Where Christian qualms were not a problem
June 17, 2011
“When Luftwaffe [a German military in Munich] medics learned of these experiments, they objected on religious grounds. Himmler was outraged at their objections. He decided to circumvent their objections by transferring Rascher [the doctor performing the experiments] to the SS, where Christian qualms were not a problem.” – Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas, 511.
Galileo, Faithful Catholic
June 7, 2011
– Galileo, reflecting on his conflicts with the church
Cheap Book Recomendation
June 2, 2011
Mitch Stokes has written a book on Galileo. It is available on Kindle for $0.99 right now. Given that his book on Isaac Newton was wonderful, I am guessing that this is more than worth the 99 cents.
The Danger of Sanitized Biographies: Ayn Rand Edition
April 16, 2011
With Atlas Shrugged coming to the big screen this month a lot of people are wondering whether this could be the equivalent to the Passion of the Christ in the fervent boxoffice turnout of evangelicals. In recent years, Atlas Shrugged has become mandatory reading for conservatives. Its author Ayn Rand is held up as the prototypical conservative.
The problem? Ayn Rand was not a conservative. She was:
1) Strongly pro-abortion
2) Strongly atheistic (she once told William F Buckley, ‘you are too smart to believe in God”)
3) An outspoken feminist
4) Personally quite immoral (addicted to amphetamines and had a rotating cast of lovers)
Her philosophy was not that of a principled constitutional conservative, it was that of a radical individualist. Christians believe strongly in individual rights and freedoms but we are not individualists. We recognize that our lives are dependent on others and others are dependent on us. We have a duty to serve others and a responsibility to look out for those who cannot look out for themselves. We believe in individual responsibility of course but we don’t believe than any man is an island.
Further, Ayn Rand’s conception of capitalism is not the Christian conception. Christians support capitalism because it is free and allows people to provide for their family; to buy and sell according to their needs. Christians do not believe as Rand did that greed is good. Selfishness is not, as Rand said, “The only virtue” in fact it is not a virtue at all. Capitalism works because people look out for their needs at the family level, not because people are greedy or selfish. Capitalism works despite greed not because of it.
Greed is not good but freedom is good. Capitalism is simply the process of giving people freedom to buy and sell as they see fit. The best form of capitalism is for people to be selfless and serving. As John Wesley said, “Make all you can; save all you can; give all you can.” No golden facets in the bathroom. No wealth for self promotion. Remember that your treasure is in heaven.
Does this mean we should reject Atlas Shrugged and its author? No. It just means we need to be careful to remember that its philosophy is not fundamentally a Christian one.
Book Review: God’s Battalions – Summary
March 22, 2011
Over the last couple of weeks I have posted a review of each chapter of Rodney Stark’s God’s Battalions: the Case for the Crusades. Overall, I loved this book. I think it corrected many of my misconceptions about the crusades. Stark concludes his book with this summary paragraph:
“The thrust of [this book] can be summarized very briefly. The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions. “
Read each chapter review by clicking below.
Chapter 1: Muslim Invaders
Chapter 2: Christendom Strikes Back
Chapter 3: Western ‘Ignorance’ Versus Eastern ‘Culture’
Chapter 4: Pilgrimage and Persecution
Chapter 5: Enlisting Crusaders
Chapter 6: Going East
Chapter 7 : Bloody Victories
Chapter 8 : Crusader Kingdoms
Chapter 9: The Struggle to Defend the Kingdoms
Chapter 10: The Crusades Against Egypt
Chapter 11: Mission Abandoned
This is part of a multi-part review of God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. The summary is here. You can use the table of contents found there.
Support for the crusades had waned. There were a variety of reasons.
Money was a big factor. The taxes that had been levied, especially in the later Crusades, were resented. Many of the taxes were on the clergy so even the religious orders were starting to resent the crusades.
The losses were an omen. There was a clear questioning on the part of many as to whether God wanted them to retake the Holy Land. Poems and letters from this time express this question.
Theology was questioned. There were many who questioned the theology of the wars. Killing infidels would send them to hell…..is that a good thing? Should Europe attack if not attacked? Is the death penalty appropriate for Christian forces? These questions caused many religious people to pause in their support for the crusades.
After St. Louis, there were no more full scale crusades. There were a few smaller efforts but no major campaigns.
In time, Muslim forces took over the remaining Crusader kingdoms of the Holy Land. Acres, Tyre and Tripoli fell. For perspective, Stark notes that we must remember that some of these Crusader Kingdoms lasted as long as the United States has been in existence.
Stark closes by noting that our modern view that the crusades are somehow the reason for today’s strife worldwide between Christians and Muslims is simply wrong. He says that Muslim literature hardly mentions the crusade prior to the 19th century. They were a footnote and the crusades were largely characterized as an attack on the Turks (not all of Islam). He says that it was Christians who have reintroduced the crusades to Islam during the 20th century.
This is part of a multi-part review of God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. The summary is here. You can use the table of contents found there.
The problems in maintaining control of the Holy Land were apparent. It was relatively easy to win battles against the Muslim forces but holding conquered lands had proved difficult. The solution that was decided upon was to take Egypt. Control of Egypt would take the pressure off of the Middle East and provide a strategic advantage. The Fourth Crusade had started as an attempt to take Egypt but the need to deal with Constantinople derailed the effort. The Fifth Crusade was perhaps the largest of the crusades. Unfortunately, it went poorly from the start. It was marked by unexpected resignations and bad leadership. They landed in Egypt and after some initial contacts the Muslim forces were prepared to surrender Jerusalem in order to keep Egypt. The Christian generals were prepared to accept the offer but Count Pelegius, put in charge of the forces by the pope, declined the offer. After a series of battles and several more offers for treaty, the crusaders suffered setbacks and were forced to accept a treaty that did not include Jerusalem. Jerusalem was taken by Frederick II who had come to crusade after being threatened with excommunication by the pope for not going. Egypt, likely weary from battle, was still ready to surrender the city. Jerusalem stayed in Christian hands for 15 years until it was taken by Turkish nomads who then joined forces with Egypt.
These efforts were followed by an impressive effort by King Louis IX (St. Louis) who led a well organized attack on Egypt winning some impressive battles. But in the end, due to a variety of circumstances lost men and supplies due to a miscommunication, his troops surrendered leading to his temporary capture. After paying a large ransom he was released. In the subsequent years, other cities that had been taken during the crusades fell back into Islamic hands.
When they took Antioch, they massacred the Christian population. Stark notes the curious fact that most histories of the crusades spend time discussing the sack on Constantinople and the massacre of Jerusalem but rarely discuss the Muslim destruction at Antioch at the close of the Fifth Crusade. By all contemporary accounts, the massacre was brutal, thorough and complete. Blood flowed in the streets.
St. Louis longed to go back to the Holy Land and retake Jerusalem. As he gathered an army and set out, he grew ill. Before any major engagements commenced, he died.
The crusading spirit didn’t die with St. Louis but it raised doubts that had long been present.
This is part of a multi-part review of God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. The summary is here. You can use the table of contents found there.
Richard the Lionhearted: "As a soldier he was a little short of mad, incredibly reckless and foolhardy, but as a commander he was intelligent, cautious, and calculating."
Edessa fell back into the hands of Muslim forces in 1144. When the west heard of this it was the first news that there was still a struggle in the East. Once again the Pope (this time Eugene III) called for a crusade. His powers of persuasion were not a match for those of his predecessor and little happened in response to his call. Bernard of Clairvaux was called upon to help make the call. He was a popular preacher and one of Europe’s most revered men. When he made a passionate plea the response was overwhelming.
In the second crusade, as in the first, there were some very unfortunate outbreaks of antisemitism. As in the first, these were not widespread organized attacks on the Jews but simply individual actions. Once again the leaders of the church responded to defend the Jews. When a monk named Radulph started stirring up attacks on the Jews in Germany, Bernard himself rode to their defense. One Jewish chronicler of the date wrote about these events,
“Then the Lord heard our sigh…he sent after the evil priest [Radulph] a decent priest, a great man…His name was Abbot Bernard, from the city of Clairvaux.”
Unlike the first crusade, the second was met by failure. The German and French armies set out for the Holy Land only to be greeted by the Byzantines with even less enthusiasm than had been offered for the first crusade. The French even briefly considered an attack on Constantinople. Both armies suffered greatly from lack of rations and supplies. Many died due to the elements. They lost many horses. They limped to Antioch and then Jerusalem and there planned an attack on Damascus. This was ill advised and after an abortive attempt at a siege (with heavy losses), the Christian forces gave up the attempt. The Second Crusade was over.
In the wake of this failure, the Christian rule over the east began to falter even more. The Knights Templar attempted an attack on Damascus but in a show of bravery (or foolishness) refused reinforcements and attempted to enter with only 40 knights. When their small numbers were seen, the Muslim forces rallied and dangled the bodies of the Knights Templar over the walls. Christian forces did eventually take the city but this marked the waning of Christian success in the area.
Salidin the Kurd rose to power and started to win victories against Muslim and Christian enemies. As his success mounted, the Byzantine emperor initiated negotiations with Saladin, and after several years of talks, they signed a treaty to join forces against Western Christians in the Holy Land and any new Crusades. Saladin won victories in the surrounding cities and then attacked Jerusalem. Jerusalem was filled with refugees from surrounding cities and eventually surrendered to the Muslim forces. The Greek Christians are thought to have been “ready to betray the city” knowing of the Byzantine treaty and this contributed to the surrender.
Stark takes time to note that Saladin is often glorified in modern history. He is portrayed as chivalrous and fair. Stark dispels this myth by recounting some of Saladin’s butchery and cruelty. Saladin loved to kill Christians and only allowed some Christians safe passage as a strategic rule of war (if you let those who surrender go, future sieges tend to end earlier).
But not all was lost for the crusader kingdoms. The refugees of the fallen cities flocked to the last Christian cities: Antioch, Tyre, and Tripoli. These cities were port cities that could be supplied by sea (a Christian military strength) and be fortified with much bigger fighting forces thanks to the new arrivals. Saladin attempted to take Tyre but was repelled.
The Third Crusade was initiated to retake the Holy Land. The German ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ was Frederick Barbarossa led his army into Hungary and through Serbia toward Constantinople. This time, the Byzantine Emperor Isaac was actively opposed to the Christian forces (having signed a treaty with Saladin). He sent irregular forces out to harass the Germans. The German army were not bothered much and inflicted heavy losses on the Greeks. Frederick moved toward Constantinople.
Frederick prepared a siege on Constantinople. Isaac surrendered ceding Frederick free passage and supplies. The Greek Orthodox bishops, out of hatred for the Latin Christians, kept Saladin abreast of the situation. Frederick moved toward Jerusalem. Then tragedy struck. Frederick fell off his horse and was drowned in a river. This ended the German campaign. The German forces adored Frederick and although his son attempted to continue most of the troops abandoned the cause and headed home.
Meanwhile, Richard the Lionhearted and Phillip Augustus of France gathered forces and raised finances. As they did, other Christians from northern Europe headed for the Holy Land by sea. They quickly came to Jerusalem in large numbers and put the city under siege. Saladin headed back to Jerusalem and put the siege under siege by surrounding their ranks. But he could not persuade his forces to attack. Saladin attempted to stop additional supplies by sending naval fleets from around the Mediterranean to block the Acre harbor that the Christian forces were using. This backfired by allowing the superior Christian fleets to trap huge numbers of the Islamic fleet in the harbor.
Richard arrived and with a careful and well organized attack approached Saladin. Saladin was defeated in a series battles and his forces fled. Richard won every battle that he attempted. Interestingly, he did not attempt to retake the Holy City and Saladin held it by default. Richard recognized that although the city was of symbolic importance, it would be very costly to take and defend. Instead, Richard forced Saladin to sign a treaty allowing unarmed pilgrims safe passage.
Richard may have been wise in this decision but few back in Europe understood it. A Fourth Crusade was called.
The Fourth Crusade is often held up as ‘proof’ that the Crusades were unjust and ‘all about money’. The sack of Constantinople is held up as the case in point. Historians have pointed to the sack as one of the most despicable moments in history. Pope John Paul II, in 2001, even apologized to the Greek Orthodox Church for the sack. But Stark notes that the Crusader sacking of the city was hardly notable in terms of numbers of those massacred or even in terms of violence within Constantinople. Most cities that were sacked were completely massacred (as a deterrent for future enemies); but Constantinople was nowhere near as bloody (most of the city was spared). Further, Constantinople had been sacked by rebelling leaders from its own ranks several times. For example, in 1081 Alexius Comnenus allowed foreign mercenaries to plunder the capital for three days. Further, this attack by the West on Constantinople was not unique in that the Byzantines had led brutal attacks on Western Christians as well. For example, in 1182 the emperor incited mobs to attack all Western residents of Constantinople during which thousands, including women, children, and the elderly were massacred.
Given the treachery that Constantinople had already inflicted on the West (by failing to live up to commitments, aligning with Saladin, by attacking Frederick’s troops in the third crusade, and also in the fourth), the city was justly considered an enemy. We may want to judge this action by our own modern standards of warfare but given the warfare of the day, there was little remarkable about the attack.
Despite these justifiable reasons for taking Constantinople, the sacking was received badly in the West; the pope was especially angry. Not only was the attack against a Christian city, it did not achieve the primary goal of the Fourth Crusade: taking Jerusalem.
A Fifth Crusade was needed.
This is part of a multi-part review of God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. The summary is here. You can use the table of contents found there.
The Christian forces had retaken Jerusalem, Antioch and several other cities. When they had set out on the mission, the plan was for these lands to become part of Byzantium again. However, the behavior of Emperor Alexius had shown them that he was a traitor who could not but trusted with the lands and who would turn the lands back over to the Muslims if the ransom was right. And so the crusaders decided to stay behind and maintain control of the lands.
Stark makes the point that this period cannot be described as colonialism by any modern definition. The crusaders did not force the eastern society into unfair economic arrangements. Neither did they enrich themselves at the expense of the existing society. Stark says that the term settler is more appropriate. The rule was not marked by oppression of Muslims. There was no organized effort to force conversions. In fact, there was remarkable tolerance for Muslims and the taxes on Muslims were lower than what would be found in neighboring Muslim states. Justice was administered fairly.
In short, the Crusader Kingdoms were not what they have been characterized to be in much of popular thought. They certainly were not perfect but they do not stand out as unfair or unjust societies given the context of the day.
Book Review: The Homiletical Plot
March 19, 2011
What is the difference between a sermon that captures the mind and one that puts you to sleep? That is the subject of Eugene Lowry’s The Homiletical Plot. This book is a classic but I had never read it. I wish I had read it earlier. Very interesting. Well written and was very insightful. I highly recommend.
Christianity, Culture, and the World 