The Crusades: Understanding and Transcending "Civilization Conflict"
Justin Cave Friday, 4 February 2005
Those who lack a philosophy of history will inevitably have one foisted on them.[1] — Allen C. Guelzo
The Crusades of the medieval period serve as a difficult topic for the typical American Christian, who grows either disinterested or suspicious rather quickly if asked to dwell on the complexities of church history, not to mention the broader context of religious and political history. To many, church history seems a dusty and pointless preoccupation of up-tight, "institutional" faith. This attitude is perhaps especially prevalent among American evangelical Christians, whose emphasis on redemption, transformation, and reform tends to make them doggedly future-oriented. Thus, when the Crusades arise in conversation or argument, the usual reaction is an earnest if vague sense of guilt, accompanied by blanket apologies that make little reference to what was happening in those battles nine centuries ago. The Crusades are often simplistically confessed as a black mark on the Church's otherwise "spotless" record. Meanwhile, irresponsible propagandists and agitators in the Islamic radical movement use twisted histories of the Crusades to maintain their simplistic worldview of Muslims as righteous victims and Westerners as infidel aggressors.
Scholars of Western civilization and its conflicts with Islamic civilization know that the historical and contemporary reality is more complicated. This is why un-nuanced Christian expressions of contrition for the sins of the Crusades, while well-intentioned, can be counterproductive to genuine reconciliation with the Islamic world if they are not informed by historical facts and guided by a commitment to real truth-telling. As John Riley Smith has argued in the journal First Things,[2] accepting blame humbly when one is at fault is always proper. However, to apologize for the nearly millennium-old actions of Martel, Richard, and Constantine XI, without insisting first on a proper historical understanding on all sides, merely perpetuates the abuse of history for rhetorical purposes.
Any thorough understanding of the Crusades must put them in "civilizational" context, and at this level of analysis it is apparent that some aspects of the Crusades were clearly geopolitically defensive in nature. This was not a world of clearly defined states observing tidy rules of sovereignty. There were empires and civilizations clashing, with enormous cultural/economic/religious/political stakes. And Islamic powers were often aggressors too; Christian powers hardly monopolized that role. The Crusades functioned historically to help defend the foundations of Western society, which were at various times under threat. With the end of the Cold War, the blistering pace of globalization, the rise of identity conflicts around the world, and above all the spread of terrorism, recent years have seen a return to "civilization"-level thinking about the nature of world affairs. The theory of neat borders and sovereignty of the Westphalian state system appears to be giving way to a more complex, fluid — and dangerous — reality.
Harvard University's Samuel Huntington has famously rebuked the West for failing to recognize the gathering "clash of civilizations," which is not a "new" dimension of world affairs but rather a very old and indeed primordial one:
People of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes.[3]
Seen in this light, the Crusades are not ancient history after all. The conflicts with the Islamic world have in some ways never stopped. The Caliphate may have fallen, but the West is still dealing with the periphery of the venerable Ottoman Empire, which has not forgotten its roots. Today, globalization has exposed non-Western populations to Western ideas and culture, and in many cases this has awakened minds to their respective cultural identities and has sharpened their defensive attitudes about them. Moreover, in some cases where institutional leadership has become weak, religion has filled its place. The resulting logic of radicalization works something like this: if the state cannot push off the encroaching Westerners, God can. This is why we see terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda recruiting from a myriad of national identities. "Some think Osama Bin Laden and his followers 'don't get it' and are quick to think they are backward," says IGE President Chris Seiple, "But this couldn't be farther from the truth. These guys 'get it' quite well." They understand history and the civilizational stakes involved in these conflicts. It is simplistic to say that they are fighting us merely because they "hate freedom." The 9/11 attacks, insurgency in Iraq, and even the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, arguably say the same thing Saladin told the Crusader-states when he laid siege to Jerusalem in 1187: "Get out." Terror has accordingly taken the stage as the main tool in dealing with globalization and the global military dominance of the West.
Yet while we need a sober understanding of the Crusades, culture conflict, and the war on terror, we must not use this as an excuse for a fatalistic response of hopelessness. Scholars who insist we face grim realities of civilization conflict make an important contribution analytically, but too often this is not coupled with any positive engagement strategy that would help transform the situation going forward. Christians should recognize this as part of their obligation as ambassadors for Christ. Hunkering down into a civilizational cocoon is not a theologically legitimate posture for Christians to assume.
I recently spoke with Beeson Divinity School Dean, Dr. Timothy George, and when I asked him about the validity of the monolith painted by Huntington and others in regard to effects of the Crusades, he replied, "The Crusades remain a sore spot for many Christians, and militant Muslims certainly interpret the presence of the West in the Middle East, American forces in particular, as Crusades." However, while the current conflict is grim and may show no signs of presently ceasing, Dr. George also rightly noted signs of hope, namely, growing developments in inter-faith dialogue that serve as catalysts of promise and healing between the West and the Muslim world. One factor promoting dialogue is the internal interrogation of Islam by faithful Muslims. "What we are witnessing is a battle for the soul of Islam...[over whether] the Muslim world will develop within itself a differentiation between Church and State," relates Dr. George. These intellectual and honest inner-dialogues over the nature of secularism and Islamic doctrine have been a part of the process by which some Muslim nations have been able to make strides reconciling with the West while maintaining their own sense of integrity.[4]
Ataturk's Republic of Turkey has emerged as one Muslim country out to debunk the monolith of the Huntington thesis, and with its recent admission into the European Union, it shows that globalism is not merely for a closed club of Christian nations. Turkey too understands the dangers of militant Islam, experiencing terror on a level that America has not: over the last 15 years, approximately 40,000 Turkish civilians have been killed by terrorist groups. Accordingly, Turkey has played an important role in the war on terror. Turkey has also taken a comparatively moderate stance towards Israel: it remains critical of Israel's use of military force against Palestinian citizens, but also berates suicide bombings.[5]
And Turkey is not alone. Both Morocco and Indonesia also stand as predominantly Muslim countries that have identified certain elements of extremism as dangerous to national security and human rights. Further, while the war in Iraq is far from over, it is also of note that that the interim government, while obviously U.S.-installed, is nevertheless Muslim-led, and is going ahead with plans for elections despite a horrifyingly violent intimidation campaign by various Baathists and Islamic radicals. There have also been measures taken at under-the-radar levels, between individual Muslims and Westerners. In a recent posting, Dr. Akbar S. Amhed co-wrote a piece for the Washington Times encouraging reconciliation among individuals on the fertile soil of friendship and mutual respect. This grassroots approach has attracted politicians, scholars, and CEOs alike, and defines itself not by avoiding sensitive subjects but by talking about the issues impeding reconciliation in the geopolitical arena.[6]
The conflict at large has been called by some "The Great War," and rightfully so. Battles of tit-for-tat can be traced as far back as the eighth century when the Moors were pushed back at Poitiers. It can appear to be a sort of blood feud reminiscent of the Hatfield and McCoy's, and just as heartbreaking. However, just as cultural and civilizational conflict developed as a result of specific decisions and patterns over a long period of time, so too there are at work today decisions and trends that, over time, can aid in rectifying past harms. These offerings of hope may not halt the current disputes immediately, but they do stand as new precedents encouraging a future of co-existence, with aims of respect and mutual understanding.
1. Allen C. Guelzo. "How does a Christian do History?" at http://www.Eastern.edu/academic/trad_undg/sas/depts/history/howdoes.html.
2. John Riley Smith, "Rethinking the Crusades" at www.Firstthings.com. Originally printed in First Things, March 2000.
3. Samuel L. Huntington, "Clash of Civilizations" at www.Alamut.com, January 23, 2000. Originally printed in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, v72, n3, p22-28.
4. Dr. Timothy George. Interview, November 10, 2004.
5. Faruk Logoglu, "Turkey, A Partner In The War On Terror" at www.Meforum.org, May 31, 2002.
6. Akbar S. Ahmed & J. Douglas Holaday, "Faith, Friendship, and Peace," The Washington Times, November 15, 2004.