JUST WAR PART 4: UNDER THE INFLUENCE (CRUSADES)
PREVIOUS POSTS IN THIS SERIES:
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 3: AQUINAS BUILDS
It's not enough to discuss what theological bricks each builder of Just War doctrine contributed to the Just War platform most modern day Americans and politicians stand upon and preach from. Not only is it not enough but it's not the point of this series.
The main benefit to me in studying Just War, and the history of other modern Christian beliefs, has been gaining a better understanding of how we Christians have historically decided what is "right" and "wrong". What influences theologians and people like you and me on the every day quest towards truths big and small? What should influence us?
So the last post in this series jumped to Aquinas' conclusions about what makes war just. But today's contribution backtracks to unearth what might have influenced - what probably did influence - his theology of war.
Like Augustine, fearful of losing the Catholic Church and his nation to warring parties within and without, Aquinas may also have been shaped by the wars of his day. The crusades, now admitted by the Catholic church as a grave mistake and misrepresentation of God's values on earth, had just ended - and ended badly - when Aquinas wrote about war. The crusades were a series of wars waged by the Catholic Church (only Western European Christians at the time) and Rome. They were carried out at the demand of Pope Gregory VII in an effort to claim cities considered holy by both Muslims and Christians. Muslims had used force to prohibit Christians from making pilgrimages to these holy cities. The campaigns of the crusades (seven in all) would mean the death of a multitude of Muslims and Catholics - men, women and children - soldiers, civilians and clergy.
The Church leaders of his day seem to have unanimously accepted these wars as tragic but also holy and God pleasing.
Aquinas, born in 1225 AD, was twenty-three when the seventh and last crusade battle ended. While I have been unable to find any writings by Aquinas explaining whether or not and to what extent the crusades affected his theology of war, it's reasonable to assume isn't it that such a lengthy military effort instigated by the Popes and Church he pledged his life to would have some affect on such matters? Reasonable in the same way we can assume the views of war held by us patriotic modern American Christians are somewhat influenced by our nation's past and present military campaigns.
Got thoughts? Post a comment below or discuss on my message-board.
JUST WAR PART 1: THE TIMES OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 2: THE THEORY OF AUGUSTINE
JUST WAR PART 3: AQUINAS BUILDS
It's not enough to discuss what theological bricks each builder of Just War doctrine contributed to the Just War platform most modern day Americans and politicians stand upon and preach from. Not only is it not enough but it's not the point of this series.The main benefit to me in studying Just War, and the history of other modern Christian beliefs, has been gaining a better understanding of how we Christians have historically decided what is "right" and "wrong". What influences theologians and people like you and me on the every day quest towards truths big and small? What should influence us?
So the last post in this series jumped to Aquinas' conclusions about what makes war just. But today's contribution backtracks to unearth what might have influenced - what probably did influence - his theology of war.
Like Augustine, fearful of losing the Catholic Church and his nation to warring parties within and without, Aquinas may also have been shaped by the wars of his day. The crusades, now admitted by the Catholic church as a grave mistake and misrepresentation of God's values on earth, had just ended - and ended badly - when Aquinas wrote about war. The crusades were a series of wars waged by the Catholic Church (only Western European Christians at the time) and Rome. They were carried out at the demand of Pope Gregory VII in an effort to claim cities considered holy by both Muslims and Christians. Muslims had used force to prohibit Christians from making pilgrimages to these holy cities. The campaigns of the crusades (seven in all) would mean the death of a multitude of Muslims and Catholics - men, women and children - soldiers, civilians and clergy.
The Church leaders of his day seem to have unanimously accepted these wars as tragic but also holy and God pleasing.
Aquinas, born in 1225 AD, was twenty-three when the seventh and last crusade battle ended. While I have been unable to find any writings by Aquinas explaining whether or not and to what extent the crusades affected his theology of war, it's reasonable to assume isn't it that such a lengthy military effort instigated by the Popes and Church he pledged his life to would have some affect on such matters? Reasonable in the same way we can assume the views of war held by us patriotic modern American Christians are somewhat influenced by our nation's past and present military campaigns.
Got thoughts? Post a comment below or discuss on my message-board.
posted by Shaun Groves @ 8/11/2005
14 comments
14 Comments:
okay,
Just thinking here. Why is it that the same God that tells us to love our enemies and be kind to those who persecute us, also commanded His children and followers to overtake and war with many enemies and many cities (see numerous accounts throughout exodus, Dueteronomy,Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, etc)? See Duet 20:4
Why was it permissible and even blessed by God, yet now is an abhorrent thing Christians should avoid?
Just some questions. I really haven't thought through them much myself. Just ran across my mind, and I thought I would put them out here to see what everyone else thinks.
Let me know.
Good questions. The same I asked when I first started looking into what the bible says about war etc. Seemed unlikely to me that a God who would support wars of the Old Testament wouldn't support wars today. But I now believe that's an oversimplification of things.
It's important to look at who declared OT wars and why. Who fought and against whom? What was the end result and apparent goal of each war? Are there other wars waged by God's people which God stood against and judged as wrong? Or did God validate ALL wars fought by the Jews? These are some good questions that helped me answer your questions eventually.
But there are always more questions aren't there?
Let's see if anyone else around here wants to take a stab at those questions of yours.
SG
I won't even pretend to know the answers, however I find myself more and more angry these days at the acceptance of "Christian bashing" by others that seems to be so OK with society today and even lauded. The laws that are constantly passed and court rulings made that continue to tear away at all things Christian. I can't recall a lawsuit filed by the ACLU or other so-called "protection leagues" that has attacked Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, the KKK, athiests, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. But, boy, mention the 10 Commandments, the flag, the Boy Scouts, or any Judeo-Christian organization, and you're in for a fight!
I firmly believe that the United States is a CHRISITAN nation, founded on Biblical principles by men who truly wanted to preserve and protect our Christian way of life, while giving the freedom to ANY others to do the same. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the US should ABOLISH Christianity or symbols thereof, or place any faith over that of another. Believe as you like, but over time that has changed to DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES make your beliefs known, show them in public, or errect a monument, UNLESS it's something other than Christian. We value many, many freedoms in our country, the most valued to me of which is the freedom OF religion; not the freedom FROM religion!
When I left the US to serve in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, I was told upon arrival to surrender my Bible, because it was offensive to that Muslim nation. I told them, NO WAY! I was a US citizen, serving in the US military, and if I was to be there, I'd have my Bible, plain and simple. It took some major fighting by the State Dept. to allow US military members to keep their books of faith with them in the Middle East and we could not display them publically, or openly witness to anyone while there. Can you imagine the outrage that would occur if, when foreigners arriving in the US were asked to leave the Quoran, or other articles of their faith behind? The ACLU would be the FIRST to jump to their defense and they'd win too. We do have some freedom of religion in the US, but it's not equal for all anymore and I for one am ready to let those who are offended by Christianity in the US to partake of another of our great freedoms; the freedom to LEAVE! All that to say that I do believe that some wars are justified, and any that are to protect the liberty of practicing and living my faith freely is a JUST war in my opinion. Being a Christian doesn't mean that we have to be silent or inactive in protecting what we value. God obviously values our faith, or we wouldn't have it to begin with.
I have no idea what the grovesfan rant has to do with this post on the crusades but since it was put out there...
Gravesfan, you say you feel "all things Christian" are under attack and then you list some of those things:
"But, boy, mention the 10 Commandments, the flag, the Boy Scouts, or any Judeo-Christian organization, and you're in for a fight! "
One of these things is not like the others - and is not "Christian". Can anyone spot it?
Again, I have no idea what this has to do with this post in particular. Can you tie the two together for us? Anyone?
Seems like a general defensiveness against a series that MIGHT say the current war in Iraq is wrong in the end. (And will) Sort of feels like (and I'm not one to really care about how others feel about truth so feel free to disregard my own feelings here) - but it feels like you're sticking your red white and blue fingers in your ears and screaming "la, la, la, la! I can't hear you!" - As if you've made up your mind based on what you admit is "opinion" and patriotism and you're not interested in the truth if it makes you question what you've already accepted as true.
I guess what I'd prefer you to do, and all of us to do, is talk about these bite sized pieces of Just War history as they're spat out onto SHLOG.COM. If you're right and war is right for the reasons you say then you have nothing to fear or get defensive about. Just discuss and debate the history we've covered so far and wait for us to reach the end to declare that the whole series did nothing to change your mind on war. But it's a little hasty to shout WAR IS RIGHT! NOTHING CAN CHANGE MY MIND!when we're only up to 1200 AD in war's history. A little premature don't you think?
I don't find your argument for war in America convincing so far and I'd like you to dig deeper and try to convince me otherwise. That's going to take time and facts and scripture You're argument so far is predictable American rhetoric I've heard articulated by everyone from Michael W. Smith to Sean Hannity (without reference to scripture) and it's just too simplistic: We're good. Their bad. Kill them. We'll live longer.
I find it frightening how well that thinking parallels the thinking of Hitler (obviously not working for God) or of the bombers of Hiroshima and Nagisaki (obviously a mistake as well to kill so many innocents on purpose) or of Rome during the crusades - the subject of this most recent post. Rome viewed itself as "holy" or, to use your language "godly." It then set itself up to defend all that is godly (itself) against that which was less godly or absolutely ungodly (violent Muslims) in its estimation.
Have we not learned from history? Sure the Church was protected by the crusades and Rome wasn't sacked by Muslims but no one today looks back and says the crusades were a right or godly thing to have done based only upon the survival of Rome.
Rome died. America will too. All nations are a puff of smoke in the hurricane of eternity.
SG
Just to clarify...
Are we looking at past wars (i.e., the "Crusades") from a 2005 point of view, or from the point of a Christian living in the 1100s?
My idea of the "necessity" (or "unnecessity"-- is that a word?) of war as someone living in the 21st century is a bit removed from the understanding of someone living amidst constant war on the "home-front". I've never experienced warfare in my front yard, so to speak.
If Christians hadn't fought the Muslims... what would Christianity look like today?
I've always seen the Crusades as an attempt to preserve Christianity--to protect the faith; not as a killing spree, shoot-em-up, sort of thing.
(side note: it's interesting that you are reading Weigel, have you read any of his other books?)
Great thoughts Jillian. Appreciated. And so concise. Not my gift.
I'm all for contextualization - to a point - but the way I view the Just War doctrine is that it truly is accepted as an absolute once and for all doctrine on war. Each generation amends it inadvertently but feels the original spirit of it was not affected. We'll see in this series that original spirit is in fact tainted with each revision but that's a rabbit trail for another comment.
My point, and I do have one, is that a theological stand is best founded on something eternal and unchanging like what we KNOW about the character and values of God. Then we must do our best to apply that unchanging character to our present situations without changing that character and recreating God in the image of our circumstances.
So while it's informative to understand that the crusades for instance were fought to "preserve Christianity" as you put it, I think we also have to ask, "Is preserving Christianity with violence consistent with or contrary to what we KNOW is true about God always?"
-SG
Sorry for putting this "off-topic" rant in the wrong spot. Forgive a Christian patriot please. I do not take offense to your series on "Just War" either. I'm learning from it. I may not agree with it's conclusion, but that's OK too. I don't have to agree to something to learn from it. I won't make up my mind until I have all the information. I do think though that you are pretty clear on where you stand (although not sure why yet) on war and sometimes it comes across (maybe it's just me) as the "only right thinking." I've not ever known you to be that way before so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.
Glad you spotted the non-Christian thing in my list Shaun. Now if I could only get the ACLU to spot it too. The BSA is constantly under attack by them and others and referred to as a "Christian/Religious" organization because of the stand against athiests as members.
I haven't done much research on the crusades, nor have I been able to glean much from scripture (yet) on war and the justification thereof. I do believe however that there are just reasons for war, and protecting my faith is one of them imho.
I don't see myself as one with my "red, white and blue" fingers in my ears shouting la, la, la, I can't hear you", however I am a patriot. I'm not a blind patriot however. There are things I don't support that my country does (another time), but as far as protecting my faith by means war; if that's what it takes, then so be it. Another comment asked, what would christianity today be like if the crusades hadn't taken place? I certainly am NOT for whiping out all other religions or those who practice them, what I'm not for being whiped out either. I don't think that the war in Iraq is a christian war or a war about religion at all from America's viewpoint (could be wrong there); it's about getting rid of a murderous tyrrant in order to allow the people of that country to live as they see fit and not under the terror of a minority and evil governing body.
I love learning from the posts on Shlog and other places you post too Shaun. I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong so I hope I didn't come across as anything else. I do want to know the truth, and if I'm shown the truth or find it on my own, then I'll certainly change my thinking. It's happened many, many times before and will continue to happen I hope. I don't ever want to be closed-minded.
I realize that Rome died, and America will too in God's time. I just don't think He called us to sit back, do nothing, and hasten the day if you will.
If you've ever had someone threaten your life (literally, not just the way you live), and I have, you will find out in a big hurry just where you stand on violence and about how far you're willing to go to protect yourself and your loved ones. That's just war on a very small scale. NO ONE can say for certainty how they'd react unless they've been there.
Tough questions Andrew asked too. I guess that's one of things I'll figure out when I can ask Him face to face.
The BSA. No. The non-Christian thing I spotted was the flag.
Only right way of thinking...Well, yes. I believe responding to another human being with violence is, most of the time, wrong. That's the only right way of thinking on that issue. I can say that because I believe there is scriptural and historical basis for doing so. I'm confident of this yet continue to study, listen and pray that I'm wrong. Please let me be. Life would be easier for sure.
But yes, on this, I'm right and you're wrong - for now.
Sitting back and doing nothing...A common misconception about non-violence is that those who support it are for doing nothing. But pacifism is not passive-ism. What kind of Christian culture have we created where the only choices we have are violence and sitting back and doing nothing? I'm not for that either.
I had my butt kicked in the sixth grade because I wouldn't fight back. But that's hardly having my life threatened. Andy Brockenbeck was a wuss compared to Sadaam Hussein. And I agree that no one knows what they'll do unless they're in that situation. But I also think we aren't to formulate our theology based around what we can follow. There is virtue that no one can attain. Non-violence may be one of those. But it is still virtue nonetheless.
Thanks for clarifying and remaining teachable and for not hating after the hard time I've given you here and elsewhere. I admire your passion and your search for wisdom. I'm just trying to push you beyond what you've always believed and get to why you believe it. You do the same for me OK? And maybe we'll both get some more of that wisdom stuff I've heard so many good things about.
SG
Shaun,
Thanks for being so willing to stick with me on this and keep teaching me. I'll keep trying too. I'd like to know more deeply why I believe some of the things I do too. Paul teaches that we should always have an answer for why we believe as we do and I always look to scripture to back my beliefs. That's my this search has me so intrigued.
I'm sure some of it has to do with the way I was raised, church teaching, family beliefs, environment, etc. Just like anyone.
I want to know your take on Jesus' temple "rage" if you will. When Christ found the moneychangers in the temple and the obvious wrong that was taking place, he responded with violence (not killing, but violence, non the less) and anger. Since we know He was sinless and never wrong, it had to be a just response.
I also think that because of Old Testiment history and the wars fought there, we are still, as a world, paying the price for being outside God's will. Those nations created then are still around in some form and it all comes down to sin, pure and simple as it may sound.
There are virtues out there, and non-violence is certainly one of them, that we may never attain on this earth, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying. As Christians, we'll never be completely Christ-like either, but we sure should try and keep on trying to the end.
Thanks for continuing to teach me Shaun and for not letting me ever take the easy road or letting me off the hook. It's great to have friends that grow me. As for hating you, that just won't happen. I respect you too much for that, and the Shaun I know, isn't capable of hating me either so we're both safe there.
The flag isn't Christian either. You got me there. For what it's worth, and anther hearty discussion too, I do not think it should be protected by constitutional ammendment. (My father is turning in his grave). There goes that freedom thing again.
Beth
The "rage" of Jesus...
Well, there was no intent to harm the body of another person. The goal was to disrupt the activities of the sinner without harming the person. Not the same as war in which human life is targeted.
Also the "sin" in question was one of selling access to God. The Jews were required to give a sacrifice in order to commune with God and the temple was selling that sacrifice - that opportunity to have sin and distance from God removed. Also not something we claim our enemies are doing. Our enemies are outside our Church not within it.
Is that thorough enough? Am I skipping anything?
SG
Thanks Shaun. Yes it was thorough enough for me. My Bible reading today is (and has been for the last few days) in Jeremiah. All about king Neb...., the fall of Edom, etc. Very interesting reading again. I haven't read it in awhile. I'm still managing to find new insight everytime I read the Bible. Yeah for me! Thanks for being so patient with this beginner. I've been a Christian for 35 years and I STILL have so very much to learn. Thanks for sharing. Maybe this wisdom thing will be good for both of us!
Beth
What a good conversation so far. Thanks both SG and Grovesfan for your thoughts.
Now, I’ve been doing a little research on my previous question of the OT and stuff. Here is what I have so far. I will also touch some more on the other stuff mentioned here.
The OT is filled with wars and warriors. Here are a few:
Joshua was a man of valor or courage. He and Caleb were given the responsibility of leading the Children of Israel into battle and into the Promised Land.
God raised up many “Judges” to free the children of Israel from bondage. Judges 2:16 The job of these men and women were to deliver God’s people from the sin and suffering they had brought upon themselves. They had been wicked and felt God’s wrath, and finally cried out in repentance for God to save them. He did, and provided them a salvation through these judges waging war against those enemies who held the people captive.
The book of Judges is very explicit with the detailed and premeditated killings of those opposing God and oppressing His people. (See the story of Sisera and Jael or Ehud and Eglon)
One of the most prominent judges was Samson, who is credited with killing thousands of Philistines.
David was a “man after God’s own heart” and came to notoriety when slaying a giant that opposed the “armies of the living God.” I Sam 17 Upon reading this chapter, there was clearly a battle and war going on here. David killed the main obstacle, but then the people joined in and the Bible tells us killed all the opposition. David later became King and continued to lead the Children of Israel in battle and war.
The issue that we face now is how that translates to us today. Do we support wars that free people from oppression and kill those who openly defy and disobey God? Or do we just say that was OT stories that do not affect us today.
The Bible tell us “all scripture is profitable” for us. II Tim 3:16 This includes both the teachings of Christ in the NT, but also the OT. Therefore, we should study why God encouraged His people to take over the land and destroy the wicked in the Land. (It is interesting how He provided a way of escape even then, shown in the story of Rahab).
The problem with the idea that it is our responsibility or God given task to take out the evil is it to easily becomes a Holy War. Holy wars are never good or right. These are waged by groups with the assumption that they have been sent by God to physically enforce their way of religious thinking, theology, and practice onto the “opposition.”
This is true of the Crusades as well as the attacks Muslims are making on America and many other countries. The philosophy that God has sent them or blessed them is wrong. God has given us all His instructions in His Word the Bible. It is complete and perfect. (See Psalm 119:160 and John 17:17 ) We are encouraged to interpret and learn from it, but God is not adding to it by new revelation or prophets. We have to believe God has completed and preserved His Word, or we will leave ourselves open to all false prophets, and most likely be influenced and brainwashed with their teachings.
It is important to distinguish a Holy War from a war based on the protection of people and values. It is kind of an offensive vs. defensive idea. If any country (America or others) were to go after another for land, wealth, or domination, I would be totally against that and there would be no need for this discussion. However, most wars that I can think of (WWI, II, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf, Iraq) were all entered due to a protection of people or values. Either America had been attacked, or other innocent people had been oppressed wrongly and America attempted to help. The Civil War was loosely based on this as well (although many entered for reasons other than to end slavery).
Does war ever end pretty? No, but when done for the proper reasons, can produce a good outcome for the majority involved. Personal story here, my grandfather lived in Romania during WWII. His country was invaded, and he was forced to fight on the German side. However, once the war was done, it provided him an opportunity out of the “oppression” and to come to America. Once here, his children began attending church. Eventually, the whole family made professions of faith, and my father and uncle have both lived their entire lives as pastors. I was raised in a Christian home, saved at an early age, and given so much I don’t even realize, because someone had the guts to stand up to a bad man and physically take him out of power.
Not to get too off track…Although it may be accused of being to narrow minded, the verse: “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to Him it is sin,” (James 4:17) could be interpreted as follows. If we see a wrong or injustice in the world, and sit idly by, and do not act to remove the parties in the wrong, we are sinning as well. We know what is right (moral, ethical) to do, yet we allow the injustice to continue. Sadly, we are not able to settle these battles with communication and words. In the circumstances where evil responds this way, we must use violence to “eliminate the wrong.” This is a very harsh and broad interpretation, and although I don’t agree with all of it, I think there is a lot of truth in it and worth a closer look later.
About the issue discussed earlier regarding Christ in the temple, here are some thoughts. We are supposed to love our enemies. The key is to love the sinner, not the sin. Christ spoke out against wrongdoings of others. Christ had to drive the money changers out. He still loved the money changers, the Pharisees, loved the woman caught in adultery, and ultimately all of us, but, He still reprimanded and corrected when necessary.
It did come to a physical confrontation in the temple, but was the last resort. In fact, Christ had already had to drive out the changers once before. Matthew 21:12-13, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:14-16 give accounts of both of these. (I have heard it taught that these are separate times between the first two and the passage in John) These people knew what they were doing was wrong, and as a last resort, Christ had to use force.
Christ did not want to cause harm to another’s body; that is correct. He wanted to change their actions. However, in the process, some physical harm did come to those in the temple.
In the same way, most wars are not entered with the desire to cause harm to others, it is the unfortunate outcome. The desire is for the wrongdoing to be righted. Does it make it right that physical harm occurs? Maybe not, but if the outcome is good for the innocent, possibly. I’m not sure. I would just rather err on the side of the innocent than on the side of the aggressor/dictator/oppressor.
In applying this to war and our lives, violence should always be the last resort. We are not supposed to be warmongers or hungry for conflict and violence. As seen with Christ though, it sometimes becomes a last resort, which may not be ideal, but necessary.
Hopefully this wasn’t too long, drawn out or rambling, but I hope it aids all of us in the search and journey to become closer to God. I know it has already made me research and draw closer to Him. It has also cause me to really see what I believe and why.
Thank you to all those who participate and I hope you will continue to leave your viewpoints.
Also thank you SG for allowing us to have our place to speak up and voice our opinions. It is a great forum to help us see our differences, but also grow closer in the Lord and become better brothers and sisters in Christ!
Andrew
Andrew,
Thank you so much for your research and your willingness to share. I agree with what you said and you said it well. I'm still doing research too, although I'm much slower at it. I'll keep plugging away though.
Beth
THanks Andrew. Well said. Thank you for using scripture and not just opinion. Very helpful.
I'll only comment on one of your thoughts for now. I'm reading from your post that you still see only two options: Do something about evil using violence when necessary or do nothing. But there is the ability to do something without violence.
Again, pacifism is not passive-ism. Non-violence isn't non-action.
I also see no suggestion in scripture that physical harm was done to anyone by Jesus in the temple. And it is important I believe to distinguish between the discipline of a God follower by God or another God follower and the discipline of a non-God follower by God or a God follower. You did fail to come up with why the wars of the OT were fought, by whom against whom and to what end. Those questions are paramount.
We can't look at the lie of Rahab in the OT, which was called a righteous act in Hebrews 11, and draw from that that all lies are righteous - for example. Motivation and circumstance matter.
SG
Post a Comment
<< Home