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, I want to challenge you to think through one of the most misunderstood, distorted times in the history of Christianity and Islam. Yes, today, with Islam being more and more in our headlines in places like Dearborn, Michigan, or in Twin Cities, Minnesota, or Mayor Mamdani in New York City, or our war in Iran, or the turmoil all through the Middle East, we are increasingly finding ourselves up against Islam, too.

And one of the most misunderstood, distorted times in the history of the relationship between Christianity and Islam is the Crusades. Yes, the Crusades, are used as a club to beat Western civilization and Christianity over the head, so to speak, historically. But is that legitimate? I have a proposition for you. First of all, the Crusades, are they a brutal holy war against Islam, or a war of resolve and redemption?

Now, we treated of this a little bit last week, did we not? As we covered part one. This is part two. Now, part one, of course, we gave you the reasons why the Crusades were launched. That is, they were launched as a response to prior Muslim aggression, number one.

And number two, they were launched because of the persecution of Christians in the Holy Lands by Muslims. And thirdly, the Crusades were launched because there was a sincere desire to heal the breach between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, okay? Those were the three major reasons. And then we also began to cover some of the myths of the Crusades. And I treated of one last week, and that is, there's the myth that the Crusades were launched by greedy men who calculated that they could plunder the helpless Muslims for their gold and their lands.

And we saw that that was indeed a complete myth and misunderstanding. In fact, the Crusades were very costly for those in the West. Well, I'd like to continue with a few of the other myths that surround the Crusades so we can clear those up. And you, dear Christian, you, dear advocate of Western civilization, so that you can no longer be beaten over the head, if you will, with the so-called myths and misunderstandings of the Crusades. No.

I'd like to bring some clarity, some understanding to this. The second myth of the Crusades is that the Christians were far more brutal and bloodthirsty than their Muslim counterparts. Oh, that's a complete myth, that Christians were more brutal and bloodthirsty than their Muslim counterparts. Au contraire. The caricature here, is like that, simplistically portrayed in the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, by Ridley Scott.

Yeah, you might want to screen that. It is a rollicking good tale, but it's filled with myths. And in the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, by Ridley Scott, the Christian Crusaders are the John Wayne baby killers, and the Muslims live in a kind of peaceful, hippie-like commune with other Jews and Christians preaching tolerance, diversity, and egalitarianism. DEI all the way. Oh, and the Muslim Caliph, Saladin, is seen as wise and peaceful, benevolent, while his Christian counterparts are foolish, warlock, and belligerent.

After seeing the blatant politics of this movie, it could be situated in the 21st century Beverly Hills rather than 12th century Palestine. But Ridley Scott's simplistic caricature will not pass historical scrutiny. Once again, Dr. Madden, and you can see his review of this movie online, who has written a history of the Crusades. Dr. Madden puts it this way, and I quote, The real Saladin was, according to his biographer, filled with joy as he watched the decapitation of hundreds of Christians in A.D. 1187 when he conquered the city of Jerusalem.

Saladin preached jihad throughout his reign, making no secret of his desire to capture Jerusalem and massacre its Christian inhabitants, unquote. That's the real Saladin. Now, Ridley Scott's movie is a Hollywood film. It's a film exercise, if you will, in the historical distortion industry regarding the Crusades. In reality, the men who inhabited the Crusades were, as I've quoted before, medieval, not modern people, unquote, right?

Don't expect them to be a modern man-bunned, pencil-necked, skinny-jeaned soy boys. No, they were medieval, not modern men. That medieval world was violent and brutal. Both sides behaved in ways they saw as accepted and normal and regulated, too, for that matter. Regulated in terms of surrender for a besieged city, there were terms, there were understandings for a besieged city, but which modern anti-death penalty, gun control, sensibilities of man-bunned, skinny-neck, pencil-neck, skinny-jean soy boys find appalling.

Yeah. What I hope that you will see is that there were men of faith and character in that day who lived out their Christian faith with integrity and grace. The Crusader did not seek to convert the Muslim to Christianity by the sword, as did the Muslim. What the Christian Crusader did was establish churches where the gospel was propagated by word and sacrament. Most Crusaders would abide by Jesus' words, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

And behold, I am with you always to the end of the age." Unquote. Now, as an example of the overall character of the Crusades, let's look briefly at the very first Crusade, perhaps the most successful. Launched in A.D. 1096, it set the pace for centuries of Crusades. While historians acknowledge four major Crusades over this period, many other smaller efforts were undertaken during this entire span of time as well.

The Crusades were not so much separate and distinct wars as much as a continuous effort, with decades of relative calm and tranquility punctuated with other decades of crusading fever and enthusiasm, like a series of waves, perhaps, crashing on the seashore. Now, the crusading spirit never entirely died out, no matter how empty the highways to the Middle East might have appeared. The First Crusade was also the most successful, capturing the city of Jerusalem and stalling the complete subjection of Asia Minor to the Seljuk Turks, and it did that for several centuries. Now, that First Crusade has its heroes and villains, as does every war.

Let me highlight one of each to illustrate what I mean. First of all, number one, Count Emiko of Leningrad extended the war against the infidels to the Jews of Europe, too, unfortunately. One of the saddest chapters in the Crusades was the wholesale slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland. The Jews of Europe contributed immensely to the culture and economy of the West, and they lived peacefully among us, without aggression and without any attempts to impose their religion on the Christians of the West, as Islam did and still attempts to do.

In fact, when we describe the culture of the West, we still employ the term the Judeo-Christian tradition, right? The Judeo-Christian tradition. Christianity grew out of the rich roots of Judaism embodied in the Old Testament of the Bible and the Jewish lineage of the Savior. Additionally, Gentiles were as much Christ-colors as the Jewish Sanhedrin. After all, Pontius Pilate and the Romans, the very definition of Gentile blood, were as much a part of the crucifixion of our Lord as any other.

So, none of the rationalizations for persecution and slaughter of Jews amounted to anything. And the Russian royalty, who marshaled a band of murdering mercenaries to march throughout vast swaths of Europe, was nothing more than a small, bigoted butcher. While noble and true crusaders were making their way towards Jerusalem and the Middle East, small-minded butchers like Count Amico assaulted five major cities of Germany—Speyer, Worms, Manz, Trier, and Cologne. Here, Jewish men, women, and children were mercilessly cut down in the streets. Their property was stolen, and homes and synagogues were burned.

Now, morally, there is no justification for this barbarity, and the Christian West has abundant evidence from the Bible to condemn this behavior rather than condone it. The question I have for Islam is this. Do you have any corresponding evidence from the Quran to condemn equally heinous behavior on the part of Muslims? And I will tell you, no. In fact, the Quran does not have any text to condemn equally heinous behavior on the part of Muslims.

In fact, the Quran has justification for just the opposite. The Quran has justification for the slaughter and plunder of both the Christian and the Jew. This is abundantly demonstrated in the conquering of Christian lands in the East, whether it be Syria or Palestine or Egypt or North Africa. This does not excuse the wicked act of men like Canamico, who used a noble effort to mask an ignoble design. Well, the second myth, or then, of the second myth of the, or the second example, a positive example, is Prince Raymond of Toulouse, who went on pilgrimage to redeem Jerusalem and vindicate the name of Christ.

This, indeed, was a positive impulse and a positive example of a crusader who nobly sacrificed much of his estate in order to crusade. It was Prince Raymond of Toulouse who went on pilgrimage to redeem Jerusalem and vindicate the name of Christ. Raymond of Toulouse was typical of those who embarked upon crusade for noble reasons. He embodies the classic picture of the meta-evil man. He was a warrior prince of kingly blood.

He was also deeply religious. By the time of the Crusades, Raymond was 55 years old, which was pretty old for that day. He had spent most of his life fighting for his family name, consolidating the claims upon 13 counties of France established by his father and contested by dozens of petty princes. He was a faithful and ardent Christian. Raymond was genuinely moved by the appeals of Pope Urban II for the necessity of sacrifice by the great men of the day for Christian brothers who were oppressed in the lands of the Turk, the Muslim Turk.

So, Raymond took seriously Jesus' words, If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me. Jesus said that in Matthew 19. Well, Raymond was aware of his privileged place as a wealthy prince in a day of poverty. And so, in his waning days, he decided to fulfill his role as a noble, a true noble, and behave nobly.

He sacrificed all for the Crusades. As Thomas Madden, in his Concise History of the Crusades, puts it, I quote, Moved by the preaching of the Crusades, Raymond decided to finish his life in the service of God. He divested himself of all his properties, giving them to his son, and with his wife, prepared for the departure east. Ah, Raymond of Toulouse. Raymond of Toulouse did not, as some historians claim, go out on crusade for greed and gain.

Rather, he stood to lose far more than he could gain. In fact, he would have stood to gain far more in terms of wealth and lands by staying home and growing what he had in France rather than going abroad on crusade. Instead, he divested his interest in most of his lands and holdings, and he used the monies to outfit himself and his brave knights. Men like Raymond of Toulouse saw the Crusades as an opportunity to give back a portion of what had been so abundantly given to them by God in blessing. We moderns sometimes look back upon this meta-evil period with wonder, seeing it as very strange.

But our historical myopia keeps us from seeing that men really did act upon religious principle, and not strictly from greed and self-interest. No. In the feudal system, the landed classes of privilege were nobility and were thus required to act nobly, even as Raymond of Toulouse did. The oath sworn by Raymond was a solemn covenant bond.

When he arose from the oath ceremony signed with a red cross as a crucis ignati bestowed upon him by the bishop, the crucis ignati, the red cross, he turned to his oldest son and said, and I quote, I now embark upon a pilgrimage from which I may never return, and I leave you an earthly kingdom that will most certainly perish and resolve into dust. I pray that you and I will find one another again as humble servants in the kingdom that will never perish, the kingdom of God, Christ helping us, unquote. Now that's noblis. That is nobly. That is a noble person right there.

Well, after trials and difficulties, Raymond reached Constantinople in 1097. After swearing to return the lands conquered by them to Byzantium, they struck out for Jerusalem, the holy city of Jesus. What many people do not realize is that the crusaders conquered many cities and lands on their way to Jerusalem that were formerly in the hands of the Muslim Turks, who had in turn taken them from Christian Byzantium. And so they did with the cities of Nicaea and Edessa, and most notably the city of Paul and Barnabas. And one of the first churches of the first churches of the New Testament, that is the city of Antioch.

In her glory days, Antioch had been one of the great patriarchal seas of the early church, from which many great presbyteries issued. Now, with the church suppressed and her churches converted to mosques, she was a pitiful shadow of her former days. Raymond hoped to change all of this. The crusaders invested the siege of Antioch over the winter of AD 1097 and 1098. At times, it was difficult to tell who was the besieger and who the besieged.

The Turks, before retreating behind the walls of Antioch, plundered the earth and scorched what they did not take. The crusaders starved outside the walls for months, eating their horses and desert plants. Worse, the great Egyptian sultan, Kerbogha, was marching from the south to help the Turks. Kerbogha. The crusaders would be squeezed between the Egyptians at their back and the Turks on their front, save for a miracle.

Now, what God did provide was dissension within the ranks of the Turks, who found in the religion of peace that the kind of equality promised by Muhammad was not always practiced. No. In the eyes of Allah, all Muslims were supposedly equal, but some Muslims were more equal than others. And this dissension had been festering for some time and finally erupted when one of the captains of the guard agreed to open the gates of the city to the crusaders. And so the crusaders were able not only to take the city, but successfully resist the counter-siege infested by the Egyptian Kerbogha when he finally arrived.

In fact, it was precisely the same division and dissension within the ranks of Kerbogha's forces that caused their defeat to the crusaders. Strategists in our present struggle with Islam note this valuable lesson. As we see even today, Islam is severely prone to division and dissension. And the wise leader in the West will use this weakness to his advantage. Well, in the final battle for Antioch, there was a crescendo of panic, as Madden puts it, a crescendo of panic in the Egyptian forces as they melted away in fear into the hills.

The night before, a meteor had crashed at Kerbogha's camp, nearly killing him and his officers. A pious chronicler of the siege noted with some exaggeration and sanctified imagination, he said, and I quote, not since the days of the kings of Israel had these lands seen the armies of heaven, led by the dread archangel Michael and his sword, accompanied by the souls of those who recently fallen out upon the field of battle. But in these days, verily, many have reported seeing these wondrous things with their own eyes from the walls of the city, unquote. Oh, this same crusading spirit accompanied the Crucis Ignati in their march to Jerusalem.

This was the prize after which they had prayed and fasted and sacrificed. As it lay upon the horizon to their eyes, Ramon fell to his knees in prayer and sang a hymn of praise to God. If this ragtag band of a mere 300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers had the audacity to besiege one of the great cities of the East, they would need God's help. Well, the first crusade we're chronicling here. Oh, yes.

And after a number of unsuccessful attempts, the crusaders finally constructed some proper siege engines. In July of 1099, the Muslim citizens of Jerusalem awoke to a strange and awesome sight. Below the walls of Jerusalem marched a barefoot, ash-laden, humble band of knights who had left their arms in camp as they had marched. A ghostly silence fell upon the whole city as the knights marched around the city, praying silently, vulnerable to the Muslim soldiers if they had chosen to attack. But they did not.

They were struck with fear and wonder. Never had the proud, fierce, contemptuous Muslim soldiers seen humility and vulnerability like this. The knights were declaring their entire reliance upon God for victory, imitating the Israelites who had marched around the walls of Jericho millennia before. In the ensuing attack, the crusaders managed to overtop the walls and open the city gates to Jerusalem. And the small band of fierce knights quickly overran the city and put many of the residents to the sword.

In fact, historians through the subsequent centuries have labeled the crusaders taking of Jerusalem as a testimony to bloodlust and a wholesale slaughter. But with the addition of new research and several new books published within the last few decades, we now know better, dear listener. Contemporary reports of blood rising to the horse's bridles, for instance, had been recognized as biblical language from John's apocalypse. In an exaggeration for dramatic effect, the actual situation was far different, though certainly still bloody.

Once again, Mr. Madden, Dr. Madden puts it this way, and I quote, by the standards of the time adhered to by both Christians and Muslims, the crusaders would have been justified in putting the entire population of Jerusalem to the sword. Despite later highly exaggerated reports, however, that is not what happened, unquote. Although the troops who resisted were certainly slain, many of the citizens were spared and allowed to purchase their freedom. Noble Raymond of Toulouse protected the sultan and his family as he had promised, though other knights wickedly went back on their promises once the city was theirs. Oh, unfortunately.

As at Antioch, the sultan of Egypt sent a force to take back Jerusalem. Having learned in the past that surprise was their best weapon, the crusaders did not wait for the Egyptians to surround Jerusalem. Once more, Western strategists take note. Don't wait to be attacked before responding, but be proactive. Well, outnumbered four to one, the crusaders intercepted the Muslims at Ascalon, beating them decisively.

So, with Jerusalem and its environs now safely within crusader hands, the west established a government to rule and administer what was virtually a new kingdom. And one of the crusading princes, Baldwin of Odessa, famous, he was anointed protector of Jerusalem and became a virtual king of the city. Now, one of the myths of the crusades is that the west built colonies in the east to plunder wealth and lands from the poor, unsuspecting Muslims. Not so. What the armies and energies for the crusades first came to Europe, once established, the new territories quickly became independent, self-sustaining entities, states.

A colony is a land ruled by a far-off power, where the wealth and resources are sent back to the governing nation. But this was not Jerusalem. Baldwin of Odessa and his heirs governed themselves, defended themselves, cultivated a way of life that became distinct, neither European nor Middle Eastern, but a synthesis of cultures. And the chronicler, excuse me, Fouché of Chartres, puts it this way, and I quote Fouché of Chartres. He says, I consider, I pray, and reflect how in our time God has transferred the west into the east.

For we who were occidentals now have been made orientals. He who was a Roman or a Frank is now a Galilean or an inhabitant of Palestine. We have already forgotten the place of our birth. Some of us have even taken wives, not merely of their own people, but Syrians, Armenians, or even Saracens, who have received the grace of baptism. Unquote.

The culture of the crusader grew and became distinctive over the centuries, including the food, clothing, music, art, and architecture of the land. They were beholden to no one but themselves, being neither strictly European nor strictly Middle Eastern. They saw themselves as the guardians and protectors of the holy sites of Christianity, no more to be oppressed by the Muslim infidel. Many visitors to the Middle East today are surprised to round the bend of a winding road in Palestine and see a majestic, formidable castle come into view, right? A structure they would expect to see in ancient Europe, but not in Israel or Syria.

No, the crusader castles remain a testimony to the Christian power and influences of the crusades, especially the first crusade. Wow. Dear listener, what we have learned, there are four factors that determine who will prevail in the struggle between the Christian West and the Islamic East. And I want to cover these with you in future broadcasts. Four factors that absolutely determine who will prevail in the struggle between the Christian West and the Islamic East.

And we'll cover those then in broadcast number three. But for now, indeed, this has been Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church with, indeed, our series on the crusades. Are the crusades a war, a brutal holy war against Islam, or were the crusades a war of resolve and redemption? And I hope you're having a sense for which of the two it is in reality, dear listener. New Geneva meets for holy worship on Sunday at 10 a.m. at 101 4th Street on the corner of 4th and Boulevard.

And you can call us for more information or feedback by calling error code 208-523-0196. 208-523-0196.