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

What to Do If You See God as Violent

God really is as beautiful as he is revealed to be on Calvary. Communicating this is my goal in everything I write—especially Crucifixion of the Warrior God and Cross Vision. But for many, to see him as being that loving, is not easy. We have to make a concerted effort for our brains to adjust…

Defining Love

If God’s eternal essence is love, as discussed in this post, then we must ask: What does this confession actually mean? We must explore this question carefully because “love” has been defined in many theological streams in ways that seem contradictory to the kind of love revealed by Christ. As with so many other things,…

Responding to Bullying

Robert Martin over at Abnormal Anabaptist posted this video on The Bullying Experiment. While I’m not convinced that shaming people who don’t intervene is an appropriate way to instigate change (shame rarely helps and you don’t know what fears may have kept someone from helping) I’m so impressed with some of the non-violent and courageous…

Greg’s Response to Driscoll’s “Is God a Pacifist” Part III

This is the last of a three-part response to Mark Driscoll’s post, “Is God a Pacifist?” We’ve seen that, to prove that Jesus was not “a pansy or a pacifist” (meaning that Jesus was okay with justified killing), Mark Driscoll skips over what Jesus actually taught and modeled in the Gospels and instead appeals to…

Podcast: Is There a Moral Difference Between Killing and Murder?

Greg argues against C.S. Lewis’ claim that not all killing is murder.   http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0223.mp3

Responding to Critics of a Pacifist View of the Syrian Crisis-Part 2

United Nations Photo via Compfight Yesterday I posted a response to Tyler Tully’s criticism of some of my thoughts on the Syrian crisis. The second blog I’d like to review is  Two Friars and a Fool by Aric Clark. Like Tully, Aric approved of much of what I said, but also like Tully, he raised several…