We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/07/president-obama-calls-humility-national-prayer-breakfast

Thank You Obama for Denouncing “Christian” Violence: It is Actually Far Worse Than ISIS

Picture Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

It seems some conservative Christians are up in arms because of something Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday. After condemning ISIS and religiously-motivated violence in general, the president added:

Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

How could that possibly be controversial, you ask? Well, according to the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, it was “an attempt to deflect guilt from Muslim madmen.” He went on to argue that Christian crusaders were merely defending themselves against hostile Muslim neighbors. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin Tweeted, “ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades.” And there are a host of others expressing their anger over Obama’s comment in various social media venues as well.

Several points. First, Obama didn’t blame the Crusades for what ISIS does. He was simply noting that religious violence isn’t restricted to über-radical Muslims, and he was right to do so.

Second, the crusaders were most definitely not merelydefending themselves against hostile Muslims!” There is a reason why they were called “crusaders” rather than “defenders.” They traveled from Europe down to the Holy Land because they wanted to take it from the Muslims. And as Muslims and “Christians” fought over this land for the next two centuries, “Christians” were at least half the time aggressors.

Third, the crusaders were sometimes just as vicious as Isis. One account I read reported that the crusaders celebrated a particular victory over their Muslim adversaries by throwing their babies in the air to impale them on their swords!

Fourth, the Inquisition was even worse than the Crusades. “Christians” in the Middle Ages developed ingenious ways of torturing people. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, witches, heretics, and rank and file sinners were tortured and murdered in ways that would make ISIS warriors green with envy. (If you have the stomach for it, check out this.)

Finally, and most importantly, why on earth would any follower of Jesus want to minimize or defend the atrocities committed in the name of Christ? I rather think we have an obligation to denounce it in the strongest terms possible, for this violence completely contradicts everything Jesus stood for and died for. Insofar as people tortured and killed in the name of Jesus, they have no more in common with the real Jesus and the real kingdom he inaugurated than ISIS does, and, for the sake of Christ, his followers need to declare this.

In fact, for followers of Jesus, the violence perpetrated by “Christians” throughout history ought to be considered far worse than the violence perpetrated by ISIS or any other religious group throughout history, precisely because this violence was done in the name of Jesus. Whereas other forms of religious violence harm people, Christian violence also brought – and still brings – tremendous harm to the kingdom of God. While the church is supposed to attract people to Christ by the beauty of our Jesus-imitating self-sacrificial love, violence in Jesus’ name drives people away and justifies their hatred and unbelief.

For this reason, violence done in Jesus’ name must be considered by Jesus followers to be the most demonic form of violence there is. As demonic as the violence being carried out by ISIS is, “Christian” violence is much more so.

So thank you President Obama for including Christian violence in your denunciation of religious violence—though you could have worded it much more strongly!

Related Reading

Who is Responsible for Job’s Suffering?

In the prologue of the Book of Job, the author seems to ascribe the responsibility for Job’s affliction to Yahweh. For instance, Satan challenges God to “stretch out [his] hand and strike everything he has,“ believing that this would incite Job to curse God to his face (1:11). The fact that the Lord responds by…

Lighten Up: What Jesus Said NEVER

Image via nakedpastor.com

The Cleansing of the Temple and Non-Violence

Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple is the most commonly cited example of those who allege that he did not absolutize loving enemies or refraining from violence. I submit that this episode implies nothing of the sort. First, it is important that we understand that this episode was not an expression of unpremeditated anger on Jesus’…

The Politics of Jesus

Many are so conditioned by the mindset of the world that they can’t even envision an alternative way of affecting society and politics other than by playing the political game as it is done by the established governmental system. Some thus conclude that, since Jesus didn’t try to overhaul the political systems of his day…

The Key to Understanding Revelation

The most important key to interpreting John’s violent imagery is found in the heavenly throne room scene in chapters 4-5. (For the first entry in this series on the violence in Revelation, click here.) This throne room represents heaven’s perspective on events that are occurring on earth, which is contrasted throughout Revelation with the false…

What Power Do You Trust?

Governments and nations have always relied on fighting to survive. They punish criminals who threaten their welfare. They go to war against enemies who attack their borders or stand in the way of their agenda. This is how the kingdoms of the world maintain law and order and advance their causes. By contrast, the Kingdom…