What were the Christian crusades?

What were the Christian crusades? Why did Christian invade the Middle East during the Middle Ages? Were the crusaders even really Christians?

[tristanabood]

Good work guys! Love your content, I actually use your sites almost daily. Super high quality content with very scripturally sound doctrines. Whenever I lead a study, lots of what I know (and double check to be accurate) came from your websites. Keep up the good work, god bless you in all that you’re doing!

[anglosaxaphone]

its about time somebody brings up the fact that the crusades were not really all christian

[jayvoorhies]

love when Christians say who and who aren't "real Christians"

[JessaCrownedByJesus]

Love this short but VERY informative video. Thank you!

[skitterree]

Hi, ex-Christian here. I came here for research on a school paper and just wanted to ask - in good faith, I promise - how you believe "There is no Biblical justification for conquering lands, murdering civilians, and destroying cities in the name of Jesus Christ, " when there are songs taught to children about how the city of Jericho was destroyed for no other reason than that the Israelites who had traveled in the desert after leaving Egypt believed the land the city stood on was their promised land.

"The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the army, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! The city and all that is in it are to be devoted [elsewhere translated ‘destroyed] to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared because she hid the spies we sent. When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." (Joshua 6:16-17, 20-21)

This isn't even the only example of conquest without mercy in the Bible. One of the main reasons I left the Christian faith is because modern American Christians want to interpret the bible in a fundamentalist sense, as the literal and direct word of God, when it's convenient, but then spin the facts or outright omit or misleadingly re-interpret them when it's not convenient. If Christians were ok with their religion being a personal spiritual matter, that would be fine, but protestant Christians are evangelical, meaning they think it's their duty on earth to at least try to convert everyone they meet, and American Christians have perverted this idea to think they need to make America an outright theocracy, as we are seeing with the current battle over abortion.

So, to make my question clear, is it morally right to make claims that selectively acknowledge what is in the Bible in modern attempts to convert and spread the word? Is it possible that the modern Christian movement might take accountability for CURRENTLY unbiblical, un-Christian actions and be willing to change going forward?

[astraltravelerandbeyond]

You seem to mention that Muslims started it first from 200-900 ad. List sources of these conflicts, battles and wars please.

[joekeegan]

I don't understand how the writer of this piece can claim that the majority of people who took part in the Crusades were not Christians. One can agree or disagree with the actions of the crusaders, but one cannot deny that they are Christians just because one dislikes their actions. If that were the case, then anytime a Christian does something wrong it could just be claimed that they were never Christian to begin with, and so Christians could never be accused of doing anything wrong.

Also, saying that there is 'no biblical justification' for taking over land is, I suggest, not the case. Wasn't the takeover of Israel by Moses, Joshua and co. a divinely justified takeover of land? Thats not to say that it can or should be justified for Christians, but it certainly is biblical.

Finally, the crusades were a series of military offenses over several hundred years, that included crusades in Spain. While the crusaders did carry out a number of atrocities that were undeniably evil, I do not not think one can make a blanket condemnation of all the crusades as 'evil', particularly where the objective was to slow the muslim advance and retake Christian countries. To put it in context: if France or Brazil or the US or some other ostensibly Christian nation was occupied by the forces of a muslim power, would it be evil for Christians to resist in arms?

That said, the other points made in this video are spot on.

[ItsChevnotJeff]

What we need now is not of the crusade of bodies, but a crusade of the spirit

[cristoferchanimak]

The Christian faith historically is very broad. Yes, it is a stretch to blame modern day Protestants for Catholic doings of the day.

[TheMidnightModder]

*My refutation to your claims: The Book of Joshua.*
*Joshua and his armies killed countless civilians and destroyed dozens of cities all in the name of God.*
*Why? Because these civilizations were in opposition to the LORD.*

If you choose to condemn the crusades you must also condemn the actions of Joshua and the armies he lead into battle. Now, you can condemn forced conversions, but it does not appear that you can condemn the crusades as a whole.

Even God Himself is brutal. God is not evil, but His righteous wrath is quite brutal. God killed every first-born son in Egypt, even the sons of those not oppressing the Israelites, on top of everything else He did against the Egyptians in the book of Exodus. the LORD hardened pharaoh's heart multiple times so that He could be glorified in the end. But in doing so, God had to crack a few eggs. Clearly God saw that the ends justified the means, no matter how brutal the means were to civilians. And remember this, "civilian" doesn't mean "innocent!" "For all have fallen short of the glory of God" and if we all stand condemned without Jesus then all God and the crusaders did was speed up the process.

And if you try to refute this by saying "But clearly it doesn't glorify God because Atheists are using it against Him and Christians!" Yeah, and Atheists use the sacrifice of Jesus against God as well by saying He's a "cosmic child abuser." And that's before mentioning that Atheists will use the entire Old Testament to "prove" God is evil! "For the Glory of God" doesn't have to fit your carnal notions. So stop judging it as if it must. And Atheists will use anything against God because they simply hate Him.

Now, what were the crusades for? To stop Islam from enslaving the known world of the time. Were eggs cracked? Yes. But what happened? You and me are able to be Christians without being murdered for our faith. (At least for the time being and in the western world.) Islam is based on the violent subjugation of all unbelievers and their own holy book, the Quran. explains this. And it makes sense when you realize that Muhammad was a caravan raider. Islam is and always has been a religion of immoral violence and slavery. If there were no crusades, Islam very well could be the world religion of today because they would have violently converted all non-Muslims and killed off all who refused.

The crusades may have involved some messed up stuff, but welcome to war, it's rough! God used war for peace and so the crusaders did the same.

[jayyjay]

🚨 The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries.

[fnumbuh]

Thanks for opening the comments today it shows confidence in the logic of our beliefs and allows Christians to fellowship ( although allowing them to be exposed to some rudeness and even blasphemy) but this gives us the opportunity to show we are not judgemental and ignorant (like the crusaders😇)

[lionoffireministries]

They were hypocrites. Professing faith but deceiving themselves.

[christiananderson]

Great and to the point.wanted more. thank you for not justifying them and also lending perspective. i think people are struggling with the Biblical point. As Christians, Jesus fulfilled the law. Just because Joshua was able to mow down folks in the name of God doesnt mean that Jesus followers are given the authority to do the same. Jesus is the final Word and nothing in the Sermon and the Mount and beyond (love your enemy) would suggest that JC enables and supports war.

[asahelnettleton]

It's a bit anachronistic to refer to the Christians that took part in the crusades as Roman Catholic since the differentiation we see now between the RCC and protestants didn't exist yet. It would be more accurate to say they were western Christians (as differentiated from the eastern Christians). Some of the later crusades were against what remained of the byzantine empire and led to its weakening, fall, and conquest by the Turks.

God's Battalions by Rodney Stark is a decent book on the subject from a point of view explaining the crusader's reasoning behind why the early crusades were launched.

[davidxavier]

The ancient Israelites were commanded by Moses to use military power in order to occupy the land of Canaan. Later many Israelite hero advocated for combat in order to protect the land from foreign enemies.

[gracepilditch]

The crusades were of man’s doing and throughly evil. Those “Christian” crusaders should have carried out the great commission by making the gospel known, winning souls to Christ not through the sword but through the Word which is the sword of the spirit.
I’ve found your explanation helpful, thanks Got Questions!