The Crusades were a delayed response to Islam's ongoing aggression. Depending on how one groups them, the Crusades lasted from 1095-1291. They were a series of holy wars called by Roman Catholic Popes. There were eight expeditions to the holy lands. It was a violent and bloody time in history.
The Crusades were in response to Islamic jihad. At first, they were defensive in nature. They were met to recover the holy lands. For centuries, Jerusalem had been governed by Muslims. Imperialistic conquest wars were launched for more than 1,500 years against hundreds of nations and over millions of square miles. In the 1070s, Turks (Muslim's ) conquered these holy lands. The Turks also threatened the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Alexius asked the pope for assistance, and Pope Urban II, made a speech calling for them to take back Jerusalem. Thousands responded, resulting in the First Crusade.
Today every faithful Muslim prays, hopes, and works for the submission of the whole world to the Qur'an. Some are rather peaceful in their endeavors. We commonly call these "Moderate Islam." However, "what if" they turn once again to the "sword" — "Radical Islam." Some already have! What if a more extensive jihad began today? What if Islam began to use the "sword" in America and used their violent means to attempt to overthrow the world once again? What if they took over the government and said, "submit or die?" How should the church respond?
Luke 3:14 allows for military service. John the Baptist when speaking about repentance did not instruct the soldiers to leave the military. Since it is possible to be both Christian and in the military, engaging in war is not necessarily sinful. In John 18:36 we observe that earthly kingdoms have a right to the sword. Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." Christ makes some incredible points here: (1 ) The church should not use the sword to spread Christ's gospel; (2 ) The state can use the sword. The kingdoms of this world may fight a just war.
While Christ reveals to us that it is never right to use a literal sword for the sake of his kingdom (we use spiritual weapons, Eph 6:10-18 ), that right does exist for the state within certain parameters (self-defense, just war, etc. ). We see these detailed In Romans 13:3-4. Here, Paul affirms the government's right to use force in two ways: (1 ) the government "beareth not the sword in vain" and (2 ) the government is a "minister of God" when it executes vengeance against those that do evil. So, God grants limited powers to the state to justly use the sword. See 1 Peter 2:13-14.
However, governments do not have the right to use force for each and every purpose under the sun; rather only for the restraint of evil and the punishment of evil. For instance, they do not have the right to use force to impose unnecessary restraints upon freedom. They do not have the right to make its citizens submit to Islam.
This right of government extends even to war. The immediate context of Romans 13 has in mind the use of the sword in regard to a government's own citizens. But what if a nation commits an act of war against another? Romans 13 by extension means that an offended nation has the right to engage in self-defense. They have a right to avenge the wrong. They "bear not the sword in vain."
This just use of Romans 13 is normally understood within the context of what is called "Just War." While all wars are of the result of humanity's sin, God can justly use war as a secondary cause of his sovereignty in this world. While Christians should do all in their power to promote peace, they must at times also perform the solemn duty of protecting their country against terrorists and other aggressors. The Westminster Confession of Faith 23.2 states that the civil magistrate, in his job of maintaining justice, may "wage war upon just and necessary occasion."
St. Augustine of Hippo in looking at the Bible viewed some wars as necessary to amend evil. St. Thomas Aquinas created three criteria for a just war: (1 ) the war needed to be waged by a legitimate authority, (2 ) have a just cause, and (3 ) have the right intentions. In time this developed into the criteria of Just War Theory (jus bellum iustum ) containing 5 parameters: (a ) Just cause; (b ) Right intention; (c ) Proper authority and public declaration; (d ) Last Resort; (e ); Probability of Success, and (f ) Proportionality.
Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war? Since a nation can engage in a just war, it follows that it is right for a Christian to fight in such a war. While Christian soldiers should strive as much as possible to love one's enemies in war, to submit to tyranny is to fail to show love to one's neighbor, the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39 ). Even Christ used force to bring his points home at times (John 2:15; cf. Deut 7:1-5; 20:17; Josh 12:7-24; 1 Kings 18:40, et. al. ).
So, if Islam invaded our nation and verbal and written arguments, and peaceful protests, and marches did not work and Muslims or other government officials attempted to use force to impose their sanctions upon Christians then we would be justified (after prayer, fasting, and insuring the Just War parameters are met, etc. ) in using whatever force deemed necessary to resist such. Jesus put methodical thought into his fashioning a whip for a specific purpose and he used it with skill (John 2:15 ). The church needs to think through this issue now.
It is noteworthy that Jesus instructed his disciples to go out and purchase swords, not shields — offensive weapons, not defensive (Luke 22:36 ). The Second Amendment was alive and well in the time of Christ. God is no pacifist (Gen 3:24; Num 22:23; Deut 32:39; Jos 5:13-14; Psa 45:3; Rev 2:12 ). Christians are allowed to defend themselves. Although unlike Islam, Christians should not to try to spread the gospel with the "sword" (John 18:36 ), they can and should defend themselves against improper government control and acts of terrorism (Rom 13:1-4 ). May God give us wisdom to discern when to use a peaceful argument or to use a whip, or both.
S Hauk 6 yrs
previous post mostly correct and interesting. The item of "intent' has been ignored quite often since WW II. The Gulf still left wack job in charge in Iraq. So more people died to correct that. I did not box nor fence in college with any thought given to anything but winning. Competing, and war is an ultimate competition between economies and cultures, without the intent of winning is ludicrous. I never, ever started any chess game or other game hoping for a draw. Like Patton said, "Grab the other @#%$ the nose and kick him in the butt all the way back to Germany." No veteran of any conflict ever lost and laughed. I knew many former German soldiers who spoke about their experience. They would shrug and say, "We tried, but lost". "It is over and I have no reason to hate you personally. Your country dealt fairly with us considering what our NAZI government had done." So, there you have it, any way that has no achievable goal and lacks the intent to reach that goal is a "just" war.