there is a difference between individual Christians choosing pacifism (which we should) and nations. But when you claim a country is a Christian nation, I would expect that country to act like it and not go abroad seeking monsters to destroy and blow up other country’s shit.

    Scripturally speaking, John the Baptist told Roman soldiers to act ethically. Don’t steal. Don’t extort or abuse their power, but didn’t tell them to resign.

    There is a contentious objector status you can claim as a religious (and non-religious) person that will exempt you from combat duty, but you’d still have to serve in a support staff position (cook, chaplain, logistics, etc.)

    Jesus does not leave a lot of room to allow for violence among his followers. Violence and coercion are values that are part of our culture. They are part of values of the kingdom of this world. In Revelation, one of the condemnations of Babylon (the world’s systems) is that it was filled with violence.

    And I think we, in America, have embraced violence to the degree that it is the preferred solution to any given problem, foreign or domestic.

    People are using drugs? Let’s kick in their doors, chuck in a few flashbangs, and drag them out.

    This other country isn’t doing what we want it to do? Let’s bomb the shit out of it.

    That black kid is walking in my neighborhood with Skittles and iced tea? Let’s shoot him.

    Those other black kids are playing their music too loud and gave me the finger, let’s shoot them too.

    My rights. My safety. My protection. Me. Not God. Not faith. Just me. The long gunman protecting the town against the hordes of vandals and chaos.

    We need more pacifists in this country.

    – I haven’t watched Braveheart since I saw it in theaters. I realize this makes me a bad human being, but I actually think I preferred the sequel where Braveheart wins the Revolutionary war.

    – I’m a dad, so I can’t imagine the sort of agony that would go into that sort of decision. And while I don’t think kids are old enough to make that decision alone as to whether or not they should live or die, but I’m rather hesitant to tell a kid who has known nothing but pain for months or years of his very brief life that he must continue to suffer perhaps for several more years because God said so.

    – Jesus Christ, no. Hell, no. Can you imagine the sort of constitution we’d get today if we let people rewrite it? America would be defined as a Christian nation. Any other religions or the irreligious would be told to pound sand. Prayer in schools. Creationism given equal time with Evolutionism.

    Probably a law that would require guns to be everywhere and stand your ground enshrined as an amendment.

    Hell, the banks would probably love to get indentured servitude back in lieu of bankruptcy protections. Abortion would definitely go back to the states. Citizenship would require both parents to be citizens.

    Just leave the constitution alone.

  2. The military service as a Christian is an interesting question for me. Incidentally, I joined the Navy right out of high school (late 90s peace time) for the money for college. Which brings up a separate question as to lower income citizens, people with less privilege in society, are the ones who typically carry the brunt of protecting other people’s greater privilege, but I digress.

    I did 6 years in the Navy (as nuclear reactor operator on a carrier), then said eff being in the Navy, turned down $60k reenlistment bonus, and went to college (where I became a Christian) got a master’s in electrical engineering. I am now, ironically, a civilian engineer for the Navy. I can definitely see where a Christian can be a pacifist. Although, I’m not one. And just like Comrade said below, Jesus didn’t tell Roman soldiers to stop being soldiers; He told them to do their job in a just way. Which I try to do. Not to mention, the Catholic church does have a just war theory.

    As for the question extended to the Christian state, it does have the power of the sword:

    For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. – Romans 13:4

    Does a Christian nation, wielding the power of the sword, get to act differently than an individual Christian? I think so. A Christian nation, as a nation, has been given the authority (like any other nation when acting as God’s servants) to manifest the Father’s justice in this world. An authority not given to individual Christians.

  3. Christian, I want to hear more about the church you planted 20 years ago, and this video. You guys went on a tangent and never came back to it, to my mild frustration.

  5. My wife and I love the Mindy Project. If you haven’t already, check out the New Girl. Hilarious.

  6. Jason, you are a liberal, and thus think the world is headed for Star Trek instead of Mad Max, why does it matter if technology is replacing your brain? What are you worried about? Everything is going to be fine, no need to worry about technology failing and humanity needing to fall back on skill sets of past generations. Just sit back and embrace the change. Be careful, you might be accidently thinking like a conservative. 😉

  8. My first objection would be with the idea of a ‘Christian nation’. The idea seems like an oxymoron. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. The nations of the world are. So I would be very skeptical that any organized nation-state could be ‘Christian’.

    And given the supposed claims of God-sanctioned violence that nations have used to justify atrocities, murder, and genocides over the millennia, I think that skepticism is well-founded.

  9. First I would like too point out that it was John the Baptist, not Jesus, who spoke too the soldiers. Second I think it’s worth noting that Romans 13 is not talking about a “Christian state” its talking about Christians submiting to the gouvernment and the gouvernment in Rome at the time this was written was brutally persacuting Christians. So Whatever Paul is actualy trying to say hear there’s no way he’s defending a Christian gouvernments use of violence.

  11. – Jesus Christ, no. Hell, no. Can you imagine the sort of constitution we’d get today if we let people rewrite it? America would be defined as a Christian nation. Any other religions or the irreligious would be told to pound sand. Prayer in schools. Creationism given equal time with Evolutionism.

    I often find myself in lockstep with your comments/thoughts but on this point, I have to dissent slightly. Democracy, as we have discovered, is a messy state of affairs at the best of times and while I am not in favour of a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution, I am in favour of the fact that Democracy has to evolve with the times and with its people. Admittedly, I’ve not had the time yet to listen to this week’s podcast, so I don’t want to comment too much further.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143354018/reconstituting-the-constitution-how-to-rewrite-it && http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-james-madison-17/

  14. First I wasn’t saying that the Church and the state should be merged into one entity; their roles are different. Although, I don’t think the government should not be atheist either. However, I’m more interested in Christian individuals involved in the governance of a nation: is it legitimate for Christians to be in the military; can a Christian POTUS send troops into war; and so forth. I think they can. I do believe that Romans 13 is talking about civil governments in general, unless you think that the Roman empire is the only rulers that are God’s servants? Probably not. So, in general, a civil government has the authority to use the sword. Further, I think a civil government should take their role as God’s servant seriously, by legitimately using their authority.

  15. Hmmm, I’ll have to listen back to remember what I was saying. I’m not sure which video you are referring to. As for planting churches, I was part of planting 3 in Hungary, one of which I ended up pastoring for 4 years. It was in Debrecen, Hungary, which is close to Romania and the 2nd largest city in Hungary. It was a Calvary Chapel.

  18. Oh, I did? Ha ha. Yeah, there was a post on FB. I’m not sure I’d be able to share it with you. I’m not actually in it. It’s of the church’s 15 or 20 year anniversary I think.

  19. Oh okay, maybe there wasn’t much to the story. But it’s really cool that a church you planted so long ago is still alive! (At least I think so)

  22. In theory amending the constitution might be a good thing, but (and maybe this is my liberal bias showing) but I’d be more okay with thinking about revising the Constitution if Republicans didn’t outright control Congress and 24 state legislatures and control at least one chamber in another 18.

    The GOP currently has sort of lost its marbles, and I imagine the sort of amendments they would work towards passing in a Constitutional Convention would look a lot like what I wrote: more of our God, more guns, no abortion, more corporate rights, etc.

  24. Hello, the crusades! The first couple, against popular opinion, I’ve heard argued to be just wars.

  26. Tell that to the Jews who died (perhaps even some who were burned alive in their synagogue), were deported from their homes, underwent forced conversion, or were stripped of their property or money by the avarice of the Crusaders.

  27. I agree that we are told the gouvernment has the sword for a reason. However, I also believe that Jesus taught his folowers non violence. I mean if you really love your enimies I don’t think you’re going to kill them. These two beliefs lead me to feel like Christians should not be involved in the gouvernment the army or any other organisation that engorages the use of violence. Also, the Crusades were some of the worst mistakes in the history of Christianity and any atempt to justify them is total bullshit.

  29. Modern historians have pretty much debunked the whole “crusades were evil and unjust”. I’m not just talking about christian scholars either. The data is in. Those wars were bitchin

  31. No war is rosy. There are always unintended consequences that come with soldiers and blood lust. However, the Jewish massacres were never the intention of the crusades. Rather, they represent collateral damage.

    Many times the bishops did all they could to protect the Jewish population. For example, during the first crusade a group broke off in Germany to massacre the large Jewish population that had settled along the Rhine. In their first attempt, the bishop actually cut off several crusaders hands to send a message that they should leave the Jews alone. Unfortunately, this message was ignored, and these crusaders sacked several cities, killing thousands of Jewish families. This is certainly horrendous, but it was not the intention of the crusades. The war itself was a just war. It was a holy war. It was a christian war against evil. Unfortunately, it wasn’t always executed perfectly, but that doesn’t mean that the cause wasn’t righteous.

  32. However, the Jewish massacres were never the intention of the crusades. Rather, they represent collateral damage.

    Well, so long as that wasn’t the original intention of the war, I’m sure Jesus was proud of all the wanton torture, enslavement, and murder of civilians.

    Many times the bishops did all they could to protect the Jewish population. And

    Many times they did this not out of Christian charity, but because the Jews paid them hefty sums of money to beg their protection, which often did not suffice.

    So I repeat my statement. There are no Christian wars in history. Just wars. In all of their terrible, horrid, blood soaked, widows and orphans crying, mass graves, ethnic cleansing ‘glory’.

    We sometimes cannot avoid fighting a war, but that doesn’t make them good.

  33. Comrade,

    Well, so long as that wasn’t the original intention of the war, I’m sure Jesus was proud of all the wanton torture, enslavement, and murder of civilians.

    Intention matters. Sam Harris has a great thought experiment here. Imagine that human beings had invented the perfect weapon. This weapon is infallibly accurate and always kills in one shot. Further, the “perfect weapon” never produces collateral damage of any kind. The point that I was trying to make was that if you gave the crusaders “the perfect weapon” before they set out they would not have killed any jews. The intentions were pure and just, even if the execution was not.

    Many times they did this not out of Christian charity, but because the Jews paid them hefty sums of money to beg their protection, which often did not suffice.

    Really? Could you please tell us which times this was the case? Start with the first crusade. Be specific and provide evidence that the christians who aided them were only in it for the money.

    So I repeat my statement. There are no Christian wars in history. Just wars. In all of their terrible, horrid, blood soaked, widows and orphans crying, mass graves, ethnic cleansing ‘glory’.

    Your statement is false. There have been numerous christian wars in history and the crusades are one blindingly obvious example. The presence of collateral damage and rogue soldiers does not negate the fact that it was a christian war.

  34. The intention of many crusaders was to simply punish, steal from, and kill the infidels. Whatever you imagine the motives of the pope who called the crusades were, the motives of those who fought were violence, glory, escape, piety, and punishing non-Christians of any stripe.

    Really? Could you please tell us which times this was the case? Start with the first crusade. Be specific and provide evidence that the christians who aided them were only in it for the money.

    You should try reading some Jewish sources, not just the Catholic apologists who are desperate to justify a black mark on the institution into something wonderful, glorious, and loving.

    the crusades are one blindingly obvious example

    One blinding example of how war dehumanizes man and opens the door for him to engage in his worst impulses against his neighbor, violating every precept of the Christian creed. So no, I do not agree that the Crusades qualify as a Christian war. Fuck the pope’s intentions. He unleashed pain, misery, murder, suffering, and sin. He and the Eastern Emperor might have seen the war as necessary to push back against the gains of Muslim kings, but that does not make it a Christian war.

  35. The first bands of crusaders arrived outside Cologne on April 12, 1096. For a month they left the Jews in peace, perhaps because the Jews of France had given Peter the Hermit a letter asking the Jewish communities he passed through on his journey to supply him and his followers with all the food they required, in exchange for Peter’s undertaking to use his influence in their favor. However, the swelling throng of crusaders, which surpassed all expectations, and the religious frenzy preceding the departure of the army rapidly induced a change of mood which rendered the influence of Peter the Hermit ineffectual. Aware of the inherent danger in the situation, the leaders of the Mainz community hastily dispatched a delegation to Emperor Henry IV, who wrote immediately to the princes, bishops, and counts of the empire to forbid them to harm the Jews. Godfrey himself replied that he had never had any such intention. For their greater security, the communities of Cologne and Mainz each presented him with a gift of 500 pieces of silver, and he promised to leave them in peace, which he did.

    More…

    On the 23rd of Iyyar (May 18, 1096) Worms suffered a similar fate. The crusaders first massacred the Jews who had remained in their houses, then, eight days later, those who had sought an illusory refuge in the bishop’s castle. The victims numbered about 800; only a few accepted conversion and survived, the great majority choosing to be killed or suicide rather than apostasy. Hearing of the massacre, the Jews of Mainz asked for the bishop’s protection, paying him 400 pieces of silver to this end. When the crusaders, led by Emicho, arrived outside the town on the third of Sivan (May 27, 1096), the burghers hastened to open the gates. The Jews took up arms under the leadership of Kalonymus b. Meshullam. Weakened through fasting, for they had hoped to avert the disaster through exemplary piety, the Jews had to retreat to the bishop’s castle; however the latter could do nothing for them, as he himself had to flee before the combined assault of crusaders and burghers. After a brief struggle, a wholesale massacre ensued. More than 1,000 Jews met their deaths, either at the enemy’s hands or their own.

    And more…

    The few Jews who remained at Mainz owed their lives to the Diet which had convened there; and in the course of the proceedings the emperor and his son forbade on direst penalties any interference with the Jews, threatening death to anyone who killed a Jew. These warnings were echoed by the bishops, who threatened excommunication for those who persecuted Jews. All this had cost the Jews of the empire huge sums, and, more than ever before, they became dependent on the favors and the passing whims of their masters.

  36. The intention of many crusaders was to simply punish, steal from, and kill the infidels. Whatever you imagine the motives of the pope who called the crusades were, the motives of those who fought were violence, glory, escape, piety, and punishing non-Christians of any stripe.

    First, I just can’t help but marvel at how irrelevant this comment is. Many of the soldiers who fought in world War 2 may have only intended to punish, steal from, and kill Japanese. Yet, that does not make world war 2 about punishing and looting Japanese villages. Second, while it is true that thuggish actors were present, by and large it is believed that the atmosphere was filled with piety. I can quote the best scholars in the field on this at length if you would like. The idea that people were mainly in it for the money is today considered a myth. Whomever you are reading is 50 years behind the times.

    You should try reading some Jewish sources, not just the Catholic apologists who are desperate to justify a black mark on the institution into something wonderful, glorious, and loving.

    I’m a history major. I’ve read through the literature numerous times and I hardly ever get the pleasure of reading a Catholic apologist on this topic. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. The fact is that numerous popes, bishops, priests, and laymen struggled to protect the Jews from straying thugs. The men who killed the Jews did so against their own marching orders in every instance (unless they were fighting alongside muslims). Again, in WW2 U.S. soldiers committed war crimes….. that does not mean world war 2 was fought for those crimes or with those crimes in mind. Repeat after me… “intentions matter”.

    So no, I do not agree that the Crusades qualify as a Christian war. Fuck the pope’s intentions. He unleashed pain, misery, murder, suffering, and sin. 

    *facepalm* so the crusades were not a christian war because there was violence involved and some people committed war crimes. Now *thats* convincing. Nevermind the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent women and children the muslims had stolen from their homes and forced into slavery. Never mind the *nonstop* jihad that was being waged all over the middle east, africa, and medeteranian. Never mind that the muslims were conquering land after land, taking the women as sex slaves and subjecting the rest of the population to sharia law. Forget that the primary motivation of most of the crusaders was piety, penance, and protecting their Christian brothers and sisters. Guess its really not important that it was the Popes who called this war and that *christians* from every corner of europe were the ones who showed up to fight. Never mind that virtually every single history text on the planet would describe these events as religious conflicts between islam and christianity. Nah, still not a christian war. There was violence and war crimes n stuff.

    Puh-lease

  37. Two out of the three citations provide no evidence that the bishops, priests, and lay christians who helped the Jews *during the attack* did so because they were paid off. It only shows (if the sources are reliable…. you didnt share them, so who knows) that the Jews paid to protect their interests before and after the events themselves. So all together you have one single instance of the Jews paying for the help they recieved and the bishop that helped them ended up having to flee for his life because the crusaders wanted to kill him for helping! Meanwhile, the fact remains that the bishops, priests, and lay people did in fact protect the Jews in every instance, not just this one. I hope you can see that this is hardly an objection to the crusades being a just and Noble war. Collateral damage happens. War crimes take place all the time. That doesn’t define the war itself.

  38. First, I just can’t help but marvel at how irrelevant this comment is. Many of the soldiers who fought in world War 2 may have only intended to punish, steal from, and kill Japanese. Yet, that does not make world war 2 about punishing and looting Japanese villages.

    Ah, okay, so in defining your ‘Christian” war, the only intentions that matter to you are the stated intentions of the leadership. Well, under that definition, then I suppose every war would qualify as Christian because everyone always has a really good reason for committing violence and atrocities against their fellow man.

    *facepalm* so the crusades were not a christian war because there was violence involved and some people committed war crimes. Now *thats* convincing.

    Okay let’s look at Christian doctrine:

    Blessed are the merciful,

    for they will be shown mercy.

    8 Blessed are the pure in heart,

    for they will see God.

    9 Blessed are the peacemakers,

    for they will be called children of God.

    21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

    52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

    This would be quotes just from Matthew. I can go on to the other books if you like.

    Violence and the words of Jesus are not compatible. I’m aware that Catholic teachings on the matter have evolved beyond the words of Jesus, and I have stated that one can argue the necessity of some wars, but given the level of suffering, misery, and violence involved in war, you cannot reconcile war with the teachings of Christ. War by its nature is going to perpetuate injustice for some. All attempts to Christianize it are simply human calculations that try to say “Well, some injustice is better than other injustice.”

    Guess its really not important that it was the Popes who called this war and that *christians* from every corner of europe were the ones who showed up to fight. Never mind that virtually every single history text on the planet would describe these events as religious conflicts between islam and christianity.

    Ah, okay. We’re using two different meanings of the word Christian.

    Well, if you’re using “Christian” to refer to the religion, then alright. The Crusades were a Christian war against Muslims.

    I’m using “Christian” as an adjective that defines something as consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Which war is not.

  39. Who cares if it was “Christian” war(s) or not? Were the Crusades, in your mind, justifiable, if so, why? I’m honestly curious. Whether or not these invaders played nice with the Jews doesn’t really matter if the only reason they (Christians) were there was because a guy heard God tell him they should go do it.

    How does this parallel to America’s manifest destiny? God loves and favors America so we should expand from coast to coast. Oh, hey native people, sorry, this is our land now, God told us so. Here are some blankets. #intentionsmatter

  40. Mormons are flexible. God can change things on His divine prerogative. He just needs to let the Mormon prophets know and they’ll pass along the word to the rest.

    See example: When old timey racism was no longer considered appropriate, suddenly God sent a message that black folks were okay after all and could serve in the Mormon temples.

  41. Folks have always used religion to motivate men to kill and be killed in war. But the first crusade was a bit more complex than God telling the Pope to go to war with Muslims.

    The Seljuq Turks had been expanding their Empire throughout Turkey, pushing westward conquering both Islamic tribes and lands that were in the control of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines responded. Their armies were defeated and the Empire (like it had many times before in the Roman era) plunged into chaos, from which Alexius I took the throne and began to consolidate power against his rivals.

    After pushing the Seljuqs back from Constantinople, he contacted Pope Urban II in order to get aid to consolidate his power and win back the territory the Turks had taken during the chaos.

    Pope Urban saw an opportunity politically to possibly heal the schism between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church and ordered the First Crusade. He appealed to the Christian kings of the West in religious language and perhaps many of them were motivated by religious fervor, but it wasn’t God speaking to the Pope or the Eastern Emperor really. It was politics and religion.

    The later Byzantine Emperors probably regretted Alexius’ appeal when Western Christian soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked Byzantium and allowed the Seljuqs the opportunity for further expansion into the Empire.

  43. The Republican Party of today has been steadily built up since the Goldwater crushing in ’64 and really the last 35 years (the Reagan administration) has been all about putting the agenda in practice. Despite all that, and even though I agree with everything you said about how horrible the possible Republican amendments would be, I am principally for the idea of treating the Constitution as a living document. Or at least the idea that it is a document written by men (people) for people and not akin to some holy scripture.

  44. Hi mike,

    The crusades were a defensive war (called way to late) in response to Muslim aggression. It would be like if the Pope today called for a war on terror and christians from all over the world banded together to liberate their Christian brothers and sister in syria, iraq, iran, etc. The only difference being that during the time of the crusades Islam was only just beginning to conquer and convert these lands, where as today they have had established muslim populations for hundreds of years.

    In short, the crusades were a christian response to jihad.

  45. Comrade,

    If your only point is that your interpretation of scripture necessarily excludes any violence whatsoever as being just then that’s a very different topic.

    The Crusading movement was a Catholic movement. Popes called for Crusades, clerics (and saints) preached them, ecumenical councils planned and discussed them, and Catholic warriors fought them for spiritual benefits. The Crusades cannot be properly understood apart from this Catholic reality. 

    Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to  visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history.

    The crusades were christian wars in every sense of the word. That does not mean that every single crusader was a saint, or that no sins were committed during these wars. You don’t categorize an event in history by the exceptions, but by the general rule and intention. Are there some terrorist rulers who don’t give a damn about Allah and only fight for money and power? Im sure that there are. But that’s not how we think of jihad, nor should we think of it in that way just because there might be some rogues here or there.

    If you think that the bible condemns all forms of violence that’s fine. I don’t accept “scripture cobbling” as a legit enterprise and so am not impressed with your biblical argument. Anyone can cobble together some scriptures and dream up a rule of faith. I’ve been hanging around an atheist site and get to watch atheists use this same trick in the same way Protestants do. Generally speaking, one can always cobble together scripture and reinforce their personal fancy for any topic under the sun. One of the best reasons to reject Sola scriptural out if hand.

  46. I wanted to comment on the turning the other cheek. I had a conversation with a priest about it once about how it isn’t how people have interpreted it as taking it when someone is violent to you, but rather standing up and having them treat you as an equal. I mentioned it to my lecturer in a Hermeneutics subject i was doing at uni, and he linked me to this article. http://www.cpt.org/files/BN%20-%20Jesus%27%20Third%20Way.pdf

  47. Kenneth, let no man ever accuse you of not being a true believer in the Church.

    If your only point is that your interpretation of scripture necessarily excludes any violence whatsoever as being just then that’s a very different topic.

    War is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels.

    Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home.

    “What Pope Urban II had in mind when he preached the First Crusade was, I think, a variety of quite practical things. He hoped for the reunion of Christendom, which at that time was divided between the Latin Church and the Greek Church. He hoped also to recapture Jerusalem, which had been under Muslim rule for many centuries. And it was also a matter of giving the largely unemployed and over-aggressive nobility of France something to do, get them out of Europe and stop them devastating the … lands. All these factors played a part in his mind. Whether he himself had any particular beliefs about the imminence of the End, that’s really doubtful. But that is what was read into his speech by many uninformed people. … He undoubtedly wanted the knights to go on this great military expedition. He had not foreseen that they would be followed by a mass of upstart peasantry. That, however, is what happened. And it was the peasantry which wreaked the great destructions, the murder of the Jews all down the Rhine and the savage assaults on Muslims by those who got to Jerusalem. – Norman Cohn, author of The Pursuit of the Millennium : Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and Professor Emeritus at Sussex University

    The religious environment of 11th Century Europe was witness to many schisms.The popes were beginning to successfully separate their bishops from the control of secular authorities through their reform initiatives, and the Greek Church was severed from the Roman Church altogether in 1054. These schisms presented the pope with an opportunity to build a legacy for himself, and to regain control over his religious rivals. Calling the First Crusade was the ideal way to accomplish both secular motives. How could the preaching of a “holy war” demonstrate papal authority over his rivals? An understanding of the Cluniac reforms against lay investiture may shed some light. During the 11th Century, “bishops were feudal princes; in some places the episcopacy was an hereditary caste. Meanwhile… the faith of the people was being corrupted by superstition. The problem of reform grew acute.”

    This reform was headquartered in Cluny, France, where Urban was abbot prior to his pontificate. Certain bishops saw the corruption brought about by lay rulers appointing their own clergy. They “realized that the welfare of the Church depended upon freedom from lay control.” This idea eventually grew to the papacy’s claim to the right to depose monarchs and to release subjects from their civil allegiances. Their reasoning: “The Church could not well hope to remain free in the spiritual order without a certain degree of civil control.”

    The ensuing division between opposing points of view (papists vs. imperialists) finally reached extreme positions under Pope Gregory VII and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV around 1075. In fact, “the greatest figure in the papal reform was Gregory VII.” So how did the lay investiture reform influence the motives for the First Crusade? “Gregory had wished (Urban) to succeed him… But the legacy of Gregory was not easy to handle, and the new pope, for all his desire to follow in Gregory’s footsteps, was forced into some very difficult situations.”

    Could the shadow of Gregory’s great legacy have caused Urban to feel a need to create his own legacy, his own place in history? If so, one could speculate that Urban’s secular desire for a legacy might be a partial motivation for his preaching of the First Crusade.

    Twenty years earlier, in 1054, another religious rival to the pope formed when the Greek Orthodox Church separated from the Roman Catholic Church and made the Byzantine Emperor its head. At the same time, however, the Muslim Turks were growing stronger in Asia Minor, thereby presenting a serious immediate threat to the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor asked Pope Gregory VII for military help.

    (He) did not forget that he was the head of a church which had broken away from the Pope… (and he) was always quite willing to heal the schism if the Pope would meet him halfway. (But) no Greek understood that the Pope could not go halfway to compromise with error.

    Gregory did wish to take advantage of the opportunity, however, by means of a crusade. He hoped that this would renew the religious union between West and East, with the former in control, of course. Being a gifted statesman, Gregory crafted a new plan. The holy war, which was being so successfully waged in Spain (against the Moors), should be extended into Asia… His troops would drive the infidel out; … (and) the Christians of the East would resolve their quarrels in grateful humility and acknowledge the supremacy of Rome.

    Gregory never saw his crusade idea come to fruition, however, and it was his successor, Pope Urban II, who took up Gregory’s plans and gave them more definite shape. Not surprisingly, Urban, too, desired to bring the Greek Church back into the Roman fold, and with no compromises. How is a secular motive of the First Crusade? Urban could very well have had purely religious motives behind this reunion of factions. However, one must remember that Emperor Alexius asked the pope to send only mercenaries to assist him (so that any conquests would be won solely for the Empire). Instead, Urban raised a vast army of regulars that remained loyal to himself. This Latin army not only failed to relinquish control of all their conquests to Emperor Alexius, but instead, as expected, they converted their conquests into their own Latin kingdoms. Perhaps Urban had this secular power struggle in mind, keeping his religious rival in check until they submitted to Rome, when he raised this great army. – The Secular Motivations of the First Crusade by George Vicari, Jr., Major, USAF

    Sources:

    McSorley, Joseph. An Outline History of The Church by Centuries: From St. Peter to Pius XII (St. Louis, M.O.: B. Herder Book Co., 1949), 290

    Corbett, James A. The Papacy: A Brief History (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Norstrand Co., Inc., 1956), 29.

    John, Eric, F.R.Hist.S. The Popes: A Concise History (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1964), 208.

    Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. 3 vols. (London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1951-1954), 96-97.

    Duggan, Alfred. The Story of the Crusades: 1097-1291 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1964), 21.

    Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. 3 vols. (London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1951-1954), 99.

  48. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor…

    Soon after Peter the Hermit and Urban II. had aroused the enthusiasm of French chivalry at the Council of Clermont in 1094, Godfrey de Bouillon declared that he would avenge the blood of Jesus on that of the Jews, and leave none of them alive, while his companions threatened to exterminate the Jews if they would not become converted. The Judæo-French communities accordingly sent letters to those on the Rhine, who thereupon appointed a fastday to avert the evil (Jan., 1096); and when Godfrey de Bouillon came to Cologne and Mayence each community made him a present of 500 silver marks to secure his protection. When Peter of Amiens arrived with the crusaders at Treves early in 1096, he did not directly arouse the people against the Jews, but left a general ill will against them throughout Lorraine, especially through the influence of the knight Volkmar, who declared that he would not leave the kingdom until he had slain at least one Jew. In the spring of 1096 twenty-two Jews were slain at Metz, and on May 3 the crusaders and accompanying rabble attacked the Jews of Speyer, slaying eleven of them and only being restrained by the exertions of Bishop John from putting them all to death in the synagogue. On May 18 the Jews of Worms were all slain except a few who were forcibly baptized or who took refuge with the bishop. Their houses were destroyed, and even the corpses denuded. Many slew themselves rather than fall into the hands of the mob. The bishop’s palace was stormed a week later, and all those within it were put to death. The number of the slain is said to have amounted to 800, though the extant list of names reaches only 400 (Salfeld, “Martyrologium,” p. 107). One of the richest Jewesses, named Minna, when surrounded by the mob and implored by some of her friends among the nobles to accept baptism, resolutely refused and was put to death. Several were drowned, and Mar Shemariah with his whole family was buried alive amid the jeers of the mob, who nevertheless during the entombment offered in vain to grant them safety if they would become converted.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html#1

    And you’ll know we are Christians by our love… by our love…

    On the same day Count Emicho arrived at Mayence with a numerous band of crusaders, but he was not admitted by the archbishop Ruthard, who had promised protection to the Jews. Two days later, however, Emicho forced admission through a side gate, and, notwithstanding the armed defense of the Jews, succeeded in destroying them all except Kalonymus, the president of the congregation, and fifty-three others, who hid themselves in the treasure-house of the cathedral. A number of Jews who had defended themselves all day in a fortified position found it untenable as night came on, and, rather than fallinto the hands of the enemy, killed themselves. The corpses after being stripped were cast into nine graves; they are said to have numbered 1,014. Mar Isaac ben David, after having submitted to baptism, burned down his own house and the synagogue and perished in the flames, because it had been rumored that the Christians intended to turn the synagogue into a church. Kalonymus and his 53 companions were taken by bishop Ruthard in boats to Rüdesheim and kept there for some time; but on June 1 he declared he could not protect them unless they submitted to baptism. They determined to slay themselves rather than do this, and Kalonymus put his own son Joseph to death, and then, wild with grief, attempted to kill the archbishop, but was prevented and killed.

    The crusaders again attacked the houses and synagogue of the Jews of Cologne on May 30; but here the citizens protected the Jews in their own houses until Archbishop Hermann, on June 3, sent them for safety to seven neighboring villages, Neuss, Wevelinghofen, Altenahr, Xanten, Geldern, Mörs, and Kerpen. The crusaders followed them to these places, killing 200 in Neuss and Altenahr, in several cases throwing old women and young children into the river (Salfeld, “Martyrologium,” p. 133); forcing them to be baptized at Geldern and Kerpen; while in Wevelinghofen, Altenahr, and Xanten the Jews slew themselves rather than change their faith. The 300 Jews of Cologne who found themselves at Altenahr selected five men to slay the rest. In the month of June the crusaders reached Treves, and some of the Jews at once slew themselves, a number of Jewesses throwing themselves into the river. The rest betook themselves to the palace of Archbishop Egbert, who attempted in a sermon to persuade the people to spare the Jews, but was himself maltreated and besieged in his palace for a week, at the end of which he told the Jews there was no hope for their lives but in baptism. When they still remained obdurate some of them were exposed by him to the crusaders, who immediately slew them. The rest thereupon accepted baptism. The same fate befell the Jews of Regensburg, while those of Magdeburg were expelled. The crusaders on their march through Bohemia forced the Jews to become baptized, killing those who refused, notwithstanding the remonstrances of Bishop Cosmas. Next year, however, on the return of Emperor Henry from Italy, he granted them permission to revert to their ancestral faith (Pertz, “Monumenta,” ii. 181), notwithstanding the protests of Pope Clement III. (Jaffe, “Regesta,” No. 5336). The Jews of the Rhine district were decimated: it has been calculated that about 4,000 were killed or slew themselves. The few survivors of Mayence who had taken refuge at Speyer did not return to their old homes until 1104, when a new synagogue was dedicated (September 22). When the crusaders at last stormed Jerusalem, July 15, 1099, they drove all the Jews into one of the synagogues and there burned them alive.

    Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love…

    The crusades were christian wars in every sense of the word.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    That does not mean that every single crusader was a saint

    Sure there were maybe twenty or thirty thousand bad apples, but no true Christian…

    “Count Raymond and his men, who were attacking the wall on the other side, did not yet know of all this, until they saw the Saracens leap from the wall in front of them. Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.” Emphasis added.

    Source: Fulk (or Fulcher) of Chartres, Gesta Francorum Jerusalem Expugnantium[The Deeds of the Franks Who Attacked Jerusalem]

    “This may seem strange to you. Our squires and poorer footmen discovered a trick of the Saracens, for they learned that they could find byzants [note: a gold coin] in the stomachs and intestines of the dead Saracens, who had swallowed them. Thus, after several days they burned a great heap of dead bodies, that they might more easily get the precious metal from the ashes. Moreover, Tancred broke into the temple of the Lord and most wrongfully stole much gold and silver, also precious stones, but later, repenting of his action, after everything had been accounted for, be restored all to its former place of sanctity.

    The carnage over, the crusaders entered the houses and took whatever they found in them. However, this was all done in such a sensible manner that whoever entered a house first received no injury from any one else, whether he was rich or poor. Even though the house was a palace, whatever he found there was his property. Thus many poor men became rich.”

    Source: Fulk (or Fulcher) of Chartres, Gesta Francorum Jerusalem Expugnantium[The Deeds of the Franks Who Attacked Jerusalem]

    “The Jewish chronicler, Solomon bar Samson, 1096.

    “At this time arrogant people, a people of strange speech, a nation bitter and impetuous {impulsive} Frenchmen and Germans, set out for the Holy City, which had been desecrated {a violation of sacredness} by barbaric nations, there to seek their house of idolatry {worship of idols} and banish {expel} the Ishmaelites {Muslims} and other denizens {inhabitants} of the land…Their ranks swelled until the number of men, women, and children exceeded a locust horde {large nomadic group} covering the earth;…Now it came to pass that as they passed through the towns where Jews dwelled, they said to one another: ‘Look now, we are going a long way to seek out the profane {vulgar} shrine and to avenge ourselves on the Ismaelites; when here, in our midst, are the Jews—they whose forefathers murdered and crucified him for no reason. Let us first avenge ourselves on them and exterminate them from among the nations so that the name of Israel will no longer be remembered, or let them adopt our faith and acknowledge the offspring of promiscuity {casual sex}.’”

    “The preaching of these men was so enormously influential that the inhabitants of nearly every region, by common vows, offered themselves freely for common destruction. Not only the ordinary people, but kings, dukes, marquises, and other powerful men of this world as well, believed that they thus showed their allegiance to God. The bishops, archbishops, abbots, and other ministers and prelates of the church joined in this error, throwing themselves headlong into it to the great peril of bodies and souls…. The intentions of the various men were different. Some, indeed, lusted after novelties and went in order to learn about new lands. Others there were who were driven by poverty, who were in hard straits at home; these men went to fight, not only against the enemies of Christ’s cross, but even against the friends of the Christian name, wherever opportunity appeared, in order to relieve their poverty. There were others who were oppressed by debts to other men or who sought to escape the service due to their lords, or who were even awaiting the punishment merited by their shameful deeds. Such men simulated a zeal for God and hastened chiefly in order to escape from such troubles and anxieties. A few could, with difficulty, be found who had not bowed their knees to Baal, who were directed by a holy and wholesome purpose, and who were kindled by love of the divine majesty to fight earnestly and even to shed their blood for the holy of holies.” Source: Annales Herbipolenses, s.a. 1147, in MGH, SS, XVI, 3, translated by James Brundage,

    If you think that the bible condemns all forms of violence that’s fine. I don’t accept “scripture cobbling” as a legit enterprise and so am not impressed with your biblical argument. Anyone can cobble together some scriptures and dream up a rule of faith.

    Well, if I can’t trust the recorded words of Jesus, I might as well trust a bunch of men with funny hats to tell me what Jesus really meant.

  49. And mind you, those few sins that accompanied the grand Christian war I’ve cited are only the ones from Germany and Jerusalem thus far. There are others.

    And we haven’t even gotten past the First Crusade yet. I can’t wait to see how the sacking of Constantinople and the killing of Orthodox Christians by Western Christians in the name of politics and looting gets justified.

  51. Interesting. So can we call the Crusades the War of Muslim Aggression now ;-)? Thanks Kenneth!

  53. It doesn’t get justified. It was a disaster. That entire crusade was excommunicated well before they even reached Constantinople. They essentially didn’t plan their finances properly, and just started looting their way across the world in order to fund their pilgrimage. It goes without saying that this wasn’t the original intention of the crusade. The commanders hid papal letters and excommunications from the rank and file crusaders. Just another group gone rogue.

  54. Just another group gone rogue.

    Another one? Man, they tend to do that quite a bit, don’t they? It’s almost as if war wasn’t a good thing. 🙂

  56. But most telling to me is not Mr. Trump’s bombast, his refusal to show any remorse for his comments about Senator McCain, but his admission that there is not a single time in his life that he sought the forgiveness of God.

    A man too arrogant, too self-absorbed, to seek God’s forgiveness is precisely the type of leader John Adams prayed would never occupy the White House.

    One of the things that I think Judaism has a better handle on than Christians sometimes is that seeking forgiveness with God requires the sinner to first seek out the forgiveness of those men and women he sinned against and make things right by his actions.

    Rick Perry’s statement that I quoted in which he says that he’s more concerned with Donald Trump not throwing up a ‘my bad, Jesus’ to the heavens than he is with Trump’s refusal to apologize to John McCain for his negative words and slurs is I think a common mistake that Evangelical Christians make in which we view God as being offended by sin because it violates some code He has set, rather than God being offended by sin because of the pain it causes to people He loves. And thus seeking the forgiveness of God is more paramount than making amends with the people we hurt.

    I would dare say that if there is genuine remorse and one seeks out to set right what he did wrong and bring reconciliation and healing to the people he hurt, that God is okay if you forget to throw up a ‘Sorry about that, Lord’ in His direction.

  57. My christian faith is what informs the pro-interventionist politics I subscribe to. The liberals on here are all for “loving thy neighbor” when it comes to the government ramming crappy insurance down our throat. Yet, when innocent people are getting massacred in other countries all I hear is “give peace a chance”. After all, they aren’t invading our country, no skin off our backs, not our problems, etc. I find this to be hideously inconsistent. You want to love your neighbor with finances, but not with protection from evil dictators, evil clerics, and war lords? I think that the Christian paradigm DEMANDS we always do what we can for those too weak to protect themselves. If we sacrifice American lives and money in the process, well, love your neighbor.

  58. I think I might have an issue with the assertion that Christ demands that we save innocents by going to war and killing other innocent people. Violence begets violence. Iraq being the perfect modern example. Saddam was a brutal, horrible man with blood on his hands. But what did we unleash in stopping him? Terrorism, ISIS, ethnic and sectarian cleansing.

    War is not an easy solution to the problem of evil.

    Why not open our borders to unlimited refugees? Why not take most of the DoD budget and divert it to addressing food insecurity, disease, or other killers of the innocent?

    Why is war always our first go-to answer?

  59. I don’t think that it is always our first go to answer. However, many times, the use of force is necessary. The current war on terror is a great example. It is a really good idea to kill these people before they can accomplish their goals. I think that dessert storm was likewise necessary as was the intervention in Kosovo. The US has certainly had its fair share of head scratching conflicts, but this is more of an ethical discussion than a historical one. Assuming that innocent people are getting killed in droves, does the Christian paradigm those that can protect the weak do so? Or would it be fine to turn and look the other way as a greedy coward? Allowing mass murder is not “giving peace a chance”. IMO this is one of the biggest reasons the Republican party is still competitive in US politics. Liberal views on war and conflict are so far disconnected with reality that, well, one might even allow a nuclear Iran just to avoid confrontation.

  60. However, many times, the use of force is necessary.

    So is it a -1 thing? So long as we kill one less civilian than the enemy would have, it’s a good war? And how far out do we draw the civilian death statistics? Should we include ISIS’ body count on our ledger since our actions helped spawn the organization or do we close our eyes to the consequences of our actions and pretend that only the people our soldiers kill count against us?

    The current war on terror is a great example.

    The current war on terror is a shitty example. We invaded Iraq and unleashed hell on the civilians, including the local Christian community. Our actions directly contributed to the rise of ISIS which has been going about willy-nilly adding to the civilian body count.

    We blast one terror leader with a hellfire rocket and kill a dozen civilians which makes their families that much more sympathetic and likely to take up terrorism against us. Justifying more responses from the US, spawning more terrorists and so on and so forth. Violence begets violence.

Related Posts