• About
  • Books
  • Free E-Book

Agape Blog

~ Sharing The Love Of Jesus Through Truth In Scripture

Agape Blog

Monthly Archives: December 2015

Chat

The Problem of Evil

22 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jeff Parker in Christianity

≈ Leave a comment

Any serious theologian or philosopher must at some point address what has become known as “the problem of evil” or “the problem of pain.” This issue is fundamental, in so much as it may determine an entire worldview for an individual once addressed. For an atheist, he looks around at the “evil” in the world and says, “If there were a God, there would be no evil in the world. There is evil in the world. Therefore, there is no God.”[1] On the other hand, a theist sees the same thing and claims, “[T]he evil in our world is all somehow ultimately justified, however horrible, and that it is thus all compatible with the existence of a morally good and perfect Creator.”[2] These competing claims beg the question, who owns the burden of proof, the atheist or the theist? For the Christian theist,[3] the Biblical directive is clear, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…” (1 Peter 3:15)[4] It is in this spirit, an attempt to answer the four most common objections by atheist concerning “the problem of evil” will be presented.

Free Will and the Prevention of Evil

The first argument presented by atheist is that God could prevent evil[5] and still maintain freedom of will. The main problem with this argument is in the term “freedom of will?” Free will is defined as “term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.”[6] Given this definition, the question must be asked, Can God prevent evil in the physical world in such a way that would remove any alternative which would result in evil and still maintain freewill? Could God have created the universe in such a manner as to allow free will and prohibit evil? The atheist responds to these questions in the affirmative, while the theist denies such possibilities.

In order to properly deal with issue of free will, the theist must address two specific issues. First, what can an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, God logically do and not do without being contradictory to His intrinsic being. Does the impossibility of nonsense (think Can God create a rock He can’t lift?) logically imply that God is not omnipotent? The theist must demonstrate that an “all powerful” creator cannot do the eternally impossible and still be consistent within his intrinsic self.

Once the omnipotence of God is addressed, the theist must then demonstrate that free will agents cannot exist with the removal of evil. If it can be demonstrated that at the very least the possibility of evil must be present to allow free will, then the idea of maintaining free will in its absence must be relegated to the realm of the nonsensical. If this is indeed the case, then evil must be a necessary component of the universe, and God must allow it in order to create free willed agents, if he so desired.

Perhaps C.S. Lewis (a former atheist, himself) makes the strongest case for the nonsensical element of the atheist argument. Lewis argues that in human understanding that the word impossible is a conditional state. In other words, it is only impossible because of the specific, time, place, and state of being is not sufficient for the possible. As Lewis points out, “In ordinary usage the word impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless.”[7] Since God is present in all states of being, all periods of time, and places an impossibility for God does not include Lewis’ suppressed “unless.” Therefore, there are no circumstances in which what has been judged as impossible to be possible for God or any other agent. It is eternally impossible or as Lewis calls it, “intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others.”[8]

God cannot create a rock He can’t lift because nothing could. There is never a time, circumstance, or state of being in which that could ever occur. It is nonsensical. It is an eternal impossibility. God is certainly omnipotent. When Jesus told his disciples, “but with God all things are possible,” He was not claiming that God could do anything. (Matthew 19:26) What He was really saying was that all things which are eternally possible are possible with God. He was excluding those things which fall into the nonsensical and eternal impossibilities.

Having established that there is no contradiction between God’s omnipotence and impossibilities, the burden now falls upon the theist to demonstrate the nonsensicalness of a world which allows free will without the possibility of evil. Free will and evil are intrinsically linked. You cannot have one without the other. If God prevented evil, what choice would a person have? Suppose George offers Fred pizza. Fred does not want pizza, but a peanut butter sandwich. Now suppose all George has is pizza. Does Fred have the choice of a peanut butter sandwich? No, indeed, he does not. He must take the peanut butter sandwich. It could be argued, he could choose not take the pizza. Fred, then, based on natural laws, would go hungry. Hunger is evil, by definition. Hunger is a bad state of affairs. Free will has been removed from the equation.

It could be argued, that God could have created Fred not to be hungry. Then you run into the removal of George’s freewill. You have removed from George the ability to choose to offer Fred pizza. The idea is circular nonsense. Free will demands the possibility of evil. Therefore, if as theists claim, the intention of the Creator was to produce free willed beings who love him by choice; then, there must have been the allowance of the possibility of evil to come into direct moral contact with the created beings. To claim it could be otherwise, falls into the category of eternal impossibilities. This, as it has been argued earlier, is something God simply cannot do.

Free will and the Intervention of God

The next major objection atheist offer to the existence of God through the argument of evil is that God could cease its existence through continual intervention. Once again Lewis, offers a strong rebuttal. Lewis argues that any society of agents “implies a common field or “world” in which its members meet.”[9] The neutrality of such world must be kept intact in order to facilitate the free will of the entire society. If the natural laws which governed the common field were able to be manipulated on a whim of a solo agent would prevent free will of any other agent who inhabited the world. Suppose George chooses to give Fred a cake, but Fred, who is able to manipulate the environment on a whim, changes it into a concrete block. What then was the point of George choosing the cake as the gift? There would be none. In fact, George’s free will would have been rendered inoperative because he choose to give a cake, but Fred turned it into a block. In such a world, free will could not exist, yet this is exactly what atheist attempt to say is possible. Lewis points out the ludicrousness of such a proposition, arguing:

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free-will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.[10]

According to Lewis, then, even our own thoughts would not be free to be ours. If the possibility of evil did not exist, it would be eternally impossible for free will to exist. The one depends on the other. An atheist is free to believe there is no God, because God has desired to create free willed agents. King David would write, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” He is only a fool if to say such thing produces evil. Not even atheist would argue that to do a good thing is foolish. In fact, it could be argued that without evil, good and foolish could not exist. It is only on the basis of the experience of evil that an agent can determine such concepts. Still, notwithstanding the conceptual argument, if evil did not exist, the atheist would not exist. God would not allow it.

The Existence of Evil and a Perfect Being

The third common contention made by atheist is that the existence of evil denies the possibility of the existence of a “Perfect Being.” This argument requires the theist to deal with a fundamental assumption on which it relies – namely that God is subject to His creation. By definition, God must stand outside of the created universe. An agent which creates, by rationale, cannot be a part of his creation. The artist is no more a part of the makeup of the painting, than God is part of the universe. The book of Isaiah records God’s declaration, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, as the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9) The mystery of God who is beyond the universe of God allows for his perfect intrinsic nature.

However, relegating the argument to the realm of unknown mystery seems by many to be an “unfortunate, desperation ploy” by theists.[11] Yet, what argument can be made to explain God’s perfection in the wake of the existence of evil? The theist must show that the allowance of evil produces a desired character trait. This argument is known the Soul Making Argument. Theists can point to certain character traits that can only be developed in the presence of Evil. For example, to develop courage, an agent must act in the face of danger. If evil did not exist, then there would be no fear or danger in which courage can be developed. God’s perfection would desire this trait to be developed within his creation, therefore, evil must be a necessary condition of existence. This can be clearly seen in the interaction of a parent and their child. The parent says, “Do not touch the stove, it is hot.” The child does not listen, and begins to reach out his hand to touch the stove. The parent aware of the pain that will be caused by the child’s action allows the child to touch the hot stove. Pain ensues. The child learns to trust his parent’s judgment in matters of danger. This allowance of evil developed the character trait of parental trust within the child. If pain had not resulted from the touching of the stove, what reason would the child have to trust his parent’s judgments concerning its welfare? There would be none. God is no different. He desires the development of certain traits which necessitates the allowance of evil.

The Meaning and Purpose of Life and the Existence of Evil

The final contention of atheist that will be discussed is the idea that the existence of evil proves we do not need God to find meaning and purpose in life. This argument basically asserts that God is not a prerequisite to have a life of meaning and purpose. Those that hold to this philosophical view contend that meaning and purpose can be found in existence itself; but is this view correct?

Craig doesn’t think so. He argues that the only meaning to life an atheist can achieve is relative to those around him. He asserts that if the whole universe is nothing but random chance, there is no “ultimate purpose.” He asks, “Suppose the universe never existed. What difference would it make?”[12]

It in this question, the theistic response is strongest. Up until now, the burden of proof has been upon the theist, it now is the responsibility of the atheist to answer, if there is no God what is the meaning and purpose of existence? If there is no God, why can’t I do what I want? Why can’t I kill another human being because life is ending anyway? As Craig points out, they have no answer. They are left to follow their own logic to its inconsistent conclusion, namely that if there is no ultimate meaning or purpose, then there is no logically viable morality.[13]

Yet atheist after atheist tries maintain the absurd notion. They argue that purpose is found in the life lived, and the meaning in what other human beings attach to it. Yet if they are bound to same fate as the rest of the universe, namely non-existence, what meaning can they give? Craig quotes the atheist Nielson, who said, “We have not been able to show that reason requires a moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. The picture I have painted (existence without God) for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.[14] Their logic is self-defeating when taken to its conclusion.

Final Thought

Indeed, there is no one theistic response to answer the atheist challenge of evil to God’s existence. Yet, in Toto, the combination of the four arguments that have been laid out provide a strong case for the existence of God despite the presence of evil. It is only in an existence which includes God does humanity hope to grow, better itself, and ultimately find meaning and purpose. Atheist can try to deny him, but they are eventually defeated by their own logic. There is a God– it is the best possible answer to the problem of evil.

 

 

 

 

 

Calder, Todd, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015.

 

Craig, William Lane. “The Absurdity of Life without God.” In Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 71-90. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.

 

Lewis, C. S. “The Problem of Pain.” In Signature Classics: Complete, 551-619. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.

 

Morris, Tom. Philosophy for Dummies For Dummies. New York: Wiley Publishing Inc., 1999.

 

Nielson, Kai. “Why Should I Be Moral? Revisited.” American Philosophical Quarterly no. 21 (1984): 81-91.

 

O’Connor, Timothy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2014.

 

 

[1] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies, For Dummies (New York: Wiley Publishing Inc., 1999).

[2] Ibid.

[3] The entirety of this paper will assume a Christian worldview.

[4] All scripture is NIV translation, unless otherwise noted by the author.

[5] Philosophically evil is defined as “any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2015 ed. (2015), s.v. “The Concept of Evil.”

[6] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall 2014 ed. (2014), s.v. “Free Will.”

[7] C. S. Lewis, “The Problem of Pain,” in Signature Classics: Complete(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007).

 

 

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Morris.

[12] William Lane Craig, “The Absurdity of Life without God,” in Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008).

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.Craig quoting fromKai Nielson, “Why Should I Be Moral? Revisited,” American Philosophical Quarterly no. 21 (1984).

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Chat

The Crusades

20 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by Jeff Parker in Christianity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

battles, Crusades, History, Holy wars, Islam, Medieval, Reconquista, religion

The historical mythology of the Crusades has fueled the imagination of people in a way quite unlike any other event in history. It has spawned innumerable books, movies, and videogames. Legends have formed around everything from secret organizations like the Templars to monarchs such as Richard the Lionheart. These legends and mythologies have penetrated their way into the scholarship view of the history of the Crusades. The majority of medieval scholars have presented the causation of the crusades “as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics.”[1] It is this view which has propagated itself into the mainstream scholarship. Commenting on the error of this view, Lewis states, “We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly.”[2]

If Lewis is correct in his assertion that the Crusades were warranted, two very important questions arise: What was the catalyst which prompted the Crusades? Once begun, were the Crusades consistent with a Christian worldview? It is the goal of this paper to attempt to answer these important questions.

The Catalyst of the Crusades

The idea of a Holy War is a relative late-comer in Christian thought. Indeed, it wasn’t until Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in A.D. 312 that “the religion came into direct contact with statecraft and warfare.”[3] The Christian Church up until Constantine was mostly concerned with self-preservation. They were occupied with religious persecution from the State; while attempting to hold off various heresies from within.  Once, however, the Empire accepted the religion, Christian governmental leaders found themselves in a position of dealing with the political landscape of peace and war. Their religion was not equipped to deal with such issues since there had been no necessity to address them. St. Augustine attempted to address the problem by outlining the conditions in which a “just” war could be waged by a Christian ruler. He, however, denounced the use of military action to exterminate pagans, to induce conversion, or eradicate heresies.[4]

Due in large part to the actions of the Bishops of Rome, Christianity did not suffer a decline with the collapse of the Roman Empire. Many of the Germanic tribes, which carved up the western half of the former political power, were themselves Christian. This allowed Christianity to be the dominant religion for most of Europe until the advent of Islam by the Arab merchant, Mohammad. It is with this new monotheistic religion that the story of the Crusades begin.

The rise of Islam is essential to the historiography of the Crusades. According Islamic tradition, the Arabian Peninsula’s pre-Islamic history was a period of great ignorance. During this time, the monotheistic Abrahamic God was perverted by polytheists.[5] It was during this time of ignorance that Muhammad began to receive his revelations from Allah. However, the Qur’an, the Islamic Holy Text which serves as the record of Muhammad’s revelation, seems to identify Christians as an exception to the ignorance, stating:

“And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud. When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messengers, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses.

How should we not believe in Allah and that which hath come unto us of the Truth. And (how should we not) hope that our Lord will bring us in along with righteous folk?

Allah hath rewarded them for that their saying – Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the reward of the good.” (Qur’an 5:82-85).

In the 622 of the Common Era, after preaching in the trade city of Mecca, Muhammad moved to Medina, where he became ruler. This was a pivotal moment in the rise of Islam. Unlike the Christian Church which was attempting to annex secular power from the State; Medina was a theocracy at its core. “Commerce, justice, diplomacy and war were built into the bedrock of religion.”[6]

Since Medina was essentially a theocracy, Muhammed was religiously justified in making war which he inevitably did. He began with the smaller Arab towns before eventually attacking Mecca itself. These wars were called “struggle” (jihad). Soldiers who perished as a result of a jihad were considered martyrs, who immediately rose to a sensual paradise. Yet not every war was considered to be a jihad. The term only applied to war against unbelievers. According to the original view of Islam, a jihad could not be waged against Christians or Jews as they worshiped the one true God, albeit incorrectly. As Madden points out:

Jews and Christians from the Muslim point of view, worshipped the true God, failing only to accept the prophecy of Muhammed. For that reason they were misguided, but not pagans. They were the “People of the Book” who should remain free to retain their religious practices in the lands conquered by Islam.[7]

Still, this freedom was not unrestricted. Should a Christian or Jew attempt to hinder the spread of Islam, then they could be subject to a jihad. It is within this restriction, the two modes of thought concerning the expansion of Islam begins to take form. The “Abode of Islam” referred to the rule of Islamic law in the already occupied territories. The “Abode of War” referred to outside lands in which unbelievers, Christians and Jews included, were targeted for a jihad. In this way, Muhammad envisioned the increase of the “Abode of Islam” as the “Abode of War” shrank in proportion.

The death of Muhammed in 632 brought with it a series of caliphs (successors) who took to the spread of Islam with fervor. By the seventh century, Persia, Syria, and Egypt were under Arab Muslim control. This rapid expansion inevitably resulted in the fracturing of the faith. The most significant of these divisions was the rift between the Sunni and Shia.

The split between two groups stemmed over who should govern the Muslim world in the wake of Muhammad’s death, as well as what or who held the authority for the basis of conduct. The Sunni claimed the “Qur’an, supplemented by the good example of the Prophet was (and is) the guiding principle of conduct.”[8] They considered Abbasid Dynasty as the rightful caliphs and the true leaders of the Muslim community. The Shi’ites, on the other hand, viewed the son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad, `Ali, as the true first caliph. They believed the imams (`Ali’s successors) to be the infallible and God guided leaders. Commenting on the split, Jaspert notes:

The division between the mutually exclusive Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam was of much greater importance within the Islamic world than conflict against Christians. Not only did the two branches refute each other in the pages of Muslim historians (who sometimes engaged in polemics against Muslims in the other camp); they also affected the conduct of Muslims in face of the threat of Christianity.[9]

Despite the rapid of advance of Islam, Christians did not initially take to the idea of a Holy War in response to Muslim aggression. Madden explains:

Christians were too fragmented into opposing sects to organize around such a fundamentally central doctrine. For minority Christian sects in Syria and Egypt, the arrival of Muslims was actually good news. The new Arab leaders allowed them a freedom of worship that the emperor in Constantinople did not. Despite their close proximity to Islamic kingdoms, Byzantine Christians, it appears, never developed a religious rationale for waging or condoning holy war.[10]

While Islamic tolerance and fragmented Christianity partially offer a rationale for the slow development of holy wars within Christian thought; contradictory theology completes the picture. When Constantine converted to Christianity, Christians now found themselves occupying high positions within the State. These positions often involved matters of war which brought them at odds with the so called “charity passages.” As Tyerman expounds:

The Beatitudes had to be reconciled with human civilization, specifically the Graeco-Roman world, or, to put it crudely, ways found around the Sermon on the Mount. Being extravagantly well versed in the highest traditions of classical learning, the Church Fathers did this rather well… The experience of the church over the centuries provided its own corpus of law, tradition, history, legend and saints that reflected neither the idealism nor experience of the first century AD.[11]

Church teaching and exegesis reflected this new reality. The publicans who questioned John the Baptist were said to be soldiers advised to remain in the army and collect their rightful wage. (Luke 3:12-14)[12] The concepts of forgiveness and pacifism were held only to individuals and not to the Church Body or State as an entity. This was reinforced by Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, which became the standard scripture in the West. Every time the word enemy appeared in the New Testament, Jerome used the personal Latin word inimicus. Not once in the Vulgate New Testament is the word hostis, Latin for public enemy, used.[13]

As the Christian Church developed its theological justification for war, Muslim conquerors continued their jihad expansion. It would be Western Europe who would finally take hold of the idea of a Holy War. By the middle of the seventh century, the Muslims had taken control over all of Christian North Africa, crossed the Strait of Gibraltar, and occupied Spain. In 732, Charles Martel, leader of the Franks, finally slowed down the Islamic expansion with his victory at the Battle of Tours. The defeated Muslims were forced to retreat back to Spain. The battle spawned a Christian Western European unified sentiment of retaliation as most viewed Spain as a part of Christendom. Madden notes, “From their perspective, these lands were consecrated to Christ. It was not right that infidels should dwell there, let alone rule. Was it not self-evident that a Christian who fought to reclaim lands conquered by unbelievers was himself fighting for Christ?”[14] Eventually this feeling of retaliation would result in a series of military campaigns known as Reconquista (Reconquest) as way of dealing with the Muslim occupation of Spain.

The Reconquista were not “holy wars,” per say. They lacked the spiritual benefits, such as plenary indulgence, which typically accompany a holy war. Nevertheless, it was the next step towards such an action, being as it were, the training and proving grounds of the moral and theological justifications of the crusading movement. The church encouraged and condoned the campaigns as an Augustinian “just war.” Being such, Christians soldiers felt secure that their actions were the appropriate response to Muslim aggression.[15]

With the finding of the bones of St. James the Greater at Santiago de Compestello in the ninth century, Soldiers began to use the shrine of St James as rally point. Encouraged by the idea that they were liberating lands that the Apostle had won for Christ, they would continue on their military campaigns. For the first time, a Christian military campaign would be associated with a holy pilgrimage.

In the eleventh century, as the Reconquista campaigns continued to gradually take back Spain from Arab Muslims, a new Islamic threat arose to the Byzantine Empire, the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuk Turks were not Arab, but still they were Muslims. Early in the century, their conquests allowed them to occupy Armenia, Syria and Palestine. Upon entering Jerusalem, the Turks began to kill Christian clergy, ransack churches and capture pilgrims. This did not last long as Jerusalem’s main profitability has always been tied to its religious heritage and the economy that developed around pilgrimages. However, since the Turks were mostly made up by antagonistic sects with a multiplicity of rulers, the near east region was still highly unstable even after the persecutions ended.

By late eleven century, the Byzantine Empire, the last vestige of the old Roman Empire, was in trouble. The Turkish Muslims controlled everything up to the Bosporus. The Normans had taken control of the last Byzantine stronghold in Italy. All the while, the Penchenegs were threatening from the North. Emperor Romanus IV gathered his forces to defend Asia Minor from a Turkish assault in 1071. The Turks decimated Romanus’ forces and captured the Emperor, himself. It seemed the long standing Roman Empire would finally meet its end.

However, in 1081 Alexius I Comnenus took the throne. He was able to raise a powerful mercenary army to successfully hold outside invaders at bay. His military successes helped raise the morale of his citizens who had become hopeless in the wake of what seemed to be inevitable defeat. Alexius, it seems, seriously considered taking the bold and unpopular step of turning to the West as potential allies. Madden notes the political risk such an action would involve:

Byzantines viewed all of Western Europe as Roman territory temporarily occupied by barbarians. Although westerners were Christian, from the Byzantine perspective they were misguided by various liturgical errors and heretical beliefs, chief of which was their insistence on the central authority of the pope over all Christians.[16]

Yet, Alexius needed troops. Western Europe had essentially become a region of armed forces as a result of constant Viking, Hungarian, and Islamic invasions of the ninth and tenth century. Politically, Western Europe had no strong central government. Kings had little or no control over their vassals. Land Barons had large number of trained infantry which they used to attack each other. Even the Papacy had little success in curbing the violence which arose from a proliferation of warriors without a clear directive.

When Pope Gregory VII took over his Pontificate in 1073, he was well aware of both the western European situation and the plight of Byzantine Empire. The next year, Gregory began to make plans to send a military force east with him at its head. This fit in nicely with his Papal reform movement as Gregory subscribed to the ideologies of reformers like Humbert of Candida. These reformers believed that in order to remove clerical abuses from the Church, the Church must first remove itself from the control of laity. A military campaign led by the Bishop of Rome, himself, would go a long way to achieve such an end.

In order to do so, however, Gregory would have needed to leave someone in charge to run and protect the Church. At first, he intended for King Henry IV of Germany to fulfill such a role and the King was all too happy to oblige. Unfortunately, Gregory’s military campaign of mercy and charity towards the estranged Christian brethren to the East never came to fruition. He and King Henry had a falling out over Gregory’s decree against investiture of laity which sparked the Investiture Controversy. The Byzantine problem was moved to the back burner for the time being.

On February 22, 1076 Gregory, through a prayer to St. Peter, successfully excommunicated and deposed the King of Germany and the Bishops who followed him This gave the Papacy a huge upper hand in the controversy. Although on several occasions kings and rulers had been able to depose Popes and Bishops; for the first time in history a Pope was able to depose a king. Soon other European leaders were eager to fall in line with Papal agendas, fearing the same results as King Henry. By the end of the eleventh century, the Papacy had enough authority, both theologically and politically, to answer a request for aid from Alexius I Comnenus. At the Council of Clermont, in 1095, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade.

Inconsistent Worldview

It seems Lewis may have been right in suggesting that the Crusades were warranted. Certainly, Muslim jihad aggression was the principal catalyst for the development of the holy war ideology within the Christian Church. Self-preservation presents quite an argument for the case of theocratic military campaigns. Still, the question of consistency within the Christian worldview looms. Is military action an appropriate response for the Church in the face of outside aggression? The rest of this paper will be devoted in an attempt to demonstrate the inconsistency of such an ideology in context of a Christian worldview.

Perhaps the most obvious way Church leaders, both prior to and at the time of the Crusades, showed an inconsistent Christian worldview was in their interpretation and exegesis of scripture. When the Apostle Paul encouraged Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) He was reminding his disciple that a Christian’s ideology should fit into the context of Scripture. It seems plain that early Church teaching does not achieve this. Indeed not, the ecclesiastical leadership of the time seems to attempt fitting Scripture into the context of human ideology. They could not reconcile their desire for retaliation with Scripture. So instead of abandoning the desire, the Church reconciled Scripture to suit their desire.

One of the biggest obstacles Church scholars faced were the passages concerning the Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus said, “for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9). Augustine understood this to mean that if a military campaign’s purpose was to bring about peace; then the war, itself, may be just. Yet Paul would write to the Church at Rome, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:19).

To circumvent this apparent contradiction between ideology and Biblical teaching, the Church leaders taught the charitable doctrines of the Scriptures only applied to personal conduct. The doctrines of pacifism, tolerance and mercy did not apply to the State or the Church body as an entity. It was reserved for individual members in their daily lives. Jesus, however, seems to thwart this interpretation in his exchange with Pontus Pilate:

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:33-36)

Pilate did not fear some personal retaliation from Jesus. No, he feared a violent uprising from Jesus’s followers as whole. Pilate was afraid of the entity, not some personal vendetta. Jesus calms Pilate’s fears by telling him that his kingdom was not of this world, and as such his followers would not avenge him through an insurrection of violence. Is it not rational that Jesus’ followers would attempt retaliation? Is it not also self-evident that a person avenging the death of Jesus would be fighting for Christ? How much more was Christ’s life worth than land’s claimed in his name centuries later? Did not Christ tell Peter to put his sword away? (Matthew 26:52).

Although, the Crusades were the result of Islamic aggression, it cannot be argued that military retaliation is appropriate or even justifiable response for the Christian. To do so is a gross imposition on Biblical teaching. Perhaps Runciman was correct when he judged, “the Holy War itself was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”[17] However, to suggest, as Lewis does, the Crusades were warranted; as a Christian, I can only say, hardly!


 

Jaspert, Nikolas. Crusades. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2006.

 

Lewis, Bernard. “The 2007 Iriving Kristol Lecture.” Washington, D.C., 2007.

 

Madden, Thomas F. Critical Issues in World and International History : Concise History of the Crusades. Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013.

 

Madden, Thomas F. “The Real History of the Crusades.” Christianity TodayMay 2005.

 

Robinson, Chase F. and Chase F.. Robinson. The Rise of Islam, 600–705

the New Cambridge History of Islam: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

 

Runciman, Steven. A History of the Crusades. Vol. iii. 3 vols. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Reprint, Reissue.

 

Tyerman, Christopher. God’s War: A New History of the Crusades. London: Penguin Books, 2007.

 

 

[1] Thomas F. Madden, “The Real History of the Crusades,” Christianity TodayMay 2005.

[2] Bernard Lewis, “The 2007 Iriving Kristol Lecture,”  (Washington, D.C.: 2007).

[3] Thomas F. Madden, “Critical Issues in World and International History : Concise History of the Crusades,” (Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Chase F. Robinson and Chase F.. Robinson, The Rise of Islam, 600–705

the New Cambridge History of Islam (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 177.

[6] Madden.

[7] Ibid., 3.

[8] Nikolas Jaspert, Crusades (Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2006), 6.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Madden.

[11] Christopher Tyerman, “God’s War: A New History of the Crusades,” (London: Penguin Books, 2007).

[12] All scripture is King James Version unless otherwise noted.

[13] Tyerman.

[14] Madden.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols., vol. iii (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987; reprint, Reissue), 480.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Chat

The Story of God: Pre-Genesis 1:1

15 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jeff Parker in Christianity, religion

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

God

In the dark, cold, and silent blackness of eternity-past, there were three gender-less beings. Each being was self-existent, self-aware, carrying life intrinsically unto themselves. They were beings of light and darkness fled from them.

These three beings coexisted in love and service to  towards one another. Indeed, there was no malice or deceit to be found in them. As they communed with one another, their absolute wills deferred to the others, in a manner so complete it was impossible to distinguish between them. Not one of the beings deserved such deferment; it was a union of grace. This, however did not remover their individuality. No! It enhanced it. Each being was well suited to fulfill the needs of the others by the individual personalities.

One being was authoritative in nature, not as monarch toward subjects. Nay! He was rather like a well respected patriarch benevolently giving orders to serve the interests of the family. One was like a doting son, eager to please a beloved father in all he does. The last was like a trusted family friend who is willing to do whatever is necessary to aid those who have his respect and affection.

For indeterminable period of moments, these beings existed in companionship, each fully satisfied by the others. The were in need of nothing. They were all in all; the Father in the Son; the Son in the Father; the Friend in both; and They in Him. They were not merely unified; They were one.

Then, a moment came in those vast endless moments they spent together. A thought emerged. It is unknown with whom it originated. It was a thought so fantastic; only a being with intrinsic life could conceive it. It was a thought of creation to fill the black, empty void.  It was a thought of love overflowing.  It was a thought of expansion of self. This was not a self-serving thought. Certainly not! It was a thought serving. It was a grace filled thought of creation.

 

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Recent Posts

  • What Christianity Can Learn From Nazism
  • Christianity Is Not Good…
  • Objections to Classical Theology: An Apology for Divine Passiblity

Categories

Follow Agape Blog on WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • What Christianity Can Learn From Nazism
  • Christianity Is Not Good…
  • Objections to Classical Theology: An Apology for Divine Passiblity
  • A Response to Crossman’s “Errors”
  • Biblical Authority Pt 2

Recent Comments

Biblical Authority P… on Temple Theology and Eschatolog…

Archives

  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014

Recent Tweets

My Tweets

Liscense

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Follow Agape Blog on WordPress.com

Recent Posts

  • What Christianity Can Learn From Nazism
  • Christianity Is Not Good…
  • Objections to Classical Theology: An Apology for Divine Passiblity
  • A Response to Crossman’s “Errors”
  • Biblical Authority Pt 2

Recent Comments

Biblical Authority P… on Temple Theology and Eschatolog…

Archives

  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014

Categories

  • Bible
  • Christian Doctrine
  • Christianiry
  • Christianity
  • Deification
  • Easter
  • Eschatology
  • Incarnation
  • Justification
  • religion
  • Resurrection
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.com
Follow Agape Blog on WordPress.com

Recent Comments

Biblical Authority P… on Temple Theology and Eschatolog…

Powered by WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: