To close out God’s Battalions Rodney Stark draws together his research and insights into one concise concluding paragraph:

The thrust of the preceding chapters can be summarized very briefly. The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims. They sincerely believed that they served in God’s battalions.¹

With this in mind what I find particularly interesting in the closing chapter is Stark’s very brief interaction with Karen Armstrong’s writing on the Crusades. In her Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World she completely throws the West under the bus, which is especially disconcerting given her so-called Charter for Compassion (“a cooperative effort to restore not only compassionate thinking but, more importantly, compassionate action to the center of religious, moral and political life”). Apart from selective use of history, what I find disconcerting is not that Armstrong is critical of the West–Stark is as much in this work–but the default antagonism to the West that is to me a betrayal of one’s own heritage. This default stance against the West baffles me. Compassion for Muslim victims of Christian crusaders is trendy, but taboo is compassion for Christians ravaged by Islam advancing by the sword in the centuries leading up to the Crusades. Compassion must supercede an inherit antagonism to one’s own heritage and to one’s perceived historical
“enemies.”

Far from regulating biblical interpretation arbitrarily, doctrinal frameworks challenge new generations to recognize their own cultural assumptions and to revise them in light of how the church has understood Scripture as a whole.

Daniel J. Treier in Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture (p. 77)

Has there been a renewed interest in the crusades? First, sociologist Rodney Stark offers a new book on the subject called God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, buzz for which I’ve seen cropping up in various places. He argues, according to the publisher, that “the Crusades had less to do with spreading Christianity than with responding to an ever more dangerous enemy—the emerging Islamic empire.” What I found most interesting from Stark’s interview was this comment:

Until about the start of the 20th century, the Muslims didn’t even remember there had been Crusades… By the way, I’m not making this up, either. Again, there is a consensus among historians of the Crusades that there is no record of Muslim concern with the Crusades until the 20th century.

Now Tom Asbridge, University of London medieval history scholar, spoke today at the UK’s Hay Festival of Literature and Arts in an effort to sever the artificial link between modern Christian-Muslim conflict and the Crusades.

“This [link] is a manipulation of history, not a reality. I believe there is no division linking the medieval past and the conflict of the crusades with the modern world,” he said. “[It's a] misunderstanding which goes back to the 19th century and western triumphalism in emerging colonialism, and the tendency of western historians to start to glorify the crusades as a proto-colonial enterprise, an [obsession] with Richard the Lionheart and a burgeoning interest in [Muslim leader] Saladin as almost the noble savage.”

The Guardian’s got the rest of the story, but I’ll just give you the concluding remarks:

There has been “distortion and simplification” of the truth about the crusades, and, concluded Asbridge, “both sides [today] need to acknowledge the crusades for what they were … [they] belong in one place and one place alone – and that is the past.”

What I’m gathering is we don’t quite understand the Crusades and yet we’re happy to pontificate and apply them. Stark adds that “It struck me that the historians of the Crusades had not reached the public.” True enough. It’s not hard to have the average person on the street mention the Crusades in a discussion about religion. Unfortunately, the discussion is bound not to be an intelligent one as we basically don’t know what we’re talking about. So, let’s educate ourselves.

photo credit: Spatial Mongrel

You’ve seen books like this before. Shane Claiborne has written about it in The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. More recently Francis Chan wrote about it in Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God. These books and now David Platt in Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream all point out that something is amiss in much of the way people who bear the name “Christian” live their lives. Revolution is needed. Crazy love is needed. Radical faith is needed. And I agree.

But Platt’s Radical is more of the same. There is the usual litany of Christian heroes who went all out for God: William Carey, Elisabeth Elliot, George Mueller, John Wesley, David Brainerd, among others. And there are also mini biographies of the author’s own congregants and acquaintances who lived radically. This all shows us what we already knew: that people do manage to live radical lives for Jesus. This we know. The problem, however,  is that we’re complacent, disobedient, and seduction-prone followers of Jesus, and some of us know that this ought not be. Others, don’t mind or care; thus, complacency. But, what Platt would hope to accomplish with his book is a radicalizing of the reader’s faith that would push him past complacency and into active, unwavering, sacrificial obedience to Jesus. And while I don’t think Platt quite gets us there, I think he nudges us in the right direction.

If you actually worked it out, you’d probably find that roughly half the book is made up of personal anecdote and well-known Christian tales of heroic faith. This isn’t all bad as there’s a lot of inspiration to be found in these stories. But if you’ve done much reading or spent much time in Christian circles, I bet you’ll be familiar with many of the tales, which at least for me, this familiarity diminishes their power. Again, the problem isn’t that we don’t already know that people live radically. We’ve heard the stories. The problem is that we have a battle within us to do it ourselves, if we’re at least cognizant of Jesus’ demand on our lives. The problem is we’re just not sure if living radically is for us. For me. Platt is helpful on this point. He shows that if we claim to be Jesus’ followers, radical living is for us. It’s what we signed up for and exactly what Jesus demands. It’s time we read about Jesus in the Scriptures instead of crafting our own that fits well with the American dream. Platt’s convinced that “we as Christ followers in American churches have embraced values and ideas that are not only unbiblical but that actually contradict the gospel we claim to believe” (p. 3).

In all the personal stories Platt shares, I’m struck by the sheer number of mission trips this man has taken. It sounds like the man has been to every continent. The back of the book touts this gospel-centered wanderlust to bolster his credentials, but I’m not so awed. I don’t know the details of his trips, but painting them positive with “a passion for the nations” while calling for radical living that eschews extravagance and calls for sacrificial living/giving strikes me as as bit backwards. One need only consult the incredibly enlightening When Helping Hurts to see that short-term mission trips aren’t all they’re packaged to be.

Perhaps the most helpful portion of the book is the concluding chapter in which Platt outlines a plan for radicalizing your faith to leave behind the gospel-opposed cravings of the American dream. There are five parts to the yearlong “radical experiment.” Pray for the entire world. Read your Bible through. Sacrifice money for a specific purpose. Spend time in another context. And commit to a multiplying community. These steps are great and I really think anyone who gives this experiment a go will be blessed. I mean how could you not expect to be a more radical follower of Christ by praying with a global scope, saturating yourself in his word, sacrificing (not just giving), spending time where you normally wouldn’t and planting yourself in a church where disciples are made? You will grow and be blessed. Also, the best part about these steps is that they are exactly what we are commanded to do anyways. Platt isn’t telling us anything new. It may be a new idea to you–an experiment–but Platt recognizes that this is just how we who claim to be Christ’s followers are to live. Radically.

Should you read this book? Well, have you read the two I mentioned above or others like them? If so, I’d say no. Don’t be dazzled by the endorsements. You already know what to do. So, do it. Try out Platt’s radical experiment and do it. But, if this all seems new to you (radical faith in Jesus that is), then you should give this a read. It won’t take long and Platt really makes sure you realize that God and his gospel are central to the Christian life.

Update

I think there is some valuable criticism of the individualism the book propounds in this review.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12).

Jesus’ mission and message, like his person, are so closely tied to the Law and the Prophets that he reveals their intention, their end. Here at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, in what is so often characterized as the kernel of Jesus’ message, we find in close proximity the Law and the Prophets. His message is not to be divorced from them.

How often we remember the Golden Rule (although not often enough) but untether it from its old, old Mosiac moorings.

To be sure this “the Law and the Prophets” forms somewhat of an inclusio with his opening “the Law and the Prophets” inMatthew 5:17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

photo credit: Vaultboy

You may first want to know that I’m talking about senile seniors (65+) rather than sinister seniors (~18), those who are about to graduate high school and make a lot of stupid decisions in college. My seniors are the precious elderly saints who live at a local independent-living senior apartment complex. About last year this time one resident came into the restaurant where I was then working and told me that there were several believers at the senior home but no regular Bible study. She eagerly desired that someone come and teach the Scriptures and share the gospel with the residents. Any seminarian would be a fool be approached in such a manner and decline to spend time with elderly saints opening the Scriptures with them. There was only one response: I’ll do it.

Sounds good but what does one teach? Where should I start? I started off alternating between Old Testament, Gospel and epistle, after reading about a similar teaching pattern in the ministry of John Calvin, although he taught at least three times a week, teaching OT, NT and epistle every week. I just meet with my elderly saints once a week. Because it felt like we were jumping around every week and it was three weeks before we returned to where we left off in a given book, I decided to singularly adopt the Gospel of Matthew as the curriculum. This past Sunday we coveredMatthew 6:25-34.

Anyone that has a grandmother and takes a quick glance at the content ofMatthew 6:25-34 will think what a great set of verses to cover with senior saints. Grandmothers are well-known worriers and prayer warriors. Jesus speaks right to worry in this passage and says, Don’t do it, child! Look at the flowers, look at the animals! God’s got it under control. In fact, if you were asked to be a guest speaker at a senior home, you may in fact choose this passage as your text, if you indeed do such antiquated things as preach from a text!

You would be asked to speak. You’d think about it, pray about it, and flip through your Bible wondering which passage these saints need to hear.Matthew 6:25-34 would be such an obvious choice. But why limit yourself to “obvious choices”?

Throughout the course of working our way through the Gospel of Matthew my senior saints have been the most appreciative and engaged with the less obvious choice of passages. Next week we’ll coverMatthew 7:1-6 which will bring us near the end of the Sermon on the Mount. (I love the German “Bergpredigt” for some reason.) This means that over the last year or so we’ve covered less obvious topics for seniors such as anger, lust, retaliation, divorce, and especially oaths. I dare say no one would when asked to speak at a senior home choose any of these sections from die Bergpredigt. Why in the world would I talk to seniors about oaths and truth-telling? Why would I even mention sexuality to people quadruple my age? Because Jesus talked about it.

My seniors have been the most appreciative, responsive and engaged in the teaching when we covered these lesser discussed areas. They attend the Bible study because they are genuinely concerned about hearing what Jesus had to say. If Jesus talked about it, they want to hear about it. Don’t give us psycho-babble, give us the Scriptures, they tell me. Occasional preaching and teaching is important, but well-rounded total preaching and teaching is more so. Teaching through books of the Bible accomplishes this.

We therefore sell short those whom God has entrusted to our oversight when we pick the menu. His people are hungry for everything that’s in the garden, not just what’s well-known and easily prepared.

Consider:

You know his name wasn’t really Jesus Christ, right?

Jesus is just the Greek translation of Yeshua, which translates from Hebrew to Joshua.

But his name wasn’t Josh Christ, either, since his parents weren’t Joseph and Mary Christ.

So it’s really not blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ”, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.

Isn’t religion fun?

To be honest I felt giddy when I read the above. It’s perfect to blog. It involves linguistics and Jesus and it’s moronic; the first two I love, the last just makes good blog fodder. Why’s the above moronic?

The Third Commandment

“Do not take up the name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7). The argument above borrows whatever potency the author believed it to have from this, the third commandment found atExodus 20:7. Blasphemy seems to be the issue, but what exactly is blasphemy?

How about misuse or use for no purpose. Or, use as if it were nothing, thus “in vain.” Check out the use of the same word in Jeremiah:Jeremiah 2:30,Jeremiah 4:30,Jeremiah 6:29,Jeremiah 18:15,Jeremiah 46:11. You’ll gain a sense of what’s going on real quick.

It would be a mistake, however, to narrowly limit “taking the Lord’s name in vain,” as the above does, to a particular word (e.g., “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” in whatever language). “The ‘name’ of God stands for so much more than the mere pronouncing of his title of address. It includes (1) his nature, being, and very person . . . (2) his teaching or doctrine . . . and (3) his moral and ethical teaching.”¹

Thus, speaking irreverently about almost anything pertaining to God is easily considered blasphemy.  I shouldn’t need to provide examples, but the point is that blasphemy isn’t only blasphemy if and only if you utter the right word in the right language. Blasphemy encompasses the content of and the heart behind language.²

The Name of the Lord

The author concludes “So it’s really not blasphemy to say ‘Jesus Christ’, because it’s not taking the right name in vain.” The question then arises, Which name should one take in vain if one wanted to take “the right name in vain”?

Exodus 20:7 has shem yhwh or “the name of YHWH,” often translated into English as “the name of the Lord” instead of “the name of Yahweh” with YHWH as a proper name. Taking YHWH in vain can be a bit problematic though as the Hebrew text doesn’t preserve the original vowels for the divine name. According to the above argument then it should be impossible to take the Lord’s name in vain and thus blaspheme. But is that true?

Blasphemy in the Bible

One can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who is God (Matthew 12:31).

Jesus was accused of blasphemy for affirming that he is the Christ, the Son of God because some believed he was lying (Matthew 26:63;John 10:31-39).

In the first case one needn’t know God’s name in the right language to blaspheme against him. In the second, Jesus didn’t even use God’s name, but was called a blasphemer.

Isn’t religion fun?

Shooting Down the Upshot

It’s true that Jesus’ name wasn’t the Anglo-Germanic word “Jesus” nor was “Christ” his parents’ surname. It’s anachronistic to even assume so.

Do we then conclude that it’s not really blasphemy to say “Jesus Christ” when we accidentally stub a toe? Absolutely not.

The name “Jesus Christ” is the English result of that long etymological history given above that represents the man profiled in the Bible. “Jesus Christ” is how we can talk about that God-man. Therefore to use it in vain is blasphemous.

Two Examples

If the above argument holds true, Muslims shouldn’t have been offended at the now famous Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed because, well, that’s not really the prophet Muhammad because in order for the cartoon to be idolatrous it would have to be correctly labeled in Arabic rather than in Danish.

Or, if blasphemy or defamation of character can only be done correctly if used in the right language, there’s no such thing as international libel. Americans shouldn’t be offended by what any nation says about them, if not said in English.

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: I, Timmy

You must do
what you cannot do
with what you do not have
for the rest of your life.

But Jesus will do
what he can do
with what he does have
through you
for the rest of your life.

Quoted in Camper Mundy – Giving & Receiving (Mark 6:30-44) [MP3]

Needed this for a project. Thought someone else might be able to benefit from a comma separated list of the books of the Bible:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrew, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation