Did the Crusades serve any purpose?

The Crusades, and there were many, spanning centuries, served many purposes and many kings, so the short answer is 'yes'.

Perhaps you're asking a different question, if forcing Christianity on pagans 'took'. It was a huge success in Europe and the Americas. Conversion by the sword works on two counts: it converts some whose descendents multiply and it kills off the refuseniks who don't have any descendents. After that, most people take the religion of the culture they were born into.

Of course, it is more complex than that, which is where it gets interesting.

 

The net result is that it's usually not a good idea nowadays for a Christian organisation to talk about holding a 'crusade' in a predominantly Muslim area - as Reinhard Bonnke (the muppet) discovered to his cost in Nigeria about 15 years ago...

 

Yep. So much for the Billy Graham "Crusades." My, how politically correct we've all become out of fear.

 

but to say that the crusades really "worked" in any way to convert people to Christianity is not accurate, IMO.
The crusades got people to claim Christianity, and they created generations of people who claimed catholicism as their own purely for political and/or safety issues. Thats not a real conversion to Christ, thats just joining a church because you have to. If anything, I believe the crusades started many generations of people who were plunged into darkness.

 

To put the crusades into prespective. They were not about frocing religion on anyone. It was about regaining the Holy Land. It was part of the Roman and then Byzintine empires which were Christian. The Muslims ransaked and took over the empire, including Jerusalem. The crusades were about taking it back from muslems who took it from christians who had held it for over 1000 years prior. Right are wrong, they were not just fanatical religious persecutions of Muslims.

 

I agree with bapmom. The crusades gave multitudes of people a form of "religion". Unfortunately, it was not true Christianity. A relationship with God cannot be forced upon a person, so they were Christians only in title.

I do believe that the crusades served a purpose, but not a direct spiritual one.

 

Didn't the crusades become something more than just taking back the Holy Land? The catholic church would declare a crusade against a land in order to try to "take it for God." At least thats what I learned in history class.

 

For some reason, the origins of the Crusades have been rewritten into history. Probably out of fear.

Here is the back cover ad on my Smithsonian magazine for the "Crusades" special on the History Channel. The blurb reads:

"Can a President Finish what a King, A Sultan, and a Pope Began?" (I disagree with their premise in that sentence, BTW)

It goes on:

Islam's usual Modus Operandi has been to conquer by the sword. That is how the Crusades began, by Muslims initiating it.

In fact, the very first "crusade" was led by old Moe himself against the Christian Byzantines at Tabuk, 630 A.D.

 

The intricate history of the Crusades is not a one-topic-only thing. It was a different world, a different time, with different politics, different social beliefs and attitudes, and differet customs. To look back 20/20 and judge the events leading up to the Crusades applying 21st century values, customs, norms, and morals results in a bit of revisionism and prejudice.

 

And we must be politically correct at all times, lest we be called the "b" word.

 

Didn't the crusades become something more than just taking back the Holy Land? The catholic church would declare a crusade against a land in order to try to "take it for God." At least thats what I learned in history class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not denying this, I am just saying that the real motive was about conguering land and taking it back. The "win them for God" aspect was just the rope the church used to rope all the dopes into the fight.

 

Some more intricate history:

1. Real Christians have never had power over the State.

2. Real Christians have never taken up the sword against anyone--Jew, Gentile or Christian.

3. Real Christians have been martyred rather than bow to dogmas of Rome. Some real Christians have been persecuted even by some called Reformers.

4. Real Christians are in this world, they are not of this world. Most religions are here and now--part-time arrangements which do not interfere with the god of this world.

5. There is still a remnant out there--a witness to the world that what God has said is true and it will come to pass just like He said.

It will all be fulfilled--believe it or not.

Selah,

Bro. James

P. S. The main purpose of The Crusades: the aggrandizement of the holy see, which is totally blind and unsanctioned, reformed and otherwise.

 

Hey Bro James,
Is it safe to say that real Christians are...well...you kow.......Baptists??

 

Baptistic is probably a more accurate way of making a label. "Baptists" is a generalization which needs a lot of qualification.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I agree. Actually this is something that has been on my mind. There are some churches that are extremely Baptistic, but do not use Baptist in their title. I'm referring to non-denominational bodies. I personally don't have a problem with this, but some people accuse them of being afraid and wimpy.

Your thoughts?

 

Hmmm interesting responses, however please remember the Islamic Jihads to subsume Europe were not to be underestimated.....look to the Balkans, Spain etc.

 

underestimated in regards to what?

when the OP said that the Muslim jihads "worked" I believe it was totally off base. When a religion is forced on a people it is NOT working. Sure you can claim numbers, but those numbers don't reflect converts, they reflect slaves.

 

Given the obvious contrast in the level of freedom (including religious freedom) between Western Civilization vs. that in Islamic countries, I'll happily embrace the ultimate result of the Crusades whatever its main purpose may have been.