Greetings. This is Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church with a moment of truth, where we challenge you to think through an important issue of life and faith. And today we want to continue our series on the Crusades, a monument to myth. Last time we looked over the three giant myths concerning the Crusades, three out of five concerning the Crusades. And we want to cover those last two and expand on the last one a little bit more too, because it's going to deal with the just war theory.

But just to refresh your memories, the Crusades, a monument to myth, our first three myths that we covered. Number one, the Crusades, a monument to myth. We shot down the myth that warmongering Christians launched the Crusades against a peaceful Muslim people. That was so far from it. The Muslims were not peaceful.

They had been assaulting Christians, pilgrims and locals. There was a fresh round of persecution going on. And there was an appeal from the East to the West to come to their aid. And we filled that out for you last time. And we'll touch on it perhaps a little bit more yet today too, because it's so important.

But the second myth that we busted, when the myth busters, perhaps you see them on TV, well, we are the, are the crusade myth busters, because there's so many myths surrounding the crusade. The second myth that we busted was the Crusades, a monument to myth. The Christian crusaders were really motivated by lust and greed for conquests and colonies. We saw this is an old myth that's been around a long time. But we, we discovered through some very creative scholars who have done some original work here, that in fact, it was far more expensive and sacrificial for the families of Europe to send a crusader than anything that they ever got back.

So this is a myth that we shot down very effectively than last time. And of course, the third myth that we shot down was the Crusades, a monument to myth, Christians and Jews were better off under Muslim rule than that of Christian princes. Yes, that, that's a myth that's often propagated because many of the writings of the time did at least initially long for deliverance from the Byzantine oppressors under which they suffered, those in Muslim lands. But what they found is they had the grasses greener and the other side of the fence complex.

And what really happened then once the Muslims did come and so-called deliver them is that they were worse off than they were before. Even as we see Iraq is worse off now under the Muslims than they were under Saddam Hussein. Oh, so that was a myth that we effectively busted. So we want to take up then the remaining two myths because they are huge myths in the West and in the Christian church and in Muslim lands for that matter. Well, the fourth myth that we want to bust today is the Crusades, a monument to myth.

Christian crusaders were guilty of terrible atrocities against a moderate Muslim people. Well, it's a favorite of modern scholars, especially those embittered towards Christianity. And we have already mentioned, uh, the so-called scholar Karen Armstrong, uh, an ex nun who is disillusioned with the Christian faith and does everything she can in her writings to hammer it. Well, it's also a favorite myth of presidents. Do you remember when president Obama said this humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history?

That is. And what he's referring to, of course, is the demonic barbarity of the Islamic state in the, in the Levant ISIL or ISIS, as it's sometimes called in these making excuses for it. He says, humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place. Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, President Obama said, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ, unquote.

Oh, now, while there is a kernel of truth in this, the net effect, and this is intentional on President Obama's part and the progressives part, the net effect is to paint the whole endeavor of the Crusades with a broad brush of atrocity. Even as progressives are now trying to paint our founding fathers as evil men that we can easily dismiss and no longer listen to because they were slave owners. Well, we must say au contraire. Our founding fathers had so much more going for them. They had wrestled with the issue of slavery and they had so much more going for them.

And for, for example, creating a Christian Republic and a constitutional Republic for that matter, a constitution that still stands as a shining beacon for oppressed peoples all over the world. Well, we can say the same about the Crusades. The Crusades did so much more, even though there were atrocities committed. While there is a kernel of truth then to this, all of Christianity, we must say this right up front, all of Christianity admits up front the wrongs that were committed. They were committed by a minority, but they were nevertheless wrongs, and they were labeled as such.

And we're going to look at the just war theory, which acted as a kind of red line on the tachometer of war for the West so that they knew when they were transgressing the principles of a just war. And they called people out on this in the, in the course of the Crusades as well. But there were atrocities committed and we are up front in admitting it, admitting that they were wrong, admitting that they were sins, which the Muslim world is not prepared to do with their atrocities, I submit to you. They herald them, they trumpet them, they're proud of them. Whereas Christians are ashamed of them and say they were wrong and they were sinful.

For example, during the siege of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, when they finally reached the, the walls of Jerusalem, the pilgrims, as they were known, they did kill thousands of Muslims throughout the streets of Jerusalem, perhaps as many as 20,000, some say, though this number is exaggerated by Arab scholars and Western scholars for that matter, who are antagonistic to Christianity.

But what is little realized by people today is that according to the rules of warfare at this time, once again, we must see their decisions, see their actions, not only in the light of our own judgments and our own moral framework, but we also must see them in the moral framework and the rules of warfare at that time. That is the 11th century, 12th century of Christendom.

So don't be provincial and understand that according to the rules of warfare at this time, if an army besieging a city offered, excuse me, terms of surrender and the city accepted those terms, well then the besiegers were obliged to keep those terms, spare the people and the property of that city. But the rules of warfare at this time, the rules of siege warfare dictated that if the city refused the terms of surrender and opted then to resist those who were besieging them, well then, if the besiegers were successful and they did flood into the city, it was expected that they would kill, rape, pillage, and enslave the inhabitants of that city.

It may be shocking and barbaric to us, to those of us in the 21st century who consider ourselves morally superior. And any soldier or citizen of that day, however, would merely look at you with a blank stare and say, what's the problem? Because that was the expected behavior of those days. So both sides observed these same rules, we must say, although this is not brought out by modern historians like Karen Armstrong, for example, the Muslim commander Nur-ed-Din killed every Christian he could find in his own siege of the Christian city of Aleppo in the Levant in A.D. 1148.

He offered terms of surrender which were unacceptable to the inhabitants of Aleppo, who also thought that they would be relieved, parenthetically, by a crusader who turned out to be a coward and didn't show up. Well, so then, Nur-ed-Din had to proceed with the time and the expense and the loss of life on his side, consequent to winning the siege. But he did. And there's not a contemporary of Nur-ed-Din who would not have understood, though shuddering at the thought, of his actions. But not so contemporary progressives, of course, who are very provincial, impossible of placing themselves in the shoes of the people of that day.

They only see one side that fits their worldview. They are true provincials. Well, the crusaders did commit other atrocities along the way. For example, during the First and Second Crusades, in particular, Jews were the special target of the rabble, that is, the non-knightly class of nobles. Massacres occurred in cities like Verdun and Manz and Speer and the Rhineland.

They were killing and plundering Jews. Now, they met their end when Jews in Hungary heard of their approach and they aligned with local Muslims to defeat them in battle. Behavior like this was repeated in the Second Crusade as well. When the mobs followed Peter the Hermit, following Peter the Hermit, we mentioned him briefly when he was an unauthorized representative of the Crusades, by the way. When Peter the Hermit reached Hungary, well, then the mobs engaged in a frenzied massacre of the peasants when they resisted the seizure of their crops.

And then finally, in the capture of Jerusalem, as we mentioned, some of the Saracens there were promised their lives for surrender, but they were slaughtered nevertheless. The thing to note about the atrocities that we frankly admit are atrocities, they were condemned by the Crusader commanders too, by the priests and the bishops who accompanied them, and especially by the popes. Not so for the greater Muslim atrocities. Once again, Christians, they have a red line on the tachometer of their sense of warfare, dear listener. Not so the Muslim, not so the Muslim leaders.

They have no such red line. In fact, Muhammad and the Quran give license to jihad. There is no red line. There is no point of departure or stop for jihad. Slaughter and rape and pillage and enslavement all come as part of the package with jihad and Islam.

Well, we must note, once again, in just our brief treatment here of the Crusades, that the Turks, who were themselves conquered converts to Islam, they were now dominating the Islamic world that conquered Jerusalem from the Arabic Muslims, the Saracen dynasty, that is, in 1076, and they began then a vicious persecution of Christians in all of Palestine. This is what Pope Urban II and those in the West were reacting to when they launched the Crusades. History does not happen in a vacuum. There are always precedent causes to what happens now, here and now, isn't there?

And the Greek emperor, Michael VII, or Michael VIII, excuse me, made a direct and poignant appeal in the West for assistance against these Turks. They were moving on Constantinople, threatening the Eastern Orthodox Church. There was a sincere desire in both the Eastern and the Western Church to heal the breach that had been developing over the centuries had manifested itself in an open split in A.D. 1054. Those of you that know your church history know that the one church split into two in that year, A.D. 1054.

Well, the nations of Europe then knew that it was also only a matter of time before the Turks threatened them, which of course they did. How right they were. It would take almost 600 years, but they would eventually, the Muslims, the Turks would eventually, the Ottoman Empire would eventually push their way to the very gates of Vienna. Well, there were four major Crusades. In 1095, the first one was called by Pope Urban II.

Then in 1146, St. Bernard preached the Second Crusade. In 1187, Pope Clement III called for another one to free Jerusalem. And then finally, the last gasp was in 1202 when Pope Innocent III called for that fourth and final Crusade. It doesn't excuse the excesses of the Crusades. Many joined the Crusades for ulterior motives.

And the Crusaders were guilty of savage sub-Christian behavior. They slaughtered innocents, they slaughtered non-combatant civilians, both Jew and Muslim. These are the first things, however, brought out by everybody else. You find them anywhere, but you will not find out of these three or four consistent reasons I mentioned for you, for the West having gone to war against a foe, which will not stop, which will not give quarter, and a foe who neatly divides the world into two camps, the House of Islam and the House of War. That is everybody else, including you and me.

So, the upshot is, Muslims were not victims of the Crusades. They brutally acquired the Middle East, the Muslims did, and Constantinople, and they brutally held on to it. For example, one example of atrocities that were committed by Muslims as well, and to which the Crusaders were reacting, would be the Muslim Sultan Baybars with his Turkish troops, which were called Mamaluks. And they were in the habit of slaughtering whole villages, men, women, and children.

According to one contemporary source, I quote it now, in general, the Crusades reek with a stench of brutality and death, but the fall of Antioch to the Turks was laden with such horrors that even the Mamaluks themselves were sickened by the carnage which they caused or witnessed there." Unquote. So make no mistake about this. Dear listener, in the eyes of radical militant Islam, you are the house of war. Eventually, you will either be converted, killed, or controlled.

Well, so much for the fourth myth that the Crusaders were guilty of atrocities more so than the Muslims. We see that that's just not the case. Our final myth, a myth we want to shatter, is the Crusades. A monument to myth, the Crusades violated every principle of the gospel Jesus promulgated in his life. Yes, according to critics of the Crusades, the meek and mild Jesus, full of peace and full of love for everybody, would not have countenanced the Crusades.

In fact, the Crusades, according to modern critics, and even many Christians have this false notion of the Crusades that they violated every principle of the gospel, the peaceful proclamation of the gospel for that matter. We have seen, for example, how Christianity was propagated throughout the Middle East, throughout North Africa, throughout the Mediterranean Basin. It was done by word and sacrament. In fact, that is always how Christianity is successfully promulgated. That is by the preaching of the word, by ministers and by evangelists, and the teaching of the word by patient teachers and elders and preachers.

So the word and sacrament, that is also by the practice of baptism and the Lord's Supper. These sacraments indeed transmit grace, the grace of God to his people. The people of God are blessed when they practice baptism and practice regularly the Lord's Supper. And people see this, are edified by it, and are converted. So we see the Mediterranean Basin in the early centuries of the church converted by word and sacrament, whereas Islam was promulgated and imposed itself upon those same regions by the sword, did they not?

By violence, by subjugation, by tyranny, by enslavement and murder and rape. This is how Islam is propagated. It is being propagated this way. Now we see these are the true Muslims. The true Muslims are those in Iraq and Syria who are promulgating Islam in this way.

It's been promulgated this way in the past, and it's being promulgated this way today, and it will be promulgated that way in the future too, if we do not stop it. In fact, there are principles that are established for warfare in the West. In fact, the church has honed over the centuries, premiered, if you will, by St. Augustine in the late 4th, early 5th centuries, promulgated the principles of the just war. What we have come to know is the just war theory. In fact, Pope Urban II and all the princes of Europe who went on crusade had these at their elbow, if you will.

That is, they had and checked with their actions whether they were indeed practicing a just war, and they called to account those who did not. We have seen some of the atrocities committed by the crusaders, and these were called to account because there was the template of the principles of the just war laid over the crusades as well. Those templates, if you will, let me review them with you just briefly, because there are seven of them, and let's check and see if they match the actions of the crusaders and the deeds of the crusade. First of all, what is a just war? A war that is waged according to God's will.

It's basically the idea of a just war, and that's not an oxymoron. Government has the legitimate function of bearing the sword. That is, of defending its people and of executing justice. This is why, as the Apostle Paul says, the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. That is, he has the power of life and death, not only over the unrighteous and the criminal, but he bears the sword also in defense of his people.

And this is precisely what the crusaders were doing. They were bearing the sword in defense, not only of their own lands, but for the lives of those in the Middle East, for the lives of those under the authority of the Eastern Church and the Eastern kings. So, let's review these principles of the just war that Pope Urban II, all the princes of Europe, and Michael Cellularius VIII had at his elbow as well, for example. Number one, a just war can be waged only after non-violent options have been exhausted.

Over the years, beginning with St. Augustine, it was postulated that God would not sanction a war that had been begun or started when every other avenue of peaceful resolution had been pursued. The Bible says, if possible, insofar as it depends on you, live at peace with all men. That's an excellent principle articulated by the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans. If possible, insofar as it depends upon you, live at peace with all men. Christians are, above all, peacemakers and reconcilers.

And we reflect Christ when we do this. And so, we should exhort our leaders and our governments to do the same. When this principle has been practiced, it has accomplished several things, two things in particular. Number one, it has dampened passion and haste. Proverbs says, wrath is cruel, and anger is overwhelming.

And indeed, Christianity has always moderated these things. And the idea of exhausting all peaceful means first does this. It dampens the passion and haste that comes when war is on the horizon. And secondly, this first principle, exhaust all peaceful means first. It has also accomplished the stifling of the darker ambitions of men.

This was true not only in the Middle Ages, but it's true today, too. Some wicked men pursue war for all the wrong reasons. And Augustine said, war should not be undertaken with a lust for battle, implacable hatred, for personal glory, or for sheer bloodlust, unquote. And this principle, when maintained, that is, exhaust all peaceful means of resolution first, has helped to stifle the darker ambitions of men. But then, when peaceful attempts fail, and it's apparent that your enemy only scoffs at your peaceful means, then there's no doubt that war must be undertaken.

So, and this was the case with the crusaders, too, because there was no negotiating with the Muslims at this period. They were bent on war. They were bent on jihad. It was part of their religion. And so, there was no negotiating.

All peaceful means were exhausted in the crusades. Well, secondly, what's the second principle of a just war? The second principle of a just war is, a war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Justice is not served by actions taken by individuals or groups. Governments duly constituted are deemed legitimate.

So, we see that Peter the Hermit, for example, who had no sanction from any prince or any pope. Nevertheless, Peter the Hermit took off on the crusades with his host of rabble, and they committed atrocities, and they were frankly sanctioned as well. But there are also illegitimate groups who have no legitimate authority operating under Islam. And these are precisely some of the ones that we are at war with and at battle with. A war is just only if it's waged by a legitimate authority.

And the terrorist groups representing Islam these days are not legitimate authorities. I submit to you, well, a third principle of the just war is that a just war must redress wrongs that are suffered. And this is precisely what the crusades were doing. They were redressing wrongs that were suffered. That is, the Christian communities of the Mediterranean basin had been abused.

They had been overrun. They had been tyrannized. They had been conquered against their will. So, that's indeed the wrongs being suffered in Jerusalem and in Alexandria, in Antioch, and were being visited by Constantinople, for example. All these were wrongs that were being redressed by the crusaders, attempted to be redressed by the crusaders.

So understand, dear listener, a just war must redress wrongs that have been suffered. And this is precisely then what the crusades intended to do, to redress the wrongs that were suffered by the Christian communities there, still being suffered by and threatened to be suffered by the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople. Well, a fourth principle out of seven, the fourth principle of the just war theory, when we apply it to the crusades, we see that it is vindicated too. That fourth principle, a just war must be undertaken with a reasonable chance of success. Casualties incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

And indeed, there was reasonable chance of success in the crusades. In fact, the first crusade was relatively successful. It did liberate Jerusalem. They did establish Christian communities all throughout the Middle East that helped the pilgrims, that helped and defended and encouraged the Christian communities all through the Levant. So, the crusades, once again, are vindicated by this principle that as a just war must be undertaken with a reasonable chance of success.

Because the Bible nowhere countenances the fruitless expenditure of blood and treasure. Yet, all over the Muslim world, we see this principle violated, don't we? Palestinian suicide bombers, for example, are a prime example. As one observer says, they are just expressing the hopelessness and frustration they feel with Israel. Oh, no, dear listener.

The Palestinian suicide bombers, especially the leadership that indoctrinates the hatred and violence amongst its people in Palestine, they are sinful. They are evil perpetrators of a gross injustice. They violate this principle of a just war. There's no reasonable hope of success, of achieving their ends of freedom and a state by these means. They only further alienate Israel and the entire civilized world.

So, this fourth principle of a just war was kept by the crusaders, violated by the terrorists today. Well, fifthly then, a just war must have as its goal the increase of peace. The peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed had the war not been fought. Oh, dear listener, the crusades indeed aspired to this principle. And indeed for the centuries that they were there, peace did reign in the Christian communities where the crusaders ruled.

Sixthly then, the sixth principle of a just war is the violence used must be proportional to the injury suffered. It's a guard against retribution and vengeance for its own sake. And once again, overall, the crusaders did observe this. There were times when they violated it. There were atrocities committed.

But once again, we labeled it as wrong, whereas Islam does not. Seventhly then, the final principle of a just war is a just war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants insofar as it is possible to avoid them in attacks on military targets. Once again, the crusaders as a whole did observe this principle, although there were points and periods of transgression, which we noted for you already, but they were labeled as wrong again by the potes and the princes of the West. So these then are the seven principles of a just war, and they were observed by the crusaders.

This has been Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church. We encourage you to visit us. We meet for holy worship on Sundays at 10 a.m. at 101 4th Street on the corner of 4th and Boulevard. Many of you have been listening for years, and I just encourage you, you want to talk about these things or anything else under the sun, we encourage you to visit us for our holy worship service. Once again, we meet for holy worship on Sundays at 10 a.m. at 101 4th Street on the corner of 4th and Boulevard. And you can call us for further information.